WE Blog

Rural areas supported higher gas prices by voting Republican. It takes just a little common sense to see that decreasing the value of the dollar by supporting a party that wants tax cuts for the rich, and increasing the national debt and trade deficits is going to result in higher gas prices. It’s been the Republican policy since Reagan to be more reliant on foreign oil and to divest in energy efficiency.

The sad thing is many will continue to vote for these policies.

Here it comes. A thinly disguised study to justify reaching into out pockets are providing a GASOLINE SUBSIDY ENTITLEMENT to lower income Americans.

Afterall, it’s the “right thing to do” in the moralist minds of the godless liberal party.

Touchy feely democrats.

WATCH OUT!

I smell another costly entitlement program to add more suckling to the national tit.

The runaway price of gasoline can be stopped by making the Zionists of Israel quit threatening Iran with an attack. Such an attack would shut-down the Persian Gulf countries from shipping crude oil all together.

The Zionists claiming they’re concerned about being attacked by Iran is ridiculous.

Gas prices have risin $1.66 per gallon since the Democratic Party has taken over Congress.

Do the math, Democrats in power are bad for America.

” they will no longer accept PAC money”

You suppose the democrats have “enough” of the money ratholed away already?

The folks in Mississippi pay 37.2 cents per gallon in gas taxes.

What is the Democrats solution?

Just tell those rural people to conserve more.

Problem solved!

An example of PAC money during just one period by just one member of Congress:

Nancy Pelosi:

Total PAC Money for 2008: $1,014,885
Number of Contributions: 293

Sectors

Agribusiness $33,000
Communic/Electronics $105,500
Construction $12,000
Defense $40,000
Energy/Nat Resource $11,000
Finance/Insur/RealEst $241,100
Health $135,100
Lawyers & Lobbyists $46,000
Transportation $31,000
Misc Business $75,000
Labor $239,500
Ideology/Single-Issue $43,975
Other $1,000
Unknown $710

Top 5 Contributors
Occidental Petroleum $17,000
Kleiner, Perkins et al $16,700
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $15,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union $15,000
Time Warner $13,200

Top 5 Industries
Real Estate $104,200
Securities & Investment $96,550
Transportation Unions $92,000
Lawyers/Law Firms $90,950
Building Trade Unions $75,000

The truth is BOTH parties live and breath PAC dollars. If the candidate themselves aren’t taking them - their party headquarters organization is.

And PAC dollars are no more “evil” than large corporate,

“Regular
Posted June 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
Gas prices have risin $1.66 per gallon since the Democratic Party has taken over Congress.”

Irregular - as clearly shown on the climate change bill thread the Democrats do not ‘control’ Congress.

Nathaniel
Posted June 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
What is the Democrats solution?

Just tell those rural people to conserve more.

Problem solved!
————————-
heh heh

Nathaniel posted June 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm

“What is the Democrats solution?”

‘Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy’
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf
“Are we putting our kids in tanks because we didn’t put them in efficient cars? Yes: we wouldn’t have needed any oil from the Persian Gulf after 1985 if we’d simply kept on saving oil at the rate we did from 1977 through 1985.”

More at link.

A very detailed report,
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html

(darn roadrunner failure)

As I was saying PAC dollars are not any more sinful or “wrong” than large corporations, big business’s, small business owners, their employee’s and everyone else giving money. PAC’s are more regulated, which may be something a candidate wants to avoid.

This is not another “democrat” righteous issue or cause. ALL parties, their organizational headquarters or party headquarters take money.
If money is the root of all evil, I would say it’s all wrong, or inversely all right. What makes PAC’s worse?

Look up any candidate, senator, house rep, and by any year and see who is paying for their votes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/?gclid=CN67r8eM6JMCFR-mQQody1kGWQ

“as clearly shown on the climate change bill thread the Democrats do not ‘control’ Congress.”

Granted, I did not consider the House, but in the Senate, of the last 20 sessions of COngress, The Democrats were in the majority 12. That is from 1969 to present. NOne of them were a veto proof majority, including when the Republicans were in the majority (8 times). So, either than is an escuse for both parties (not super majority) or neither party. You can choose in your own mind.

Source Wikipedia

Boxlock-”Does Israel not have the right to protect itself from “annihilation”?
—-
In the Left mind- only if they were anti-American freedom haters would they be allowed to defend themselves.

Wrong again irregular. It takes 60 to ‘control’ the Senate. The Democrats do not have that number.

