So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     


    Right.  All the things that support your tree-hugin verison of the world are not a problem.  

    Got it.

     



    I'm sorry you're having trouble translating english into english...

     

    ...but that's not at all what I said.

     



    I'm having fun wit yah.  And to have fun, it must have a grain of truth.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    I have never heard of the heartland institiute.

    Also the lumber companies saw the benefits of managed forests.

    As the "crisis" grows the fishing industry will make the same beneficial decisions as lumber.



    Then, I suggest you look them up for a more-attuned opinion.

    Of course the lumber companies saw the benefits.  Because the conservationists got it (mostly) right.

    I hope you're right about the fishing industry, because it really doesn't look that way.  The question is whether they do it willingly or their hands are forced by circumstances of their own doing, isn't it.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     


    Right.  All the things that support your tree-hugin verison of the world are not a problem.  

    Got it.

     



    I'm sorry you're having trouble translating english into english...

     

    ...but that's not at all what I said.

     

     



    I'm having fun wit yah.  And to have fun, it must have a grain of truth.

     



    Oh, I thought we were still debating and you were losing.

    Carry on.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Solyndra hampers energy independence by precisely what you claim it is, a hedged bet.  It diverts investment from market driven opportunities government mandated ones.  

    The government, and this point has been proven countless times over the years, does not have it in them to make the proper judgements when it comes to "investing in our future".  The private sector excels at this.

    There is more money being spent on alternative energy than fossil fule based approaches.  I wound't invest in either.  Wasted and inappropriate use of tax dollars.

    This whole post is riddled with errors.

    First, it's impossible to delink public and private sectors when it comes to energy.  The stakes are too high and the public interest too heavily involved at all levels: industrial, commercial, residential.

    You should also understand that the military is not waiting around hoping for more oil.  They are implementing energy efficiencies and sustainabilities almost across the board.  In only a few years, they will be the largest users of renewables worldwide.  This investment is the opposite of "wasteful".

    Oh, and guess what.  Corporate and industrial consumers are also embracing renewables and driving the market for these energy sources.  It would be malpractice NOT to get involved.  The govt never shied away from advanced technologies before, and they shouldn't start now.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Solyndra hampers energy independence by precisely what you claim it is, a hedged bet.  It diverts investment from market driven opportunities government mandated ones.  

    The government, and this point has been proven countless times over the years, does not have it in them to make the proper judgements when it comes to "investing in our future".  The private sector excels at this.

    There is more money being spent on alternative energy than fossil fule based approaches.  I wound't invest in either.  Wasted and inappropriate use of tax dollars.

     

     

    This whole post is riddled with errors.

    First, it's impossible to delink public and private sectors when it comes to energy.  The stakes are too high and the public interest too heavily involved at all levels: industrial, commercial, residential.

    You should also understand that the military is not waiting around hoping for more oil.  They are implementing energy efficiencies and sustainabilities almost across the board.  In only a few years, they will be the largest users of renewables worldwide.  This investment is the opposite of "wasteful".

    Oh, and guess what.  Corporate and industrial consumers are also embracing renewables and driving the market for these energy sources.  It would be malpractice NOT to get involved.  The govt never shied away from advanced technologies before, and they shouldn't start now.

     



    Impossible to delink public and private sectors when it comes to energy?  Then how do you know that government is subsidizing R&R in private companies?

    Seems you are hoisted on your own pitard.

     

    But, that is neither here nor there.  The left doesn't care about how much it costs for a working man to put a gallon of gas in their tank.  Instead the left puts forth these grand schemes about converting fair dust into transportation.

    Doesn't put gas in the tank.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     

     



    Disagree - even if you don't believe that the government should act on behalf of the environment, or to stay competitive globally in an emerging industry, you have to acknowledge reducing dependence on foreign oil is in our national defense interests.  

     

     

     



    How does what I propose hobble our attempts at energy independence?  You are aware the biggest stumbling block currently is the governemnt trying to "help out" through excessive regulation and investments in the wrong places?

     

    How can leveling the playing field, which you libs have crowed about for the past 40 years be a bad thing?  Am I not giving you everything you want?  Eliminate everythign you complain about?  The supposed subsidies to the big oils comapines gone?

    Or, is it that these subsidies were never real in the first place?

     




     

    Can you give me an example where investing in the wrong place is an impediment to energy independence?

