Happy with prices at the pump? Vote for McCain

[telcoman]

All others should vote for Obama

Plenty of poor judgement on both sides to go around but in my opinion its time for a change in Washington.

One of the best parts of Sunday morning is reading the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...ml?hp

“Much of what we’re seeing today could have been prevented or ameliorated had we chosen to act differently,” says Pete V. Domenici, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a 36-year veteran of the Senate. “It was a bipartisan failure to act.”

Good ole days with Bill Clinton

On the taxation frontier, President Clinton did manage to get through a small tax increase on gasoline — 4.3 cents — in 1993, but with oil prices hovering between $10 and $20 a barrel for most of the 1990s, conservation ended up on the back burner.

Indeed, President Clinton did propose a broader tax on energy consumption in 1993, but it died quickly when Senate Democrats rebelled, much as House Republicans derailed President Bush’s gas tax in 1990. Still, environmentalists like Mr. Becker remain disappointed with Mr. Clinton for not doing more in his first term when oil prices were low and Detroit was enjoying a recovery in profits after the lean years of the early 1990s.

Congressional Republicans made matters worse in 1995, when they attached a rider to a huge appropriations bill forbidding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from spending any money to raise fuel standards. That law, in effect until 2001, made any change in CAFE standards impossible, says Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has pushed for better fuel efficiency.

Freeken Republicians What a mess this country is in.

Telcoman
Modified by telcoman at 10:48 AM 7/6/2008

[smockers83]

“It was a bipartisan failure to act.”

Good ole days with Bill Clinton

....President Clinton did manage to get through a small tax increase on gasoline....

Indeed, President Clinton did propose a broader tax on energy consumption in 1993, but it died quickly when Senate Democrats rebelled, much as House Republicans derailed President Bush’s gas tax in 1990.

Congressional Republicans made matters worse in 1995...

Freeken Republicians What a mess this country is in.

telco, this isn't a GOP vs Democrat problem, this is everyone's problem, a bipartisan problem. Clinton and Dems didn't do much nor did the Bushes and the GOP. Dems are just as much to blame as the GOP. I know you want change, but acknowledge the facts as well.

[rn79870]

Add to that mess a President who is from a big oil background and I'll be the first to call foul. I wonder how many millions GW is putting in his pocket while we suffer through 4 to 5 dollar a gallon fuel.

I'll bet GW's net wealth has increased faster than a gallon of gas.

[telcoman]

telco, this isn't a GOP vs Democrat problem, this is everyone's problem, a bipartisan problem. Clinton and Dems didn't do much nor did the Bushes and the GOP. Dems are just as much to blame as the GOP. I know you want change, but acknowledge the facts as well.

Ok, both sides are at fault! But which side during the past eight years was at the helm?

Over the last 25 years, opportunities to head off the current crisis were ignored, missed or deliberately blocked, according to analysts, politicians and veterans of the oil and automobile industries. What’s more, for all the surprise at just how high oil prices have climbed, and fears for the future, this is one crisis we were warned about. Ever since the oil shortages of the 1970s, one report after another has cautioned against America’s oil addiction.

Even as politicians heatedly debate opening new regions to drilling, corralling energy speculators, or starting an Apollo-like effort to find renewable energy supplies, analysts say the real source of the problem is closer to home. In fact, it’s parked in our driveways.

Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil the United States consumes every day goes for transportation, with the bulk of that burned by individual drivers, according to the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group that advises Congress.

SO despite the fierce debate over what’s behind the recent spike in prices, no one differs on what’s really responsible for all that underlying demand here for black gold: the automobile, fueled not only by gasoline but also by Americans’ famous propensity for voracious consumption.

To be sure, the American appetite for crude oil is only one reason for the recent price surge. But the country’s dependence on imported oil has only kept growing in recent years, undermining the trade balance and putting an added strain on global supplies.

Although the road to $4 gasoline and increased oil dependence has been paved in places like Detroit, Houston and Riyadh, it runs through Washington as well, where policy makers have let the problem make lengthy pit stops.

http://www.nj.com/business/led...oll=1

THE ENRON LOOPHOLE

It happened one day in Washington, just before the 2000 Christmas recess, said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland and a former board member of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

A 242-page bill drafted by Enron lobbyists and co-sponsored by Texas Sen. Phil Gramm -- then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee -- was inserted into an 11,000-page appropriations bill without the benefit of a floor debate or any hearings, Greenberger said.