You have no clue how hard these gas prices are hitting us who don’t live in the cities. We’re teetering on the edge of true disaster. My husband and I together drive 150 miles to work mediocre jobs now. Its the single largest bill we pay out now, even more than food.

Do oil companies continue to receive taxpayer subsidies even as they collect record profits?

No. They do not get money from the government for free, like EIC. They get tax breaks. Just like homeowners get tax breaks. The tax breaks are for research, development, and discovery of new energy sources and oil exploration.. Then, democrats REFUSE to allow the oil companies to drill the new resources. Big DUH. No WONDER prices are high. Further, if you STOP the incentive to explore new energy resources, supply will continue to stagnate - and PRICES GO FURTHER UP. Bigger Duh. But dummies don’t understand.

Do oil companies continue to get a repeal (direct from BushCo) of paying royalties to us American people who own the offshore oil they pump?

Interesting proposition. Pay us royalties for drilling on citizens land. Like cutting trees in national forests? Like grazing cattle on government land? Great idea. But guess who gets to PAY for that? Consumers again. Duh.

And the CONs are worried about some working mom who gets more than her fair share of food stamps.

Couldn’t care less.

American Way,

OK: let’s imagine that Congressional Democrats (and not a few Republicans) allow oil companies to drill in ANWR, as you appear to be saying without saying it. What will be the reduction in oil prices?

$.75 per barrel. And it would take ten years to reach the market.

“WASHINGTON — If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.”

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html

The proposal to drill more and meet demand in some lasting fashion is a joke; it’s akin to building more freeways to relieve traffic congestion. Drilling more creates more demand, just as building more roadways leads to more drivers.

Solving the problem, in the long term, entails diversifying energy resources. And now that we’ve put it off for the 28 years since the Reagan Administration took office, the pain is going to sharp for a quite a long time.

It’s the Libs who jump up and down with glee with higher gas prices. It suits their agenda.
Except for that looking out for the common man thing.

fleettwood,

Yeah: we liberals are so high and mighty that WE don’t have to pay the higher prices ourselves.

But how exactly, fleettwood, does that square with Max Grobnik’s idea that liberals exist only by sucking at the welfare teat?

Seems to me you’ve got yourself a bit of a puzzle there, fleettwood. And as befits you, no hint of any sort of a constructive solution.

CF2K, humor me please. I would like to understand your post.

“But how exactly, fleettwood, does that square with Max Grobnik’s idea that liberals exist only by sucking at the welfare teat?”

You would have to take that up with him, but I would quarrel with the “only” part of the statement.
I would add the redistribution of income teat, the allow the Carr Brothers to live teat, the let goverment take care of us womb to tomb teat.

littlejohn,

Because, in case you hadn’t noticed, lying, racist warmongers have been running our foreign–and domestic-policy for about, oh, eight years now. Pipes is, as it were, on the reservation; he’s tied in to those networks of Neocon power. That’s what makes his statement particularly ominous.

I don’t know if anyone here is intelligent enough to figure out this is NOT a democrat/republican issue, as much as you all would like it to be. It is a world issue, as in there is too much demand, and not enough supply, like China, Japan, Europe, South America. We ain’t the only ones buying oil folks.

Yes, we need to build a new refinery; yes, we need to drill offshore, and ANWAR, if need be. But we also have to start looking at other energy sources VERY seriously, as in a new Manhattan project.

The are also the speculators raising the price of gas, and that is not a democrat/republican issue, but a bipartisan opportunity to get that part of the process under control, as in Enron all over again. So waaa all you want over politics, but it’s a much bigger issue that that.

I know people in rural Kansas who can hardly afford gas, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed. What I’ve read so far does nothing to address that. It would be nice, for a change, to read some constructive posts as opposed to the usual crap here. Any takers?

My gas bill last month was over $1600.00. Four vehicles, 2 are 4WD which we have to have as we are rural and our roads often require 4wd vehicles. This is driving to and from school and work only, as we run errands, etc. on the way home.
One of my kids is in school and working 20 hours per week. He has a whopping $20 per week left after paying for gas. Goodbye cell phones, satellite internet, DirectTV, and the occasional night out. No more telemarketing interruptions, no more kids playing video games and no more husband watching TV. Everything I’ve been praying for. Maybe I’m to blame for the high gas prices!

“Because, in case you hadn’t noticed, lying, racist warmongers have been running our foreign–and domestic-policy for about, oh, eight years now. ”

My only point. You don;t believe them, why believe Pipes?

