Gas Prices Spike to Second-Highest Level Ever, Analyst Predicts $4/Gallon This Summer
Gas Prices Spike to Second-Highest Level Ever, Analyst Predicts $4/Gallon This Summer
NBC News reported today on a new Lundberg Survey showing that the average national gas price has spiked up 11 cents over the last two weeks to $3.00 per gallon, the second-highest level in U.S. history.
TRILBY LUNDBERG: We’re within a couple of pennies of the nominal all-time high last September, when there was a shortage of gasoline brought on by hurricane damage. And we’re just six cents under the real high — the inflation-adjusted high of March ‘81 — in today’s dollars.
Also this morning, Brad Proctor of GasPriceWatch told ABC News he was expecting possible $4/gallon gas prices this summer. “We’ll see $3 and possibly $4 depending where the summer goes in terms of hurricanes and other natural disasters that may happen. We’ll see an upward trend occur.”
It’s definitely time to Kick the Oil Habit.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
And the Gallup Poll reports that the president’s approval rating has now increased to 40%. Clearly, Americans aren’t paying attention to whats going on around them
July 11th, 2006 at 12:53 pmI better upgrade my walking shoes.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:53 pmBring it on, 5 bucks a gallon or more! The only way to cure our addiction is to make gasoline more expensive than the “green” alternatives.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:53 pmAnother Bushco success story.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI better upgrade my tractor.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pmWhile the U.S. military is busy raping Iraq and its people, we are being raped by the energy industry here home. Rape,plunder and pillage are all these rightwing fascists are effient at.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:58 pm“I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow; I’d do that.”
George W. Bush, April, 2005
July 11th, 2006 at 1:01 pmProblem is # 3, the very same people who charge $5 are the ones who will attempt to,
July 11th, 2006 at 1:02 pmdominate and squash alternatives.
Ben Dover:
I like that slogan!
Kerry should use that in ‘o8
I can see him saying it in that awesome drone he has…
July 11th, 2006 at 1:02 pmAll I know is that I drive at least 20% less than I used to and many others I know do the same by consolidating trips and carpooling kids. From my point of view, demand is down, but the prices have not followed and most likely never will.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:08 pmWow! Inflation-adjusted numbers! What a concept!
July 11th, 2006 at 1:08 pmJoe Biden must be bummed today
July 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pmHigh gas prices aren’t going to cure anyones energy addiction. I dislike when people blanket it like that. It’s simply going to hurt the poor even more. You remember the poor….someone no politican in this country has talked about since Clinton.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#13 thats not true, al sharpton talks about them all the time!
July 11th, 2006 at 1:12 pmAnd dont forget, John Edwards knows a kid without a coat
July 11th, 2006 at 1:13 pm- Seixon:
We’re still waiting for your inflation-adjusted numbers in this thread, smart guy.
Here’s a tip….don’t make a flippant reference to another thread if you ran away from that thread like a little girl.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pmWow! Inflation-adjusted numbers! What a concept!
Is that supposed to mean something? Are you against adjusting for inflation?
Wow thats some concept.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:20 pmI’ll just hang around watching all you guys ignore all the factors for why the oil prices are so high. Predictably the only thing on your radar screens is Bush. China. Oil refineries. Increased global demand. None of it matters - it’s Bush all the way baby!
You guys are funny.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:20 pmGWB,
Check in over at the thread on the budget deficit. Then you’ll get it. ;)
July 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pmThis is a good thing. For the poor, no. But for the country as a whole: yes.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:23 pmI’d expect the oil companies to wring as much profit out us as they possibly can; with a serious chance of losing of the Whitehouse and parts of Congress in the future, they’ll want to “make hay while the sun shines.” (so to speak)
July 11th, 2006 at 1:24 pmHuh? The “liberals” having been pushing for alternative energy/fuel sources for decades! What we complain about is not so much the cause of high gas prices, but that we could have been weened off oil a very long time ago if we had actually put any effort or money into it. As opposed to, you know, a bogus made-up war.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmChimpy could have stopped $3 gallon gas prices last year with a price control order. This was done in 1981 when prices hit their all time level (about $90 a barrel in 2006 dollars and about $3.08 a gallon)
Who signed the price control order for gasoline? Ronald Reagan did. And gas went back down right away, with no shortage.