    Consider this - solar electricity provides .5% of the electricity in America.  If you live in the western US, chances are you can get all of your electricity needs from solar.  Even in a wooded area of the north-east, you can probably achieve 50% of your solar needs right now, today.  In 10 years, it will be 100%.

    So let's be conservative and say right now, at this very instant, we go out and turn that .5% into 50%.  What happens to our oil imports?  How is supply and demand of crude oil affected?  What happens to the price of coal and natural gas?  Or the mercury level in fish?  What have we done with regards to carbon emissions?  What about the need for toxic waste cleanup in places like Hanford, WA?  How about what happens when hurricane Sandys hit, and power can be restored in a day, if it goes out at all.  Once we're at 50%, how long until we're at 100%?  How long before the national power grid is obsolete, or at least a fraction of the cost and maintenance it is today?

    If you're cutting down a tree, using a chainsaw is not unfair to an axe.  Solar is the energy choice of the future - there's nothing wrong with the US government spurring growth in this sector, and there is nothing wrong with failing from time to time.  Solyndra wasn't a bad bet - it was a hedged bet.  It failed because their panel material proved more expensive than that of other companies we also invested heavily in.  That's not a problem - it's a smart investment - it could have easily worked the other way around, and Solyndra would be thriving and you'd be up in arms about the failure of some other company.  I think you should look at these investments as tantamount to government spending on R&D for the oil & nuclear industries.  In that regard, you're going to spend more as new technologies emerge than you are once they are established, so saying let's wipe out subsidies for all industries is like paying for 2 of your 3 kids to go to college, and telling your youngest that that policy is no longer in place, so as to be fair to everybody.

    I'm getting pretty good with analogies, I think.

     

     

     



    Solyndra.

     

    Solyndra hampers energy independence by precisely what you claim it is, a hedged bet.  It diverts investment from market driven opportunities government mandated ones.  

    The government, and this point has been proven countless times over the years, does not have it in them to make the proper judgements when it comes to "investing in our future".  The private sector excels at this.

     

    There is more money being spent on alternative energy than fossil fule based approaches.  I wound't invest in either.  Wasted and inappropriate use of tax dollars.

    I know you will ask me for the source, so here it is.

    http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17952.pdf

     



    Let's put aside the environmental issues, but with the stipulation that at least half the country does want the government involved in improving and protecting the environment, and about 30% of the other half of the country is over 70 years of age.

    That said, oil energy requires co-operation from middle-eastern countries, and solar energy does not.  Companies 1 and 2 are working on making solar energy more viable, while companies 3 and 4 are heavily invested in crude oil.  Companies 3 and 4 are more profitable than companies 1 and 2.  Now, how does the government (in the interests of national defense) investing in both company 1 and 2 hamper its goal of energy independence?  How does the private sector help achieve that goal, if the companies that do not help reach that goal are the more profitable?

    Your own source shows that the government played a crucial role in the emergence of all energy sources, particularly nuclear.  It also shows twice the spending of R&D in crude oil than renewables over the past 30 years, a time period during which the oil industry was already well established.  The only way to support your claim that we have spent more on renewable energy than fossil fuels is to group efficiency & conservation research in with renewable - which of course makes no sense as this research applies to all energy.

    Efficiency, BTW, is another rebuttal to your claim that government programs in the energy sector are useless - there is no real private sector demand for efficiency; but the refrigerator you buy today is 500% more effficient than the same size one you bought in 1972.  

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Impossible to delink public and private sectors when it comes to energy?  Then how do you know that government is subsidizing R&R in private companies?

    This doesn't make any sense...

    Seems you are hoisted on your own pitard.

    So, no, I'm really not...

    But, that is neither here nor there.  The left doesn't care about how much it costs for a working man to put a gallon of gas in their tank.  Instead the left puts forth these grand schemes about converting fair dust into transportation.

    Yes, it's the crux of the argument, but you don't like to admit when you're wrong.  If you don't see that larger efficiency efforts are aimed precisely at trying to alleviate costs at the pump, then you're not looking hard enough.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     

     



    Disagree - even if you don't believe that the government should act on behalf of the environment, or to stay competitive globally in an emerging industry, you have to acknowledge reducing dependence on foreign oil is in our national defense interests.  

