Who's Responsible for Gas Prices?

[damus]

I will remind you guys to re-read the rules and stop with the insults. The next person that calls someone a "hater" is going to be suspended. You have been warned.

Did I miss something while I was away? Although the tone of this coversation has gotten heated, it's more of an argument over idealogy and I haven't seen anyone take this to personal insults.

[monsoon]

Did I miss something while I was away? Although the tone of this coversation has gotten heated, it's more of an argument over idealogy and I haven't seen anyone take this to personal insults.

It's written in english. I assume that it should not be too hard to understand. The purpose of the post is to calm it down now before I have to close this thread. Calling someone a hater is a personal insult in my book. BTW, if you had actually bothered to read the rules, you will find that line by line rebuttles, as that of your previous post, are not allowed here. The vast majority of people here won't bother to read them, they clutter up the forum, and also in my book are pretty childish.

[damus]

It's written in english. I assume that it should not be too hard to understand. The purpose of the post is to calm it down now before I have to close this thread. Calling someone a hater is a personal insult in my book. BTW, if you had actually bothered to read the rules, you will find that line by line rebuttles, as that of your previous post, are not allowed here. BTW, if you had actually bothered to read the rules, you will find that line by line rebuttles, as that of your previous post, are not allowed here. The vast majority of people here won't bother to read them, they clutter up the forum, and also in my book are pretty childish. The vast majority of people here won't bother to read them, they clutter up the forum, and also in my book are pretty childish.

Are you baiting me? My "childish line by line rebuttal" was written in response to a previous line by line rebuttal. This could be construed as a personal insult in my book.. I did not bother to read the rules, and I will not write any more of those in this forum.

What did I say that would be considered a "personal insult" to anyone? Most of the people here (including me) have professed to being a Bush "hater" or made it completely obvious. I figured in The Coffee House where the description is "Arts, Leisure, Music, Debates, etc. Have a cup, take a break and discuss anything with UP forumers.", a political debate would be fair game. Is it okay to debate so long as you don't present an opinion that doesn't fall in line with what the majority of the people who happen to post here happen to believe? I'm sorry for breaking any rules, but I can't help but notice that you singled out the guy with the minority opinion...

I guess I'll stick around my local forums for a while where I haven't gotten into any trouble...

[hood]

Damus, if you must ask why some, including me, hate bush so much think about it like this. Bush has dug our country into such a deep hole that I will almost certainly be dead by the time we fully recover, let alone that he is now serious considering military action against Iran, a country that can actually put up a fight. He has had so many scandal and questionable things about his administration I couldn't remember them all off the top of my head and I'm sure there are others that I haven'ty heard of and more to come, and nobody will do a damn thing to stop him, its sickening. I wish the worst possible upon Bush, he has hurt this country badly and caused many people to lose their lives for no reason. I could go on forever responding to every rubuttal you had, and probably came up with a few extra of my own points but I don't have the time or the patience.

[monsoon]

...... I did not bother to read the rules, ....

I will point out that reading and obeying the rules here are a requirement for being able to post here.

[GRDadof3]

What's up with these half-page essay responses? Does anyone actually read them?

The higher gas prices were actually good for us. We switched from a Nissan Pathfinder (16 mpg) to a Nissan Altima (30+ mpg), and we now save about $200/month in gas.

I really would think all the left leaners/Demo's would love high gas prices. It puts more focus on other energy sources and transportation modes. And if it plunges the country into chaos and recession, Democrats win in 08.

There's no way the current gas prices have anything to do with Bush or Cheney, IMO.

[monsoon]

Actually in 2001, Cheney said that conservation, while a noble personal virtue, had no place in modern comprehensive energy policy. I might be missing something here, but that and considering the he is an oil man as well, is why we are now payin $3+ gallon for gasoline.

[hood]

I really would think all the left leaners/Demo's would love high gas prices. It puts more focus on other energy sources and transportation modes. And if it plunges the country into chaos and recession, Democrats win in 08.

While I want to see Bush out of office and the republicans lose their majority in at least one house, and I would like to see more alternative fuels. I don't want to see the country have severe economic problems to get to that point, it's just not worth it. It's like saying I hope that there are more deaths in Iraq in order to make Bush look worse. Not worth it.

[Gusterfell]

I really would think all the left leaners/Demo's would love high gas prices. It puts more focus on other energy sources and transportation modes. And if it plunges the country into chaos and recession, Democrats win in 08.