Chimpy wishes he could wave a magic wand…that’s because he’s a fairy.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:26 pmNobody has tried to explain this using the old worn out “supply and demand” economics theory yet? We got to get some new trolls.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:28 pmIn my utopian teenage mind, during the oil embargo of the 70’s, I dreamed, and wished for the end of oil, and automobiles! I conjured a world without cars, mostly empty roads, and people riding bicycles everywhere. Imagine, people confronting each other face-to-face on the daily commute, instead of hiding behind the wheel of their rolling “coffins”. Instead of trying to ‘out-Jones’ the Jones’s, we could become more communal, caring, and neighborly? I know, very foreign concepts to the “me-me” generation. Imagine being more concerned with society as a whole, rather than you 401k or rushing towards retirement…
July 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pmAnyone here have an wortless old piece of shit to sell? TMF and suxon are buying. stupid candyass sheep baabaaaaaaaaaaaa
July 11th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#7- “I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow; I’d do that.â€
George W. Bush, April, 2005
Wasn’t it George Wanker Bush who reminded us that he is friends with the Saudis and it would help influence oil prices? Should’ve guessed that he meant a rise, not a stabilization or fall, in prices.
Greed is a WingNut value. Investing nothing in alternative energies is a strong ReichWingNut value.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:31 pmInflation-adjusted gasoline prices are meaningless as long as American’s wages are not keeping up with inflation.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:31 pmIf gas stays at this level and higher, Bush has nowhere to go but back to the low 30s.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:31 pmWait, I’m new here, but let me try……ummmmmm, it’s Clinton’s fault, right Seixon?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:32 pmInflation-adjusted gasoline prices are meaningless as long as American’s wages are not keeping up with inflation.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pm#27
July 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmMy fingers are crossed…
Gas prices should be higher but it should be in the form of a transportation tax that would go to funding mass transit. We have a lot of catching up to do in America in this regard.
The truth is the market will bare $5.00 a gallon and we have to decide if we want that money going to mass transit or to energy company profits.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmSummer Gasoline to Reach $4/Gallon?…
Oil company executives: “Thanks, George and Dick!”…
July 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmsheep baaaaaaaaaa indeed goofy
Since 1993, A Majority Of Senate Democrats Have Voted For Higher Gas Taxes At Least 12 Times. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #183: Motion Rejected 40-59: R 40-15; D 0-44, 7/13/00; S. 2285, CQ Vote #80: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, 4/11/00; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #57: Adopted 65-35: R 21-34; D 44-1, 4/6/00;S. 1173, CQ Vote #26: Motion Rejected 18-80: R 16-37; D 2-43, 3/11/98; H.R. 2937, CQ Vote #112: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 53-0; D 1-43, 5/14/96; H.R. 2937, CQ Vote #111: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 52-1; D 0-43, 5/9/96; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93; S. 1134, CQ Vote #167: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 0-43; D 50-5, 6/24/93; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #60: Rejected 42-57: R 41-2; D 1-55, 3/24/93; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #59: Motion Agreed To 55-44: R 0-43; D 55-1, 3/24/93; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #40: Rejected 46-53: R 43-0; D 3-53, 3/18/93)
In 2005, 124 House Democrats And 19 Senate Democrats Voted Against The Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #445: Adopted 275-156: R 200-31; D 75-124; I 0-1, 7/28/05; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05)
The 2005 Energy Bill:
Encouraged Expansion Of Nuclear Energy. (White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 4/22/06)
Encouraged Greater Use Of Ethanol. (White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 4/22/06)
Reauthorized The Energy Savings Performance Contract Program, Which Allows Private Contractors To Help Federal Agencies Improve The Energy Efficiency Of Their Facilities. (White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 4/22/06)
Included The First-Ever Tax Credit For Residential Solar Energy System. (White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 4/22/06)
Provided Tax Credits For Energy Efficient Hybrid, Clean-Diesel, And Fuel-Cell Vehicles. (White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 4/22/06)
In 2004 And 2005, A Majority Of House Democrats Voted Against Refinery Expansion. (H.R. 3893, CQ Vote #519: Passed 212-210: R 212-13; D 0-196; I 0-1, 10/7/05; H.R. 4517, CQ Vote #246: Passed 239-192: R 206-20; D 33-171; I 0-1, 6/16/04)
Source http://www.whitehouse.gov
July 11th, 2006 at 1:35 pmI’ll be upgradin’ my big black ass.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:39 pmWhere is my chewin’ gum?