     

     

     



    How does what I propose hobble our attempts at energy independence?  You are aware the biggest stumbling block currently is the governemnt trying to "help out" through excessive regulation and investments in the wrong places?

     

    How can leveling the playing field, which you libs have crowed about for the past 40 years be a bad thing?  Am I not giving you everything you want?  Eliminate everythign you complain about?  The supposed subsidies to the big oils comapines gone?

    Or, is it that these subsidies were never real in the first place?

     




     

    Can you give me an example where investing in the wrong place is an impediment to energy independence?

    Consider this - solar electricity provides .5% of the electricity in America.  If you live in the western US, chances are you can get all of your electricity needs from solar.  Even in a wooded area of the north-east, you can probably achieve 50% of your solar needs right now, today.  In 10 years, it will be 100%.

    So let's be conservative and say right now, at this very instant, we go out and turn that .5% into 50%.  What happens to our oil imports?  How is supply and demand of crude oil affected?  What happens to the price of coal and natural gas?  Or the mercury level in fish?  What have we done with regards to carbon emissions?  What about the need for toxic waste cleanup in places like Hanford, WA?  How about what happens when hurricane Sandys hit, and power can be restored in a day, if it goes out at all.  Once we're at 50%, how long until we're at 100%?  How long before the national power grid is obsolete, or at least a fraction of the cost and maintenance it is today?

    If you're cutting down a tree, using a chainsaw is not unfair to an axe.  Solar is the energy choice of the future - there's nothing wrong with the US government spurring growth in this sector, and there is nothing wrong with failing from time to time.  Solyndra wasn't a bad bet - it was a hedged bet.  It failed because their panel material proved more expensive than that of other companies we also invested heavily in.  That's not a problem - it's a smart investment - it could have easily worked the other way around, and Solyndra would be thriving and you'd be up in arms about the failure of some other company.  I think you should look at these investments as tantamount to government spending on R&D for the oil & nuclear industries.  In that regard, you're going to spend more as new technologies emerge than you are once they are established, so saying let's wipe out subsidies for all industries is like paying for 2 of your 3 kids to go to college, and telling your youngest that that policy is no longer in place, so as to be fair to everybody.

    I'm getting pretty good with analogies, I think.

     

     

     



    Solyndra.

     

    Solyndra hampers energy independence by precisely what you claim it is, a hedged bet.  It diverts investment from market driven opportunities government mandated ones.  

    The government, and this point has been proven countless times over the years, does not have it in them to make the proper judgements when it comes to "investing in our future".  The private sector excels at this.

     

    There is more money being spent on alternative energy than fossil fule based approaches.  I wound't invest in either.  Wasted and inappropriate use of tax dollars.

    I know you will ask me for the source, so here it is.

    http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17952.pdf

     

     



     

    Let's put aside the environmental issues, but with the stipulation that at least half the country does want the government involved in improving and protecting the environment, and about 30% of the other half of the country is over 70 years of age.

    That said, oil energy requires co-operation from middle-eastern countries, and solar energy does not.  Companies 1 and 2 are working on making solar energy more viable, while companies 3 and 4 are heavily invested in crude oil.  Companies 3 and 4 are more profitable than companies 1 and 2.  Now, how does the government (in the interests of national defense) investing in both company 1 and 2 hamper its goal of energy independence?  How does the private sector help achieve that goal, if the companies that do not help reach that goal are the more profitable?

    Your own source shows that the government played a crucial role in the emergence of all energy sources, particularly nuclear.  It also shows twice the spending of R&D in crude oil than renewables over the past 30 years, a time period during which the oil industry was already well established.  The only way to support your claim that we have spent more on renewable energy than fossil fuels is to group efficiency & conservation research in with renewable - which of course makes no sense as this research applies to all energy.

    Efficiency, BTW, is another rebuttal to your claim that government programs in the energy sector are useless - there is no real private sector demand for efficiency; but the refrigerator you buy today is 500% more effficient than the same size one you bought in 1972.  