I have been hearing rumors for many months about the “invasion” or bombing of Iran. I do not know whether to agree on the reality or the motive of the same, but I do agree that it would be a disaster.

CF2K, Why start a war at that time when the Pres. (in your prediction) would end it right a way? Or do you think Obama would just go along with the newly started war because someone else (Bush) started it? I ask this because to me starting a war just because you think you can and accomplish anything productive in this short timeline is crazy (Presidential Election: November 4, 2008- Presidential Inauguration: January 20, 2009).
I do think Iran is a threat and a big threat, I take their word for it. But starting a war/completing the goals of that war in the timeline you outlined seems far fetched to me. I am not saying that a war with Iran will not happen, because I do think it will happen. I just have a problem with the timeline and reasons behind that timeline as in your post.

“But starting a war/completing the goals of that war in the timeline you outlined”

Bush needs only to start it to proclaim MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

fleettwood
Posted June 9, 2008 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
“…because someone else (Bush) started it?”

Didn’t almost every democrat Senator vote to give him the authority to do so?
—-
Fleetwood, I was refering to Iran/CF2K’s hypothetical.
If you were refering to Iraq, my answer is YES they did! They may regret it now, but that doesn’t change their past vote.

Wow. a 19% decrease in gas prices for just ANWAR?
ANd how much for Off the coast of Florida? ANd how much for Oil Shale conversion? And how much for conversion of more energy users to Natural Gas? While none of these are long term solutions, they could be a start. So , if we reduce consumpiton by 20%, and drill in Anwar, how much savings then? all of these things are part of the solution. To put any off limits to just as short sighted as leaving the newer technologies out of the equaiton. An all out assault on reducing the foregin oil is a priority. Let’s just do it. Advance Nuclear, advance windpower, andvance them all!

American_Way posted June 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm

“Again, your .75 cents is based soley on someones guess, not economic conditions, and you yourself chose to limit the new drilling to that one source. I did not.”

The Arctic Refuge is the biggest source, if you stupidly ignore the much larger, faster, cheaper, and cleaner “source” of higher energy efficiency.

The Refuge is the “keystone” of Cheney’s energy plan.

Here is the U.S. government’s “guess”.

‘Drilling Nets Pennies Per Gallon, 20 Years From Now’
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/PennyaGallon20yrs1.pdf

Read the PDF footnote re reports from,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2006).pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr/pdf/sroiaf(2005)04.pdf

If you don’t like the EIA’s #’s complain to them.

To the ones who accepted my request, Thanks, All excellent ideas, and ones that should be seriously looked at. To the ones continuing the dems/bad, repubs/bad nonsense . . .may your gas bill always be higher than your earnings, you deserve nothing less.

This thread started off with posts blaming the Republicans…WRONG, it the Dems that are to blame for the most part.

> Want an answer as to WHO is to blame for current fuel prices?
>
> READ ON
> May 21, 2008
>
> Oil Executives Try To Educate Senate Democrats, but Democrats Appear Hopeless
>
> Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn’t as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.
>
> The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.
>
> One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out: I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world’s available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oi l companies and is not accessible.
>
> Stephen Simon amplified:
>
> Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
>
> To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.
>
> Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world’s oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:
>
> Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
>
> Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States , 90 percent were purchased from others.
>
> Another theme of the day’s testimony was that, if anyone is ‘gouging’ consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers’ anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
>
>
> The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress’s responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell’s John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:
>
> While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China , subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation’s consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.
>
> Meanwhile, in the United States , access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
>
>
> Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
>
> According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
>
>
> The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
>
>
> When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.
>
>
> As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
>
> The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.
>
> Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats’ latest efforts to block energy independence:
>
>
> HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we’re talking about Utah , Colorado and Wyoming . It’s fair to say that they’re not considered part of America ’s $22 billion of proven reserves.
>
> HOFMEISTER: Not at all.
>
> HATCH: No, but experts agree that there’s between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that’s good oil, isn’t it?
>
> HOFMEISTER: That’s correct.
>
> HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?
>
> HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we’ve seen in the inflation…
>
> HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.
>
> HOFMEISTER: I don’t know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.
>
> HATCH: I guess what I’m saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.
>
> HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.
>
> HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.
>
> HOFMEISTER: Yes.
>
> HATCH: But they’re stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado .
>
> HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.
>
> The committee’s Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country’s energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.
Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

From: Gary Bauer;
“Gas prices nationwide set a new record average of $4.00 a gallon yesterday. California drivers are being hit hardest with prices averaging $4.43 a gallon, while motorists in Missouri are getting a “bargain” at $3.80. In 2006, liberals promised that, if elected, they had a plan to lower gas prices. Yet, since they took control of Congress, the price of gas has skyrocketed.