…..and the U.S.Oil Industry currently spends tens of millions to convince the public of these “Factors” for the price increases bwaahahahahahh .If these “factors” were real world, they would not need to convince anyone.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#18 yup GWB go check that budget thread. You’ll learn that Seixon lied there and then you’ll learn he’ll lied yesterday too. Its odd how he reserves the right to ‘misspeak’ for himself and Dick Cheney and yet exercises moral cowardice by refusing that latitude to others…
July 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pm# 32.TMF;
thanks for that pile of sh!t,i’ll look into it.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmDumbya promised the oil industry $70 a barrel before the 2000 elections. Mission accomplished $100? anyone?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:47 pmIt appears that Seixon is experiencing a full-blown meltdown today.
It reminds me of those episodes in which Jim Kirk uses logic to talk a rogue, defective computer into self-destruction (I can recall at least two episodes with this theme).
July 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pmPlease, each and every one of you has the ability to address this issue correctly and with incredible impact. Stop using so much fuel! Need a new car, buy a high mileage vehicle or hybrid. For you “brilliant” engineers out there, design an electric vehicle.
The technologies for you to end your addiction to oil, ALL oil, is already available. Why do you drive 8 mpg SUVs? Yes, you were suckered into buying them and I’m sorry about your misfortune. But do not continue to throw good money after bad!
Do I also need to explain how a radical adjustment to your attitude regarding the burning of fossil fuels would also positively affect the global warming issue?
The solution is in your hands. Do not let the oil (robber) barons fool you on this.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pmDont worry, the losers will still lose.
Thats what losers do!
July 11th, 2006 at 1:52 pm#32, It is the oil Industry itself which does not want increased refing capacity, and you still try to blame the Dems. think for yourself TMF( totally manipulated fool)
July 11th, 2006 at 1:55 pmSomehow I’m sure FOX news will find a way to claim that $3.00/gallon gas is a political winner for the Republicans.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#39 - EXCELLENT IDEA… if you have money. I may be buying my new high-gas-mileage vehicle sooner than I thought before (mine really isn’t too bad right now), but some people need a car (poor public transport, such as where I live in the Triangle are in NC) and earn low wages, so they need to buy a *cheap* car (let’s say $1000 used — ugly but functional). Even if said car has a nice relatively efficient 4 cylinder engine, rising gas prices STILL ultimately hurts the low income far more than the rest of us, because, yes, this car still runs on gas. There’s really no way around the issue. There has to be government intervention and subsidation in order to bring the alternative fuel market to the masses quicker.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:58 pmPeople should take mass transit yes BUT to really change our society it will take a large initiative by the government. Large increases in funding and making those system more accessable. Same with alternative energy. The corporate government we currently have is never going to invest in any technology that can’t instantly make them money. Big Oil is not going anywhere or changing their tune anytime soon. Market forces only have a small impact. In the end the government will be needed to make these changes, to help establish priorities and motivate companies to do the “right” thing. Raising gas prices to $5.00 a gallon doesn’t make any of this happen. Look at Iceland for example, the goverment has vowed to be oil free by 2050 and well on their way.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:58 pmthey already have said that $4.00/g is no problem Rich. I don’t know why they would change now.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:59 pm4 bucks a gallon should add more glory to some of the Big Oil execs jowls.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:02 pmlooks like i may need to get a cruiser, bike that is. or maybe a few more tennies with alot of rubber on the bottoms. is there a sale going on anywhere?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:09 pmI’ll just hang around watching all you guys ignore all the factors for why the oil prices are so high. Predictably the only thing on your radar screens is Bush. China. Oil refineries. Increased global demand. None of it matters - it’s Bush all the way baby!