     

     

    The issue is government spending, not government mandates and regulations.  You are talking regulations, not government spending.  Clearly not all government mandates and regulations are bad, but precious few are constitutional.

    efficiency: In order for what you said to be true, you would have to assume that people don't care about how much it costs to run a refrigerator.  There is HUGE demand for efficiency.  you are clearly misreading the market on this.  If energy iis expensive enough, people demand efficiency.  Isn't this the guiding principle in Obama's energy policy?

    so, from my point of view, you are all wet on the government needing to drive this. and, they didn't. What they did is mandate it, and private companies had to comply.  that is a far cry from government needing to fund it.

    as far as your comparison between solar and oil: I wish that it were.  Solar is, and likely for a long time, much more expensive, intermittent, and inefficient than  oil.  Let's hope that changes . but right now, solar cannot be feasibly deployed to replace home electric needs, let alone all our energy needs.  Have you ever looked at the sunlight charts? In the northeast, you would be lucky if you could keep a single lightbulb going in the winter.  Simply not enough consistent hours of daylight.

     

    look, I want alternate fuels as much as the next guy.  But wanting doesn't make it so. Nor does the government offer any real advantage to the desire, let alone whether it should be involved form a constitutional basis.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Impossible to delink public and private sectors when it comes to energy?  Then how do you know that government is subsidizing R&R in private companies?

    This doesn't make any sense...

    Seems you are hoisted on your own pitard.

    So, no, I'm really not...

    But, that is neither here nor there.  The left doesn't care about how much it costs for a working man to put a gallon of gas in their tank.  Instead the left puts forth these grand schemes about converting fair dust into transportation.

    Yes, it's the crux of the argument, but you don't like to admit when you're wrong.  If you don't see that larger efficiency efforts are aimed precisely at trying to alleviate costs at the pump, then you're not looking hard enough.

     

     

     

    Typical liberal response, making things more difficult than they need to be.

    can Obama impact the price at the pump or not? I spent between 2000 and 2008 hearing about how the president was manipulating things, but now, the president can't manipulate things.

    Bush was a big oil guy, and somehow he was manipulating government and markets to big oils advantage, but Obama is helpless to do anything and is at the mercy of the world market.

    so, Obama wants to lower prices at the pump, but can't.

    does that kinda sum up your position?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.



    And the right will rail against an 11% annual average increase in gas prices under Obama, while ignoring a 111% increase under Bush.

    IMO, until you can explain 2008 - no change to the permitting process, no change to refineries, no changes in import restrictions, negligible change to demand, massive stock market panic = 60% drop in fuel prices.  Until you can explain that, you're spinning your wheels on everything else.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.

     



    And the right will rail against an 11% annual average increase in gas prices under Obama, while ignoring a 111% increase under Bush.

     

    IMO, until you can explain 2008 - no change to the permitting process, no change to refineries, no changes in import restrictions, negligible change to demand, massive stock market panic = 60% drop in fuel prices.  Until you can explain that, you're spinning your wheels on everything else.

     




    Didn't ignore anything under Bush, but what you lefties forget is that the past is gone, it ain't coming back.  Live in the here and now.

    Living in the here and now is what the left did so well during the Bush years:  nightly reminders about the rise in gas prices, nightly reminders about how Bush was an oil man, and how he was responsible.

    Now that it is Obama who is unable to control the price of gas, all you can do is pin the blame on Bush.

     

    Weak.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.

     



    And the right will rail against an 11% annual average increase in gas prices under Obama, while ignoring a 111% increase under Bush.

     

    IMO, until you can explain 2008 - no change to the permitting process, no change to refineries, no changes in import restrictions, negligible change to demand, massive stock market panic = 60% drop in fuel prices.  Until you can explain that, you're spinning your wheels on everything else.

     



    Instability in the middle east fuels increases by specualtors in the commodities market.  High prices when the market tanked plus an ensuing drop in demand became a multiplier effect on the price of oil. For those whose livelyhood wasn't directly impacted it was a sweet time in the first half of 2009 when gas was low and the commute volume was down and the speculators took it on the chin, ah sweet memories.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.

     



    And the right will rail against an 11% annual average increase in gas prices under Obama, while ignoring a 111% increase under Bush.

     

    IMO, until you can explain 2008 - no change to the permitting process, no change to refineries, no changes in import restrictions, negligible change to demand, massive stock market panic = 60% drop in fuel prices.  Until you can explain that, you're spinning your wheels on everything else.

     

     



    Instability in the middle east fuels increases by specualtors in the commodities market.  High prices when the market tanked plus an ensuing drop in demand became a multiplier effect on the price of oil. For those whose livelyhood wasn't directly impacted it was a sweet time in the first half of 2009 when gas was low and the commute volume was down and the speculators took it on the chin, ah sweet memories.