What have congressional liberals done about it? They voted to raise taxes on oil companies, summoned the CEOs of major oil companies to Capitol Hill for public show trials and voted down proposals to permit more domestic oil exploration in America. How are higher taxes, grandstanding and less production going to help lower gas prices? They won’t.

Thankfully, a recent Gallup poll suggests the American people aren’t buying the liberal rhetoric either. For example, only 20% of Americans blame the oil companies for the rising prices, and that’s down 14 points from last May, when 34% of American’s pinned the blame on “Big Oil.” And here’s more evidence of how out-of-touch the Left is when it comes to energy: When asked what solutions Americans support to help lower prices, by a margin of 57%-to-41% the people supported more domestic drilling off the coasts and in wilderness areas.
“Gas prices nationwide set a new record average of $4.00 a gallon yesterday. California drivers are being hit hardest with prices averaging $4.43 a gallon, while motorists in Missouri are getting a “bargain” at $3.80. In 2006, liberals promised that, if elected, they had a plan to lower gas prices. Yet, since they took control of Congress, the price of gas has skyrocketed.

What have congressional liberals done about it? They voted to raise taxes on oil companies, summoned the CEOs of major oil companies to Capitol Hill for public show trials and voted down proposals to permit more domestic oil exploration in America. How are higher taxes, grandstanding and less production going to help lower gas prices? They won’t.

Thankfully, a recent Gallup poll suggests the American people aren’t buying the liberal rhetoric either. For example, only 20% of Americans blame the oil companies for the rising prices, and that’s down 14 points from last May, when 34% of American’s pinned the blame on “Big Oil.” And here’s more evidence of how out-of-touch the Left is when it comes to energy: When asked what solutions Americans support to help lower prices, by a margin of 57%-to-41% the people supported more domestic drilling off the coasts and in wilderness areas.”

Its comforting to learn from Phillip Brownlee, author of this WE Blog thread, that “the rural poor are being hit hardest by the exhorbitant gasoline prices.” I guess he means the people of the Mississippi delta, the Missouri bootheel, the Oklahoma panhandle, the Missouri and Arkansas Ozarks, for example.

Then why are more Wichita people riding bicycles and motor bikes to work? And why are the streets of Wichita almost devoid of auto traffic during evening rush hour?

Could the high gas prices be striking close to home in urban areas as well?

By the way, who benefits from high gas prices? Could it be transportation companies that use huge volumes of petroleum based fuel, such as airplane companies, trucking companies and the various levels of government and the military?

Then there is the seemingly unspoken issue that the first countries to run out of domestic fuel supplies might as well throw up white flags to surrender to countries that still have fuel supplies because you can’t fight a war without fuel.

It’s good that oil prices are getting so high. That’s the only way Americans will create alternate methods of transportaion and energy. It’s only when we’re challenged that we use our creativity to overcome our hardships, and positive, meaningful change is often painful.
We’ll get through all this just like we have everything else in the last 200 plus years. No pain, no gain.

“He ignores the point that reducing demand would reduce the cost of oil.”

Talk about stating the obvious. It will be years before any noticeable reduction in consumption takes place. Hell, 2023 until average MPG reaches 35 MPG (fleet average) and another decade before cars burning even less than that wear out and leave the highways. Of course no one will be able to afford to drive by then and there will be no US automakers.

The point is we are not reducing demand by restricting oil exploration and development.
Even if DEMS took their heads out of the sand and became progressive on pursuing domestic sources - it will be YEARS before the first drop hits the pump of domestic oil.

But keep it up libs, your democrats will get the price up to a nice $10 a gallon at this rate.

Democrats have hosed us. Boxlock has it stated very well.

” first countries to run out of domestic fuel supplies might as well throw up white flags to surrender to countries that still have fuel supplies”

We already have. Check the dollar on the world market.

“WS, Gary Bauer is very credible”

“Gary Lee Bauer (born May 4, 1946, Covington, Kentucky)[1] is a conservative American politician notable for his ties to several evangelical Christian groups and campaigns.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer

End of story - he sucks.