Of course those issues you raise are genuine factors. However, Bush is the leader of the free world. Whatever happened to “The Buck Stops Here”? Sexion you exhibit the classic right wing american pathology, an utter inability to accept responsibility.
Tens of thousands of experts have been screaming at this administration for the last 6 years, and yet all they have done is derail previous efforts to reduce fuel consumption. Of course there are underlying causes for the disease, not one disputes that, but the president should be the cure. If he is not making it better, he’s the one whose ass should be kicked firmly and repeatedly.
Sheese, democracy 101 here.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:14 pmWait, I’m new here, but let me try……ummmmmm, it’s Clinton’s fault, right Seixon?
Comment by Pharm
You’re quick, Pharm. Amend your statement to “it’s Clinton’s fault, and everyone but Seixon is stupid,” and you’re right on the money. Welcome!
July 11th, 2006 at 2:15 pmLet the eagle and gas prices soar!
July 11th, 2006 at 2:22 pmTime to get a good bicycle.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:25 pmhttp://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058
http://www.sweden.gov.se/ sb/ d/ 6233/ nocache/ true/ a/ 61289
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 4694152.stm
Thats how to do it, responsible governance. Sweden, practically no poverty, and wall to wall health care and social welfare can do it. What in God’s name is wrong with the US?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:26 pm4 x 42 = 168 dollars per barrel of gasoline.
you must drive less. My Dad walked to work six days a week, drove the car on Sundays. That was about it back in 1955.
drive 1/7th as much as you do now. walk to your work. move to a place near your work. forget about your car.
you can do it. your life will change… for the better.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:29 pmAnother facet of oil proces ignored my Sexion, is that instablity in the middle east also contributes to a rise in oil prices. Fact US invades Iraq, oil prices rise. Fact US and Iran begin rattling sabres, oil prices rise. I sincerely doubt that even with increasesed demand in china and India, that without the Iraq war, oil prices would be over $70 a barrel. Maybe up to $40 or $50, but not $70.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:30 pm$4/gallon? maybe I ought to unretire and get back in the biz. Living month to month on a fixed $400,000,000+ income is tough.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#39-Parrotlover,
I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that subsidies will aid you in this situation. In an ideal world, a world without corruption in government, a world where the needs of the many outweigh the profit margins of the few, then a subsidy-based solution would work. But do we live in that world?
Do you really believe that your government is up to such a noble task? Do I need to remind you that oil executives run your country’s government? I know that this sounds a bit defeatist but unfortunately it is the brutal reality that you must face.
Only a grass roots movement will begin to make a difference and effect change. Back in the ’70s during that oil “crisis”, people began buying high mileage imports like hotcakes (and you will also remember that it drew much consternation from your “nationalistic†citizens). Have you heard of Honda? Or Toyota? Or Datsun (now Nissan)? All of those car companies roared into your market because they provided economical solutions to the consumer’s needs and they did it when all of the automotive market “experts” at the time were screaming for government subsidies as being the ONLY solution. Do not forget that lesson so easily.
But you are absolutely correct about one thing, and that is that your nation’s poor will be most adversely affected by the rising prices because of the economic stranglehold that they are under. It is then the responsibility of those who have the resources, maybe even yourself, to not turn a blind eye to them like your government is sure to do.
You are not painted into a corner. Please do not believe the propaganda.
May peace be with us all.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmhttp://www.gijoes.com/ product/ index.jsp?productId=2134895
I got me one of these ^^^ bad boys. It’s an electric powered mountain bike. Works pretty good, it’s fast and makes hills easy, only drawback is the bike is heavy. I’ve started riding it to work, but right now it’s 100 degrees where I live, so maybe in the fall I will ride more.
I also traded my old car in for a 2000 Saturn SL (At a cost of $3,500.) Not exactly a chick magnet, but it gets 37/mpg in the city and 40+ on the highway.