You know very well that if the left were celebrating the rising gas prices, the right would be screaming that that they didn't care about the struggling working class. Of course we liberals want to find alternatives to oil, but there's no reason we should have to sacrifice the well-being of the American public to do so. Not while the oil companies are making all-time record profits. Other countries have made it work. So can we.

Bush/Cheney have nothing to do with the prices? If they were to propose a windfall tax on oil profits today, gas prices would fall tomorrow. The tax could be used to properly fund alternative energy/transportation.

Bush, Cheney, and many cabinet members made their personal fortunes in the oil industry, and still have many connections in that industry. Is it really that difficult to imagine that they would work to inflate prices, and therefore increase profits?

[GRDadof3]

Bush/Cheney have nothing to do with the prices? If they were to propose a windfall tax on oil profits today, gas prices would fall tomorrow. The tax could be used to properly fund alternative energy/transportation.

Isn't it more the onus of the House and Senate to propose tax and spending bills? And if high gas prices are hurting industry, how would adding a windfall gas tax help that situation?

Is it really that difficult to imagine that they would work to inflate prices, and therefore increase profits?

Yes. If they had that much power over the oil industry, why didn't they just stay in the private sector and reap the fat rewards of their connections?

Whatever. Like I said, I sure enjoy the added gas mileage of our new car. As much as I don't LIKE gas prices where they are, they're really where they should be based on market demand.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

Isn't it more the onus of the House and Senate to propose tax and spending bills? And if high gas prices are hurting industry, how would adding a windfall gas tax help that situation?

Yes. If they had that much power over the oil industry, why didn't they just stay in the private sector and reap the fat rewards of their connections?

Whatever. Like I said, I sure enjoy the added gas mileage of our new car. As much as I don't LIKE gas prices where they are, they're really where they should be based on market demand.

What continues to amaze me is that the government continues to talk about ways to make it easier to get and deliver gasoline and thereby continuing and encouranging, to quote Bush our, "addiction to oil".

I saw, tonight on CNN, several members of Congress talking about the urgent need for a contemporary "Manhattan Project" to turn this country into a net exporter of what we call - today - alternative fuels. In the same report, they talked about how Americans - by and and large - haven't changed their consumption. For god's sake, HOW can they?

When self-avowed "fiscal conservatives" - and I'm a fiscal conservative myself - talk about fiscal inefficiency elsewhere they seem to miss the reality that automobile-dependent patterns of development are at the pinnacle of fiscal inefficiency.

When conservative social engineers talk about a the "American Family's Dream" that includes a "house in the suburbs" - they are talking about a near-fantasy demographic. The majority of Americans don't fit into the "Ozzie and Harriet" model of this dream.

I'll let you into a secret, it's called "Mayberry". The "Mayberry" of Andy Griffth fame - arguably the most enduring, emblematic, and preferred example of the what most people would like to see America be in PHYSICAL form - would actually be, 1.) transit and pedestrian friendly, and 2.) environmentally-sensitive. The "real" Mayberry - if you haven't visited is Mount Airy, NC.

[Gusterfell]

Isn't it more the onus of the House and Senate to propose tax and spending bills? And if high gas prices are hurting industry, how would adding a windfall gas tax help that situation?

Congress would of course have to formally establish such a tax, but the president can issue a public statement calling for whatever he pleases.

High gas prices are certainly not hurting the oil industry. The oil companies are currently making the largest profits in the history of American commerce. They have no reason to lower prices, and every reason to raise them. If they were threatened with taxation on excessive profits, they would have an incentive to keep prices at a reasonable level. It's basic economics.

We hear excuse after excuse for high gas prices. If there truly were problems with supply, one would expect consumer prices to rise, but one would also expect the industry's bottom line to suffer. Exxon Mobil just announced $8 billion in profit for the first quarter of this year. That doesn't sound like a company struggling to meet demand. Of course every company has the right to expect a reasonable return, but these numbers are obscene in a time when American families are increasingly struggling to make ends meet.

[intcvlcphlga]

This editorial does a pretty good job of summing up the blame: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellit...n%2Findex.shtml

There is a lot of blame to go around - Big Oil, Detroit, the Bush Administration, Congress, etc. but ultimately we, the American consumers, are complicit because on some level we had to realize that we couldn't sustain this type of lifestyle - big car, big house, big box, etc.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

Kudos to the W/S Journal.