The effect of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 has been far-reaching.

The first beneficiary of the 2000 law was the Houston energy giant Enron, which used these dark markets to drive the price of electricity up almost 300 percent for California consumers back in 2000, Greenberger said.

It is simply amazing how the American people continue to get screwed by elected officials that are bought off by oil lobbyists and big business interests. The American big 3 automobile manufactures deserve what is happening to them for their lack of foresight and stupidity.Those that tried to warn were called liberals, communists, tree huggers and other assortments of negativity. Goodby Ford

Telcoman
Modified by telcoman at 1:26 PM 7/6/2008

[Cold_Zero]

We have had an energy policy for 30 some years now (1978-2008) and this is where it has gotten us. I seem to remember that the Democrats until recently have controlled both houses of the Congress for more time in the past 30 years. I dont think conservation and the pipe dreams of renewable resources is going to cut it right now. Wind, Solar, hydro-electrical energy isnt going to put gas in my Altima or Pathfinder.

And Hydrogen cars? Apparently the Honda model costs $300,000 per unit. Let me rush right out and buy one! So when it brakes down I can drive to MIT or RPI to have it fixed.

I think there is PLENTY of blame to go around. Congress, Republicans, Democrats and the past 5 Presidents, but most of all the American people! But we can sit around and come up with plenty of ENERGY TALKING POINTS that is NOT going to fix the problem. Nor does trying to assign blame or pointing the finger. What IS going to fix the problem is the American people doing something about the issue. We are a productive and ingenuous society. A put freaking people on the Moon and figured out how to blow up the world 200 times over. Why can't we fix this problem?

[smockers83]

What needs to happen is two-fold in order to decrease prices and instead of bickering about it, both the GOP and Dems can be right. Assuming everything else equal, supply needs to be increased. This means insulating us more from international events by opening up more of our reserves. It also means increasing the efficiency of all of our fleets, whether that's cars, SUVs, trucks, whatever. This could mean mechanical efficiency or just making cars smaller. Both things will take years to fully implement--years to get over 50% of cars on the road as these new efficient models and years to bring this oil to market.

To change our ways, prices need to go up, and the easiest way to do that is through a tax increase. The revenue generated from these taxes could be handed out for research into more efficiency and another stable source of fuel. Hydrogen isn't it either...water vapor is worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its not all going to just come down as rain. If they don't want to have a tax increase, the government has to figure out a way to significantly curb demand. That could mean only allowing cars up to a certain radius in cities and having mass transit in place, otherwise you pay to enter the city by car. Simply increasing the efficiency of rush hour traffic in all metro areas I would have to imagine would have significant effects.

There are a few options on how to tackle this, its just that someone needs to take the initiative and just do it.

[audtatious]

Add to that mess a President who is from a big oil background and I'll be the first to call foul. I wonder how many millions GW is putting in his pocket while we suffer through 4 to 5 dollar a gallon fuel.

I'll bet GW's net wealth has increased faster than a gallon of gas.

"President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $719, 274 for the tax year 2007. This resulted in a total of $221,635 in federal income taxes paid by President and Mrs. Bush. "

Show me this money?

[audtatious]

Hydrogen isn't it either...water vapor is worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its not all going to just come down as rain.

I find it humerous that so many people state that hydrogen is so good for the environment as is simply poops out water vapor without stopping to realize that water vapor itself makes up 95% of world greenhouse gasses.

I still do not see the McCain link here. McCain is wanting to open up drilling and to further finance additional research into energy. The Dems simply vote down everything and don't offer any plan other than windfall taxes against the oil companies who squeezed out 6-9% profit margins. So, who is really making the money here? Exxon posted 40B in earnings while the US Govt took 120B from them, then taxed the refineries, then taxed the transporters, then taxed the gas stations and then taxed the people buying the gas itself.

[themadscientist]

Happy with prices at the pump? Vote for McCain All others should vote for Obama

Yeah, try again. http://campaignspot.nationalre...IwMGY=

: On gas prices, 'I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.'