I’m spending less on gas and riding my bike a lot more often than in the past, but still… these high gas prices suck!! They burn up what used to be disposable income.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pmPharm,
Did I say it was Clinton’s fault? The oil prices are determined by many factors completely out of the president of the United States’ control. Only partisan dupes like you find here don’t know better.
Brian Coughlan,
Wait, it’s a right wing trait to not accept responsibility? What a bunch of bullshit. I’m not a rightwinger, but no one can argue that this is a trait specifically found on the right. In fact, the Left seems to exhibit the trait that they will blame anyone other than themselves for what happens. In other words, criminals aren’t at fault for their crimes, it is the fault of society for them being criminals. What do you think the ACLU has become lately? An apologist for terrorists and criminals by blaming everyone other than them for their crimes.
Why should anyone blame Bush, or Clinton, for things that are completely out of their control? Only partisan whackjobs do that, and we see quite a few of those here.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWait, it’s a right wing trait to not accept responsibility? What a bunch of bullshit. I’m not a rightwinger, but no one can argue that this is a trait specifically found on the right. In fact, the Left seems to exhibit the trait that they will blame anyone other than themselves for what happens.
No, it fits perfectly the current situation. It’s obvious to an objective observer that this administration, with all the levers of power has presided over a lengthy list of disaster. Yet somehow, the powerless “left” is to blame. Your reaction simply serves to reinforce the point.
Why should anyone blame Bush, or Clinton, for things that are completely out of their control? Only partisan whackjobs do that, and we see quite a few of those here.
That is a reasonable point. However we are not discussing something that is “out of the presidents control” the problems you are now seeing have all been predicted well in advance. The solutions re also obvious. Simple things like
“Don’t invade countries” or “tax gas, support renewables”. This is not rocket science. It is in fact the “partisan whackjobs” that have refused to accept reality that have brought you to this pass, and the same “partisan whackjobs” that continue to facilitate this government.
By they way, when are you popping over …..
July 11th, 2006 at 2:51 pmSo if Regular is going to hit $4, does that mean that Premium is going to be $5?
*kicks self for buying high performance Japanese car*
July 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pmwasabichimera,
July 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pmGreat for Iceland, a tiny, tincey Constitutional Republic (less than 300k pop.) which relies heavily on the fishing industry. Instead we have control over our policies by the Industrial Military Complex Government. The Iceland Government’s type of enforced reform will NEVER happen in our “Free Market Economy” which we hold so, so dear.
Sweet, attacked after only one post
Why should anyone blame Bush, or Clinton, for things that are completely out of their control? Only partisan whackjobs do that, and we see quite a few of those here.
Comment by Seixon — July 11, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
You mean like those who blame Clinton for a) 9/11
July 11th, 2006 at 2:55 pmb) the current state of the economy and unemployment
c) the North Korea missle fiasco
d) Immigration
Yes Seixon, there seems to be partisan whackjobs, and quite a few of them!
What in God’s name is wrong with the US?
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 11, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
Jesus. Ot rather his pop says that it’s okay to be reckless, ’cause it’s why he put the earth here for us to use and abuse at will.
Sweden is also low on religion, high on equality for women, and has very little crime. One of the safest places to live. I’m guess it’s because non-religious people are less likely to commit crimes…
July 11th, 2006 at 2:56 pmI don’t hold it so dear!
July 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pmIdiot America has had over 40 years to prepare for this and has done nothing. Congradulations sheeple on believing all of the corporate BS on the never ending oil reserves. What are those troops doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. It certainly has nothing to do with freedom. The bases in Afghanistan are all along the UNOCAL pipeline and protected by tanks. Iraq was a pure lie to get control of oil. The sheeple will go along with attacking Iran and Syria on the next corporate sponsered terrorist attack on home soil.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#63 Well when 40%+ of the population of the US believes that the Rapture is coming in the next couple decades, this type of reckless behavoir is accepted.
Deficits? Jesus will save.
Fossil Fuel shortage - see above
Global Warming - see above
and on and on and on.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#37 - Take the bullshit elsewhere. Really.