     



    So for four months in 2008-2009, everything was rosy in the middle east?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Impossible to delink public and private sectors when it comes to energy?  Then how do you know that government is subsidizing R&R in private companies?

    This doesn't make any sense...

    Seems you are hoisted on your own pitard.

    So, no, I'm really not...

    But, that is neither here nor there.  The left doesn't care about how much it costs for a working man to put a gallon of gas in their tank.  Instead the left puts forth these grand schemes about converting fair dust into transportation.

    Yes, it's the crux of the argument, but you don't like to admit when you're wrong.  If you don't see that larger efficiency efforts are aimed precisely at trying to alleviate costs at the pump, then you're not looking hard enough.

     

     

     

    Typical liberal response, making things more difficult than they need to be.

    can Obama impact the price at the pump or not? I spent between 2000 and 2008 hearing about how the president was manipulating things, but now, the president can't manipulate things.

    Bush was a big oil guy, and somehow he was manipulating government and markets to big oils advantage, but Obama is helpless to do anything and is at the mercy of the world market.

    so, Obama wants to lower prices at the pump, but can't.

    does that kinda sum up your position?



    Not in the least.

    This has nothing to do with Bush, and I didn't say so.  This is about improving long-term efficiencies to secure more stable prices at the pump - also in the long-term - and to prevent such unnecessary spikes in costs.

    100 new wells could be drilled tomorrow, and gas prices will still undulate all day.  But 1000 new hybrids on the road has an immediate, provable financial impact, particularly on their drivers' wallets.

    By the same token, 1000 homes with solar wouldn't have as much impact as 100 businesses or factories going solar.  See how that works?  It's about options, not just more of the same.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.

     



    And the right will rail against an 11% annual average increase in gas prices under Obama, while ignoring a 111% increase under Bush.

     

    IMO, until you can explain 2008 - no change to the permitting process, no change to refineries, no changes in import restrictions, negligible change to demand, massive stock market panic = 60% drop in fuel prices.  Until you can explain that, you're spinning your wheels on everything else.

     

     




    Didn't ignore anything under Bush, but what you lefties forget is that the past is gone, it ain't coming back.  Live in the here and now.

     

    Living in the here and now is what the left did so well during the Bush years:  nightly reminders about the rise in gas prices, nightly reminders about how Bush was an oil man, and how he was responsible.

    Now that it is Obama who is unable to control the price of gas, all you can do is pin the blame on Bush.

     

    Weak.

     

    No, what's weak is pining for gas prices from 12 years ago, and pinning the blame on the administration that saw gas prices increase 10% in four years, rather than the administration that saw gas prices more than double in 8 of those years.

    Bush moved the baseline - if we had 10% increase every four years of the Bush administration, gas would be $2/gallon.  If we had 50% increase every four years under Obama, gas would be $6/gallon.

    Strong.

    FYI, I don't actually blame Bush for this - I think it can be traced back to a Clinton bill passed in 2000 that de-regulated OTC derivatives, and let speculation run up the cost of gas.  I do think the wars, particularly Iraq gave the oil companies a cover story for ridiculous prices, and obviously the administration didn't do anything about it, and when the Dems took over Congress, Republicans in the minority blocked any attempts to fix it.

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    When will the left get in the real world?  When will the left admit that their energy policy of higher fuel costs is part of the destruction of the middle class, the average working man?

     

     


    That would only make sense if the "average working man" were the predominant consumer of energy.

    They ain't.  Not by a very long shot.

     

     

     



    The average working man:

     

    Drive to work.

    Heats their home.

    Pays for electricity.

     

    Sorry you have so little concern for the average working man that you can't see how these bills, which might just be a nuicance to you, are a problem to them.

     

     



    No, you don't get it.

     

    The "average working man" and his residential applications are not even close to the most significant consumer of energy.

    This means that the largest savings need to first come from the biggest users.  Both energy companies and govt regulators know this, and they incentivize the savings.

    As low volume-users, the 'working man' is simply caught in the middle.  Which is why I say, yet again, that the #1 thing people can do to lower their energy costs is USE LESS.

    My clients are utilities.  This is what I do.

     



    How is that of solace to the average working man, that they are not the largest users of energy?  Does that make it any easier when they have to tell their kids that they can't have a new bike, or go too see a movie, because Obama felt it was more important that they pay more for gasoline, heat, and electricity?