[Cold_Zero]

In the spirit of posting random stuff, This is for TMS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIScXJt3I

Loudness!

[themadscientist]

dammit, I'm at work, can't check it out

[wingFeather]

Just more proof that Obama's zombie followers are indeed idiots.

The article referenced even states that it is a bipartisan issue.

Not enjoying the few extra dollars out of your budget due to gas prices? Just wait until Obama raises spending in other areas, and your taxes go up. Or do Democrats even pay their taxes?

[audtatious]

Not enjoying the few extra dollars out of your budget due to gas prices? Just wait until Obama raises spending in other areas, and your taxes go up. Or do Democrats even pay their taxes?

They do the same thing other rich people do and try to avoid as much as they can while turning around and complaining that they should have paid more.

[szh]

They do the same thing other rich people do and try to avoid as much as they can while turning around and complaining that they should have paid more.

Z

[AZhitman]

I'm getting the impression Telco isn't really a 50-something man, but rather a 16-year-old girl...

OMG I soooo hate Bush, he TOTALLY makes gas cost, like, a lot, and he's, like, getting his OWN gas for free, and like, I heard - OMG - that he's like an oil well guy, like, he owns one, and OMG - the war with Antarctica (or what-evAr), was SO all about the free gas...

Feels like I'm in a high school cafeteria reading his posts.

What the hell is voting for Obamallama gonna do for gas prices? Whe you say "should", what do you BASE that on?

On a side note, great article by Michael Kinsley, 7/7/08 Time Magazine. Read it - I've copied / pasted below:

[AZhitman]

King Abdullah just summoned everybody to Saudi Arabia to sort out the whole oil business, and the first humiliation for the U.S. is that we came running. Then again, this is old news. For 35 years, since the first oil crisis, we've been treating OPEC, and especially the Saudis, like friendly members of the Society of Important Countries rather than the criminal conspiracy they are. The second humiliation is that the meeting didn't work. The small gratuity offered by the Saudis of a modest increase in pumping had virtually no effect on the price of oil, which remained above $130 per bbl. The third humiliation is that by going to this meeting and begging the Saudis to increase production, the U.S. revealed its complete ignorance of basic economics.

At this point, the Saudis would also like the price of oil to moderate. But that doesn't mean their interests and ours are now aligned. The way to squeeze as much money as possible out of the power to control the spigot is not to raise prices indefinitely. It is to figure out the point at which the extra money you get from the higher price is no longer more than the amount you give up in lost sales. Making this calculation regarding oil is especially tricky because of the differing calculations for the short run vs. the long run. In the short run, it's fairly easy to raise prices because there isn't a lot that people can do in response. They still have to drive to work, and Washington would still be unlivable without air-conditioning. In the longer run, people can buy smaller cars, insulate their houses and so on. Energy efficiency--the amount of energy required to produce a dollar of GDP--has actually doubled in the U.S. since the first energy crisis. And $4-per-gal. gasoline is clearly having a significant effect on energy use.

The Saudis apparently believe that a lower oil price will be good for them in the long run. If they're right, it surely means that a lower price would be bad for the U.S. When it comes to the price of oil, the interests of producers and consumers are diametrically opposed. Whatever pious rhetoric comes out of exercises like this absurd "summit," there is no way that a change in either direction can be good for everybody. It's a zero-sum game.

King Abdullah's seemingly generous offer of a billion dollars from OPEC countries (plus $500 million from his own treasury) to help poor countries cope is also nothing to be grateful for. It amounts to backdoor price discrimination: charging different customers different amounts to extract the maximum from each.

Back in the U.S., both parties' presidential candidates are humiliating themselves and us with economic nonsense about oil. John McCain speaks passionately on the need for energy independence, but he is sticking to his counterproductive notion of a gas-tax holiday that would cut less than 20¢ from the price of a gallon. This man really thinks we're chumps.

Barack Obama's great insight is to blame "speculators" for raising oil prices artificially. This could even be true, but if so, it's irrelevant. Speculators cannot affect the price of oil in the long run. What speculators do is get us to the long run sooner. If they think underlying forces of supply and demand will ultimately result in oil at $200 per bbl., they will bid up the price until it is close to $200 per bbl. already. Similarly, if speculators think the price of oil will go down, they will drive it down more quickly. So, actually, speculation can be seen as a good thing: it forces us to adjust to higher prices more quickly than otherwise, and it gives us the benefit of lower prices more quickly as well.