#44 - Christ, I hope Iceland can do that. There are less than 300,000 people on the whole island. How much energy usage can that be.
#52 - Please move to Sweden. Before you pack though, be aware, the “offical” jobless rate is around 8% (while the “real” unemployment rate is closer to 20%) and the top marginal tax rate is 57%.
et al - It’s not the government… it’s the futures market. Oil is a traded commodity… why is this sooooo damn difficult.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:20 pmet al - It’s not the government… it’s the futures market. Oil is a traded commodity… why is this sooooo damn difficult.
Comment by Chase — July 11, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Nonsense. Gasoline costs 67 cents in Iraq. It’s the Greedy Capitalists who Bush allows to abuse the system.
Instead of spending $300 billion on the occupation of Iraq we could have developed alternatives by now. That IS only the government. The one you support.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#52 - Please move to Sweden. Before you pack though, be aware, the “offical†jobless rate is around 8% (while the “real†unemployment rate is closer to 20%) and the top marginal tax rate is 57%.
Chase makes a good point here, this is the socialist paradise that some people on here want the US to aspire to. The same goes for France and much of Europe.
Aside from universal healthcare(which I think we need), what is so great about the European economic model?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#69 Well considering:
“The median per capita household income during the year 2003 was found to be 366,000 Dinars (around 255 US$).”
Source: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/income.htm
That is a big factor in consumer prices.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pmBrian,
No, it fits perfectly the current situation. It’s obvious to an objective observer that this administration, with all the levers of power has presided over a lengthy list of disaster. Yet somehow, the powerless “left†is to blame. Your reaction simply serves to reinforce the point.
What? Your strawmen are tiring. I never claimed the left was to blame for all the things you listed. Try and stick to things I’ve actually argued or said, mk?
Pharm,
You mean like those who blame Clinton for a) 9/11
b) the current state of the economy and unemployment
c) the North Korea missle fiasco
d) Immigration
Yes Seixon, there seems to be partisan whackjobs, and quite a few of them!
a) Clinton had a lot more control over 9/11 happening than the oil market
b) the economy is largely out of the president’s control
c) Clinton had a lot of control over how this turned out
d) again, a president has a lot of influence here
Comparing apples and oranges does you no good. The US president doesn’t have the same amount of influence in the oil market as he does with foreign policy and homeland security.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:33 pm#57 - Humanist
You do bring up a good point.
Perhaps it is my idealistic thinking at work here, but I don’t see subsidies going to Exxon or large corporations, personally. And I also believe that government CAN work with a minimal corruption (no corruption in an organization as large as the US government may be impossible, but low enough corrupt where we can deal with isolated incidents and strive again towards a government the rest of the world is jealous of would make me happy). I believe government regulation and management can work and work well for certain situations. (Just not lately.)
Anyway, I see the money going to whatever business is developing, researching, and otherwise fostering alternative fuel technologies. The better the technology, the cheaper the alternatives will become.
I see subsidies going to the gas station owners (which, remember, is not Exxon, but a local business owner beholden to the will of large oil companies and who hurt during oil price increases since they have to make their margins slim to be competitive) to add E85 pumps, Bio-Diesel pumps, hydrogen pumps, and so on. I see tax breaks (more than now) going to citizens who buy alternative fuel vehicles…
And so on. However, to your post I say “point taken,” Humanist. It brought a smile to my face to see somebody politely disagree and not spout mass propoganda and actually make a good point disagreeing with me! PROPS to you. Discourse like this is how the problem can and will be solved.
Is there a trade-in offer anywhere for some used ThinkProgress trolls?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:35 pmonthefence,
Aside from universal healthcare(which I think we need), what is so great about the European economic model?
Come to Norway instead, the unemployment rate is lower, and the tax rates are lower than in Sweden (I think?). Of course, that might have to do with the insane amount of the workforce involved with the oil business… which Sweden doesn’t have…
July 11th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#70 - Nonsense my ass.