[Jerseyman4]

From the Winston journal:

Unlike the rest of the industrialized world, which pays heavy taxes as a way of reducing gasoline consumption and of paying for world-class mass-transit systems, Americans have kept our gas taxes low. And even in the face of evidence that those low taxes are now paying off in higher gasoline prices, one politician is underwriting a million-dollar anti-gas-tax advertising campaign to protest a measly 3 cents a gallon - as if 3 cents makes a difference while $3-a-gallon gas fluctuates 15 or 20 cents a week.

Interesting theory.

They didn't pass those standards even as, over the past 35 years, many of the oil-producing states of the world have demonstrated animosity to the United States. The high prices at today's pumps are making the oil companies and countries such as Iran and Venezuela rich. Talk about aid and comfort to the enemy.

I thought we were friendly to Venezuela. I would not be suprised if we attacked Iran but they will put out a real fight. If i were Israel, id be on edge right now.

[Snowguy716]

I wouldn't really pass the blame on Detroit. While they did do a lot of less-than-stellar things to get the country addicted to cars, you have to look at history in the perspective of the time. People in 1950 didn't know anything about climate change. They didn't know anything about the scarcity of oil. Back in 1950, America was still producing plenty of oil for ourselves. It was a domestic, promising fuel source. And if it meant everyone could have a slice of Americana for a cheap price, than hey... why the hell not?

Now we know. And we still do'nt do anything. Blame today's consumers. Not yesterdays.

[hood]

I still doubt very many people want smaller cars with smaller engines. WHen it comes down to it, most Americans like big and/or fast vehicles, and they aren't willing to compromise. The only way we will lower gas consumption is to eliminate gas and replace with an alternative fuel that still allows for big and fast cars to operate efficiently. Most people will not settle for biking, walking or mass transit, even if it would work for them.

[intcvlcphlga]

I wouldn't really pass the blame on Detroit. While they did do a lot of less-than-stellar things to get the country addicted to cars, you have to look at history in the perspective of the time. People in 1950 didn't know anything about climate change. They didn't know anything about the scarcity of oil. Back in 1950, America was still producing plenty of oil for ourselves. It was a domestic, promising fuel source. And if it meant everyone could have a slice of Americana for a cheap price, than hey... why the hell not?

Now we know. And we still do'nt do anything. Blame today's consumers. Not yesterdays.

Global Warming was first advanced as a theory by an American scientist in 1959. The first predictions of peak oil production/exploration occurred in the 50s. We have been the subject of much animosity from many areas of the Middle East since the 60s when we got solidly behind the state of Israel. The fuel/energy crises were in the 70s. Yet, cars built 20 years ago were more fuel efficient. The editorial is not saying that we should blame our grandparents' generation, but rather our parents' and our generation who have bought Hummers, Navigators, Excursions, etc. when we knew better and have known better for 35+ years.

[monsoon]

Indeed we have not learned anything.

The first oil shock happened in 1973 when the USA sided with Israel during what is known as the 6 day war with Egypt, Israel, and Syria. In retaliation, the Arab oil states stopped shipments of oil to the USA (Arab Oil Embargo) and threw the economy into a nose dive. Gas prices doubled and there were gas lines. It was years before the economy recovered from that. I was a little kid then and remember there not being any gas. In those days however it was still pretty easy to walk and bike to places which is what we did a lot. My mom and dad owned 2 VWs which got fairly decent mileage for even now.

The second oil shock occured in 1979 when Iraq and Iran began their 7 year war. This took a lot of oil off the market and gasoline doubled in price in less than 6 months and there gas lines again. I was living in Charlotte at the time and I remember the gas stations being closed as there was no gas to be bought at any price. I bought a new Toyota in 1980 that got 35 mpg in the city and 40+ on the highway.

In the period from 1973 to 1980, Toyota, Honda and Datsun (now called Nissan here) took 30% of the domestic automobile market away from Ford, Chysler, GM and AMC because they produced small fuel efficient vehicles.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter spoke of Energy Independence as nothing was more important to the security of the USA. He put forth a plan to reverse our dependence on imported oil with the immediate goal of limiting oil imports to what was imported in 1977 and then lowering them below that in future years.

He was voted out of office in 1980 and replaced by Reagan, Bush Sr, and the Republican Revolution and Carter's Energy Independence plans were scrapped. Instead we started to make deals with the devil again.

1982 photo of Rumsfield and Saddam

Now here we are again in 2006 still at the mercy of events of the middle east, yet we are importing more oil then ever before.