It's interesting to consider what the price of oil would be today if it had been higher in the past. Suppose, for example, that President George W. Bush had used the political gift certificate he was granted on Sept. 11, 2001, when he could have asked Americans to do almost anything in the name of fighting terrorism, to impose a $1.50 "War on Terror" tax on a gallon of gas (instead of squandering his gift certificate on invading Iraq). The price at the time was about $1.50 per gal., so this would have doubled it to $3. People would have screamed with pain, then started adjusting. Demand would have gone down, and today gas would probably be selling for less than the $4 per gal. we're paying. Not only that, but $1.50 of that price would be staying here in the U.S. instead of going to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Bahrain.

To the rest of the world, we look like idiots. In fact, regarding oil, we really are idiots.

[telcoman]

AZhitman

A post of yours that I tend to agree with.I don't think McCain has a chance with oil prices at their current level.

From the New York TimesJuly 6, 2008, 6:01 pm Pumped UpBy Ron Klain

Ron Klain was a member of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign policy and debate preparation staff. (Full biography.)The Republican machinations of the last two weeks in the presidential campaign have a certain déjà vu quality to them: Charlie Black is again warning us of a possible terror attack, commentators are stoking up fears among gun owners and critics are trying to make Barack Obama look like he’s soft on crime and elitist. Serving up this stew of scares, social issues and slander delivered the White House to the G.O.P. in 2000 and 2004: Will it work again?I don’t think so. While the pundits and analysts spin elaborate campaign scenarios and analyses, this year you can cut through all that stuff and boil the campaign down to a single sentence: If gas is still more than $4 a gallon on Election Day, there is no way a Republican will continue to control the White House. All the lapel-pin, Internet-rumor, orange-alert, character-smear, gays-’n'-guns, ground-game efforts by the G.O.P. cannot possibly overcome the stark reality of $4 a gallon for gas. I know it seems simplistic, but the reality of high gas prices touches many nerves — some obvious, others less so — that yield the irresistible outcome I’m suggesting.First, there are the raw economic and financial consequences for most Americans. There is a long tradition in democracies of voters being driven by price increases in key commodities: the French Revolution was fueled by the soaring price of bread, and our colonial forefathers were riled by a tax on tea. For 21st century Americans, nothing is more vital than gasoline. Even more than any particular food item, gasoline is the essential commodity that takes Americans to work, brings their goods to market and powers their recreation. The hit on American’s pocketbooks is huge, and when one adds the many indirect effects (everything from higher prices on goods transported by truck, to job losses in fuel-driven industries, to plummeting resale values on used S.U.V.’s), high gas prices hit more people, more deeply, than almost any other economic phenomenon short of a depression. Pinched and angry voters are change voters, plain and simple.Second, there is the way in which $4-a-gallon gas functions as a damning prism for evaluating the failure of Republican policies over the last eight years. Wasn’t the war in Iraq supposed to bring stability to the Middle East and curry favor with oil-producing nations, thereby maintaining a supply of inexpensive oil? Apparently not. What about our energy policy? Shouldn’t we be less dependent on imported oil and farther along the path to fuel efficiency and renewable and alternative energy? Apparently not. What about urban or transportation policies to lessen our reliance on cars? Apparently not. In presidential campaigns, showing the consequences of policy failures is often hard to do, but not this time; a look at the posted-price signs at gas stations across the country makes that failure plain. Third, the regressive impact of high gas prices exacerbates America’s sense of a growing social and economic divide between the few who are prospering and the many who are not. The $2,000 to $3,000 a year that the gas price surge costs families (directly and indirectly) hits 90 percent of American families very hard — and 10 percent barely at all. If you drive to work, you are feeling the pain; if you are driven to work, you’re probably not. And that’s a divide that puts most Americans firmly in the Democratic camp.Finally, there are the ill-considered and ultimately counter-productive policy pronouncements that $4-a-gallon gas will drive the McCain campaign to make. In September 2000, sensing mounting voter anger over rising gas prices, Al Gore announced his support for releasing supply from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to “do something” about gas prices. The move backfired politically and failed to assuage voter unhappiness over gasoline prices that had “soared” 30 cents a gallon over the previous year to a “painful” national average of $1.60. Today’s prices have already led John McCain to make a horrible blunder: proposing to reverse a decades-old policy banning off-shore oil drilling. This move has stripped away any pro-environment veneer for Mr. McCain, forced Arnold Schwarzenegger, the most popular Republican governor in America, to break ranks with him; and put Florida back in play for the Obama campaign. What additional, and possibly even worse, ideas are still to come is anyone’s guess.So the McCain campaign and its allies will try — as they have the last two weeks — almost anything to get the topic away from this core reality that most Americans face every day, and that so comprehensively reflects the failure of President Bush’s domestic, economic and foreign policies. But unless something changes, voter outrage at the pump will yield voter action at the polls in November. Add a Comment E-mail this Share Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Newsvine Permalink Barack Obama, gas prices, John McCain RelatedGrossman LandMcCain's Misguided Strategy?Campaign ReversalsBring It On