    I guess your suggestion that the average working man use less, maybe not go to work every day, maybe sit in the dark in a cold house, makes sense to an unfeeling unthinking government hack.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Here's what I've gotten out of this thread:

    the left will talk about alternative fuels.

    the left will talk about how world markets control everything.

    the left will construct the most complicated, scope widening arguments.

    but, not a one of them will admit or even discuss that Obama's energy policy is raising the price oaf gas at the pump, even though it is the stated opinion of the Obama administration to do so.

    glad we settled that.

     



    And the right will rail against an 11% annual average increase in gas prices under Obama, while ignoring a 111% increase under Bush.

     

    IMO, until you can explain 2008 - no change to the permitting process, no change to refineries, no changes in import restrictions, negligible change to demand, massive stock market panic = 60% drop in fuel prices.  Until you can explain that, you're spinning your wheels on everything else.

     

     




    Didn't ignore anything under Bush, but what you lefties forget is that the past is gone, it ain't coming back.  Live in the here and now.

     

    Living in the here and now is what the left did so well during the Bush years:  nightly reminders about the rise in gas prices, nightly reminders about how Bush was an oil man, and how he was responsible.

    Now that it is Obama who is unable to control the price of gas, all you can do is pin the blame on Bush.

     

    Weak.

     

     

     

    No, what's weak is pining for gas prices from 12 years ago, and pinning the blame on the administration that saw gas prices increase 10% in four years, rather than the administration that saw gas prices more than double in 8 of those years.

    Bush moved the baseline - if we had 10% increase every four years of the Bush administration, gas would be $2/gallon.  If we had 50% increase every four years under Obama, gas would be $6/gallon.

    Strong.

    FYI, I don't actually blame Bush for this - I think it can be traced back to a Clinton bill passed in 2000 that de-regulated OTC derivatives, and let speculation run up the cost of gas.  I do think the wars, particularly Iraq gave the oil companies a cover story for ridiculous prices, and obviously the administration didn't do anything about it, and when the Dems took over Congress, Republicans in the minority blocked any attempts to fix it.

     



    I stipulate  every single item in the Bush energy policy.

    now, tell me.  What is Obama doing to fix things, other than blame Bush?

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    My god...no president is responsible for spikes in gas prices. 



    Yep.  But my constant yanking on the chain isn't producing that response.  What it's is causing them to enter yet another blame Bush spin cycle.  It is quite amusing.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    How is that of solace to the average working man, that they are not the largest users of energy?  Does that make it any easier when they have to tell their kids that they can't have a new bike, or go too see a movie, because Obama felt it was more important that they pay more for gasoline, heat, and electricity?

     

    I guess your suggestion that the average working man use less, maybe not go to work every day, maybe sit in the dark in a cold house, makes sense to an unfeeling unthinking government hack.



    OK, now you're just getting emotional and clouding your judgment.  You're not making a lick of sense and are making sh*te up, to boot.

    You're wasting my time.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    My god...no president is responsible for spikes in gas prices. 

     



    Yep.  But my constant yanking on the chain isn't producing that response.  What it's is causing them to enter yet another blame Bush spin cycle.  It is quite amusing.

     

     



    Oh I know. They blamed Bush for high gas prices during his admin and now they're still blaming Bush for today's high gas prices. 

     



    I particularly like the point of view that the average man has to suffer in order for the regulators to reign in the big energy users.  So compassionate of the left.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    My god...no president is responsible for spikes in gas prices. 

     



    Yep.  But my constant yanking on the chain isn't producing that response.  What it's is causing them to enter yet another blame Bush spin cycle.  It is quite amusing.

     

     



    Oh I know. They blamed Bush for high gas prices during his admin and now they're still blaming Bush for today's high gas prices. 

     



    Well, there's little question that Bush should have pursued efficiencies and renewables greater and earlier than he finally did, but I'm not dwelling on that, and it doesn't really pertain to the matter at-hand.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    I particularly like the point of view that the average man has to suffer in order for the regulators to reign in the big energy users.  So compassionate of the left.

    Except nobody is saying that except you.  Even if they were, the gopers haven't done a single thing to help on their part and may in fact have hurt the cause with their gross abdication of meaningful governance.

     

     

Share