“But keep it up libs, your democrats will get the price up to a nice $10 a gallon at this rate.”

OK…right now there is a car designed and built in California that gets 300 miles…TO THE GALLON. And there is a car the French developed that runs on compressed air. I have an electric car sitting in my garage that seats two comfortably amd it has a range of 60 miles on one charge and goes from 0-65 in about 10 seconds.
It’s all a matter of perspective, if we develop alternative energy sources and vehicles that don’t require fossil fuels, it doesn’t matter how high the price of gas goes. Who gives a rip what the price of gas is? It won’t be long until the Middle East, Venezuela, and the others can just keep it all.
The only reason the government isn’t pursuing it harder is because of all the tax revenue that will be lost if Americans no longer are forced to buy gas.
It really has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican, it has to do with how much we want to quit depending on oil for our energy needs. You can point fingers all day long, but it does nothing to solve the problem.

“Gary Bauer is an intelligent conservative, not a insolent buffoon such as anyone that would say what you did about him.”

Gary Bauer would have to gain about fifty IQ points to reach buffoon levels. Right now, a good whack upside the head would lower him to geranium status.

“Box, when they can’t argue the merits of the post, they attack the person.”

Just like you do, AmWay, you racist, anti-Semitic son of a bitch.

We have learned our lessons well - we will neither ask nor give quarter this year.

Mary: Those itty bitty lap dog cars that get 100 mpg might work for driving to the grocery store, but I’ll be darned if I would go out in one on the freeway and rub shoulders with the the semis. And the problem with electric and compressed air etc is that the power to charge the batteries and compress the air still has to come from somewhere. Coal fire plants?

Let’s get started on those nukes.

Speculators and fund managers, especially mutual and pension funds, are the reason behind the price of oil. It is the latest bubble being bid up to expand their portfolios, for most of the futures in oil are not held by the oil companies but by specualtors and fund directors who reap the rewards. A figure of $65.00 per barrel was noted as the real price of the commodity by reason of supply and demand forces, but a few big houses can now manipulate the commodities markets to their own ends. Think Enron and California, and it’s going to happen again with other commodities, a prime example being potash. Profiteers look for a commodity they declare undervalued and just take it from there. Granted oil companies benefit, but they are not the root cause. We have no HST’s or Teddy R’s to-day, their political descendants are bought and paid for.

American_Way,
Why do we even bother to converse with these intellectual slugs like WSClark.
They don’t reason, they simply react in predictable fashion, which quite frankly is getting really boring anymore. I am losing interest in this blog rapidly because many of these liberals don’t put forth any reasonable discussion, they simply attack anything that’s said that they disagree with.
I had very little respect for them before finding this blog, and my gosh they have brought that down to simple contempt for their stupidity and by extension them. I don’t like being that way, that’s just the way it’s working out.
I’m not saying these things to be nasty…it’s just plain fact. I feel dirty just being around them in cyberspace.
I think they know they are contemptible and that’s why they are so full of hate and vile language.

My son lives in Eugene, Oregon, where the mass transit system is excellent…he hasn’t owned a car in years. He takes the train and rides his bike wherever he needs to go. He rents a car once in a while when he wants to take a road trip. He’s physically healthy because he gets more exercise and he can live on a lot less than most of us who pay out the nose to own cars with all the payments, upkeep, insurance, taxes, licensing fees, fuel, etc.

“Small minds…………”

Oh, and your accusations that I am a drug addict were…….. high minded?

(pun intended)

You can dish, but you can’t take, can you AmWay?

Hypocrite.

As one of the biggest throwers of gorilla dust myself…I agree you are right Mary.

The sooner women take over the world, the better.

“Fewer wars would be great.”

How can you be a Republican that supports the War of Choice on Iraq, supports John “many more wars” McCain and make that statement with a straight (pun intended) face?

I think its funny how Outlander is afraid of small cars but I’ll bet he’s manly enough to get on a motorcycle or a 4 wheel.

Mary, we’d have a motorcycle if we could afford it, they’ve gone UP in price bigtime.

Instead of a National Health Care Reform Sen. Clinton should have presented a National Gasoline Reform, she would have probably swept up the democratic nomination with that issue.
Can you image the possibilities if gasoline cost was pro-rated to the local economics?
If anyone says that it cannot be done that way, then they are just full of crap.
Since oil companies are reporting record profits, there are no reasons that a National Gasoline Reform would not work and hurt in anyway the economy.