Telcoman

[telcoman]

I'm getting the impression Telco isn't really a 50-something man, but rather a 16-year-old girl...

Feels like I'm in a high school cafeteria reading his posts.

What the hell is voting for Obamallama gonna do for gas prices? Whe you say "should", what do you BASE that on?

On a side note, great article by Michael Kinsley, 7/7/08 Time Magazine. Read it - I've copied / pasted below:

AZ

From the rules of the forum

2) Debate your position. If you are incapable of debating or someone has proven you wrong, do not resort to name calling nor other childish behavior

AZ

I will refrain from requesting a ban for you.

I fully realize my posts may be upsetting to some that hang out here that tend to lean towards the right but the truth can certainly hurt.

I don't know your age but I've been thru more economic cycles during my lifetime than many other younger members here. As such, it hurts me to see some Americans get scammed by some elected scroundrals holding public office that feel its ok to lower the living standards of most working Americans while giving tax cuts to wealthy friends and large contributors.The rise in fuel prices hurts those percentage wise more at the lower end of the economic scale than it does on the wealthy.This gas price problem could have been avoided had this problem been properly addressed in 1979. Destroying our environment by drilling off our coastline is not a solution. Nor is Chrysler yapping about lets refuel Americaby subsidizing their gas gusslers at $2.99 a gallon.This market is doing what our government should have done 20 years ago. Except the price rise should have been implemented gradually over a period of years to reduce consumption.Many of the European countries are way ahead of the United States on this issue.In the meantime, I'll just keep along trying to wake up those like yourself that believe some of the crap the present administration has been handing out these past eight years.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Pointing Fingers -http://www.powerlineblog.com/

The New York Times takes on the gasoline shortage today, and allocates responsibility just where you would expect:

Over the last 25 years, opportunities to head off the current crisis were ignored, missed or deliberately blocked, according to analysts, politicians and veterans of the oil and automobile industries. Of course, when the Times talks about what was "blocked," it doesn't mean drilling offshore or in ANWR. Rather, the Times devotes its analysis mostly to CAFE standards. The paper seems to think the gas shortage could have been averted if only, years ago, the federal government had forced automakers to make cars that the American public didn't want to buy.

Of course, as the paper also notes, now that gas prices have risen dramatically, consumers are rushing to buy, and automakers to produce, more fuel-efficient vehicles. If automakers had foreseen $4 a gallon gasoline, they no doubt would have started the transition sooner. But they didn't see the current price spike coming any more than the federal government did.

What is striking about the Times' exposition of "missed" and "blocked" opportunities is that there is hardly any mention of the supply side of the equation. This is the lead paragraph on that topic:

Even as Congress idled when it came to tightening CAFE standards or substantially raising levies on gas, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 made offshore drilling yet another unpalatable option. “That caused a sea change and after that no one had any sympathy for the oil industry,” Mr. Becker says. This is profoundly stupid. The Exxon Valdez spill had nothing to do with offshore drilling; the lesson of that accident is that lapsed alcoholics shouldn't be put in charge of oil tankers. The environmental soundness of offshore drilling was amply demonstrated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which, despite their on-shore devastation, caused no offshore spills. And we don't open up land for oil exploitation out of "sympathy for the oil industry," we do it because we need oil and gas.

Beyond that, the Times takes refuge in the claim that more drilling won't bring immediate relief at the pump. That's true, of course, although there are a number of areas where more oil could be produced in months, not years, if the Democrats weren't standing in the way. But note the paper's double standard: in talking about CAFE standards, the paper just laments "missed opportunities" and blames Congress and the auto companies. It doesn't kiss off CAFE standards by saying that changing them now won't do any good for years, as it does with drilling. The real missed and blocked opportunities were twenty to thirty years worth of oil refinery construction, offshore exploration and drilling, and development of oil and gas resources in the Rocky Mountains and Alaska.

The Times also fails to mention one of the key causes of the increased price of oil, as well as many other commodities: the declining dollar. The causes of the dollar's decline are multiple, but the most important one, I think, is the Federal Reserve's use of interest rate cuts to fend off economic slowdowns over the last twenty-plus years. The policy has worked and has contributed to our remarkable economic growth, but the inevitable price has been erosion in the dollar's value.

Finally, the Times reached back in history to blame Jesse Helms (among others) for blocking new CAFE standards. The print version of the paper says, embarrassingly, that Helms "did not return calls seeking comment." (An online correction explains that the paper's business section went to print on Thursday, before Helms's death on Friday.) It's too bad. Helms might have been able to explain a few things to the Times reporter.

[wingFeather]

Debate your position. If you are incapable of debating or someone has proven you wrong, do not resort to name calling nor other childish behavior

I don't feel AZ has resorted to name calling. He is stating fact. Your posts indeed feel as if an uneducated child is cutting & pasting chain mail from the Obamallama.

Admit it, your original post is what children call "EPIC FAIL" You've been caught in a lie and/or reposting bandwagon chain mail. Sorry pal, but take your licks and stop now The hole is getting deeper...

[rn79870]

"President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $719, 274 for the tax year 2007. This resulted in a total of $221,635 in federal income taxes paid by President and Mrs. Bush. "

Show me this money?

I'd love to examine his portfolio and I'd gladly show you that money. Tax is levied on actual income/profit - a gain. There is no profit - hence taxable event - until an appreciating asset is sold, even though the paper value has climbed through the roof.

[audtatious]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...odule

"President Bush's financial fortunes appear to have declined over the past seven years, with his family assets dropping as low as $6.5 million, according to disclosure forms released yesterday. "

Sure, he could be hiding all his oil proceeds but do you really believe that Bush could get away with it? The Gov as a whole can't keep any secret at all and if it throws mud in his face it will be aired out regardless of the expense. If he had his hands in oil then you know it would be headline news everywhere as proof. Knowing that is the truth (something I'm sure you would admit) then I highly doubt he is involved with getting any additional profits from oil at all.

[rn79870]

Isn't it enough that his family profits from current oil condition? What about the ties to the Saudi royal families? I'm not calling a conspiracy here, but the oilman in Bush surely recognizes the situation we're in and could lead us through it if he had any incentive to do so, unless he, or those close to him, profit from it.... food for thought.

[audtatious]

OK....Bush was an "oil man". I get it. No matter how it is spun there is no proof at all that Bush nor his family is making any money at all due to rising prices. I think it is a stupid direction to go and more finger pointing for blame on something that Gov as a whole allowed to happen.

[mtcookson]

Destroying our environment by drilling off our coastline is not a solution.

Enough with spreading the lies... its really starting to get old. The opposite has already been proven many times over and the so called environmental impacts that had always been predicted have always been disproved.

[rn79870]

The funny thing is that CA had a few problems with off shore drilling and blew it all out of proportion. Santa Barbara, among others, voted to ban the off shore rigs because of environmental impact, which translated to "we don't like our million dollar ocean views spoil by oil towers."

There were a few initial problems with the rigs that can easily be resolved with modern technology, however, they just can't build pretty enough towers for the spoiled rich folks.

As environmentally sensitive as I am, I'm all for open season on exploration and drilling, ASSUMING it's done safely and sanely.

[rn79870]

OK....Bush was an "oil man". I get it. No matter how it is spun there is no proof at all that Bush nor his family is making any money at all due to rising prices. I think it is a stupid direction to go and more finger pointing for blame on something that Gov as a whole allowed to happen.

Matt, the President has an available power called an "Executive Order."He has the ability to step in at any time and use that power to circumvent other laws and proceedural roadblocks that stand in the way of the American economy. The use of that power does not require the concent of congress, or the American people. It is law none the less. You really can't blame a congress for the presidents failure to act. He is, afterall, the leader of this country.

If our leader was strong enough to stand up and take responsibility for the problems we face, and take steps to resolve them, we might stand a chance. Instead, his head in the sand position while the ship of state sinks is what's getting old.

[HashiriyaS14]

We have had an energy policy for 30 some years now (1978-2008) and this is where it has gotten us. I seem to remember that the Democrats until recently have controlled both houses of the Congress for more time in the past 30 years. I dont think conservation and the pipe dreams of renewable resources is going to cut it right now. Wind, Solar, hydro-electrical energy isnt going to put gas in my Altima or Pathfinder.

The problem is NOT that pump prices are high RIGHT NOW. That is not the problem that we're trying to solve. Ultimately, the way that problem is going to get solved is we're all going to drive cars the size of Honda Fits. Get used to it.

We're trying to solve the problem of us eventually running out of oil. It doesn't matter whether we're going to run out of AFFORDABLE oil now, in 10 years, or in 50. We still need to start doing something about it NOW. And that "something" is going to be new sources of energy.

I DO support offshore and ANWR drilling as a temporary stopgap, but ultimately, in the LONG RUN, there is *not* "enough to go around". We will 100% absolutely positively run out of affordable oil during this century and we need to start mitigating that in advance.

That mitigation is going to come largely in the form of taxing gasoline to pay for renewable energy development (wind, solar, nuclear). I do NOT support the kind of heavy-handed cap-and-trade carbon debacle proposed by the British, but I also think that anyone who believes that the American way of life can remain largely unchanged is delusional and probably less than intelligent.

So in conclusion, artificially limiting the scope of the problem to "how do I put gas in my Pathfinder NOW" is silly and child-like. In 30 years, the only way anyone will be able to afford to drive anything like a Pathfinder will be for it to be electric and drawing from US produced renewable electricity production (or coal, which we have shxt-tons of).

[Cold_Zero]

The problem is NOT that pump prices are high RIGHT NOW. That is not the problem that we're trying to solve. Ultimately, the way that problem is going to get solved is we're all going to drive cars the size of Honda Fits. Get used to it.

Sorry Hash, we can ALL drive cars the size of a Honda Fit or a Yaris and IT IS NOT going to solve any of our problems. With the increased World demand of China, India and yes the United States, we can still conserve gasoline and we will still be screwed. With a balanced approach of conservation and increased demand we can at least stall the inevitable fact that we will have to move off of gasoline based transportation. And maybe do it in a timely manner. Being in Corporate America we dont take a dump unless with have a project plan. And to be honest the current Project Plan (America's Energy Policy for the past 30 years) has failed us. Unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle dont want to budge one bit and Americans want that quick easy fix that costs them nothing. My question is, where is the American Spirit that build the Panama Canal, fought Totalitarian aggression in Europe and put a man on the moon? Why can we put that cap on and go to work?

But seriously, these enviro-wackos in your party are starting to piss me off. They either say, "We need to get off of petroleum now and use renewable resources now" or they say, "Stop driving your big bad SUV... You deserve this punishment." Totally retarded responses. Thus the reason why I said that I did. Because pipe dreams doesnt buy me a $300,000 ****ing Hydrogen Honda. I dont know about you, but I can't ****ing afford one in my lifetime. Maybe O-blahma will buy me two. I guess I should go out to the curb like everyone one else and put my hand out...

[Cold_Zero]

AZ

From the rules of the forum

2) Debate your position. If you are incapable of debating or someone has proven you wrong, do not resort to name calling nor other childish behavior

AZ

I will refrain from requesting a ban for you.

You must have missed the Golden Rule... I wouldn't piss off the guy that owns the website.

Seriously, Telco I believe that we/everyone has been pretty gracious to you man. And you can be accused of breaking rule #2 as well.bud