Countries with nationally owned oil companies typically subsidize their gasoline. Venezuela is the perfect example - in March 05, when gas was $2.20 a gallon, Venezuelan gas was $0.12
Look at Iran - they are a major oil producer yet they are experiencing vast gas shortages. Drilling your own oil doesn’t automatically mean cheap gas, or in some cases, gas at all.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:49 pmthat sounds like an argument to not drill in the ANWR, and off of Florida and California Chase.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#77 - Well, you gotta get the oil from somewhere, my friend.
What this definitely is an argument for is expanding our refining capacity. That is the current bottleneck in the process.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:58 pmSo you guys want Gas to be cheaper? Simple:
1) Drill where there is Oil. Good American places to start are Anwar, the Florida Coast (we should hurry as China just signed a deal with Cuba to start drilling it anyways, we should get some before China gets it all anyways), and of course the California Coast.
2) Reduce demand by driving better vechiles, walk more, etc.
3) Get some investment income together and start a new energy company that researches and produces a fuel that is equal in power, usefulness, and is equal or cheaper then Gas.
4) Tell you local farmers to not produce as many crops. They currently use tons of Fertilizers, Herbisides, and Pesticides that are all Oil based products. So simply tell them to not use any of those products. It will lead to smaller crops, less profits for them, and potentially even more global hunger. Who cares! We will pay less at the pump!!!
BAM! Problem solved!
Of course I would have figured you guys/gals would want gas prices sky high because Oil is the Devil!
July 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pmWhat? Your strawmen are tiring. I never claimed the left was to blame for all the things you listed. Try and stick to things I’ve actually argued or said, mk?
Oh come now, don’t be coy. We’ve spent hours discussing a number of topics. You are a disingenous rightwinger there is absolutley no doubt about that. I at least have my cards on the table, are you ashamed of your affiliations?
I don’t blame you for a second:-)
July 11th, 2006 at 4:06 pmAside from universal healthcare(which I think we need), what is so great about the European economic model?
How much is an extra 3 years of life worth to you?
Lower crime rates.
Vastly lower murder rates.
Only 1/6th of the per capita US prison population.
In Sweden and Norway practically no poverty to speak of, the rest of the EU is not so good, but streets ahead of the third world US.
The world doesn’t hate us?
No right to bear arms?
No massive military industrial complex.
CEO salaries are not hundreds of times more than the average wage.
Bush is not in charge?
The list is long …..
July 11th, 2006 at 4:12 pm#76-Chase,
I have not come across any information about Iran experiencing an oil/gas shortage. Do you have factual proof (please do not reference “Focus on Family” website) from a reputable source for such a claim?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:13 pmNonsense my ass.
That’s standard for you.
Countries with nationally owned oil companies typically subsidize their gasoline. Venezuela is the perfect example - in March 05, when gas was $2.20 a gallon, Venezuelan gas was $0.12
Again, instead of spending $300 billion on Iraq we could have FIXED this problem by now.
Look at Iran - they are a major oil producer yet they are experiencing vast gas shortages. Drilling your own oil doesn’t automatically mean cheap gas, or in some cases, gas at all.
Comment by Chase — July 11, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
What? Prove that. And secondly, stop getting off the subject of $300 billion dollars to Iraq instead of alternatie fuel sources…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:22 pm#80-Gary,
Your solution of “more drilling” is as disingenuous as it is moronic logic. And to then attempt to turn the discussion to an argument about “who wants to hurt our poor farmers” is so asinine that it would be hilarious.
Use less oil and fossil fuels, that’s the only solution. Alternative fuels are in abundance. Solar power, which nobody seems to want to talk about because it cannot be hoarded or taxed, is in such abundance that it is immeasurable. And before you apply your form of logic and say that “but what happens if the sun goes away?”, I will save some time and tell you that you would be frozen dead and it wouldn’t matter anyway.
My friends, be extremely wary of those who tell you that there are no viable alternatives. Look up, there is your alternative. And do not believe the hydrogen solution. Such is only an attempt to produce a fuel source that would be easily hoarded and manipulated. Look up!
July 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pmHUmanist,
I fully agree that we need someone or some group in the private sector to step up with an alternative fuel. Sadly, we won’t have it over night, which is why we need to drill as much Oil as possible while also reducing demand for it. Both would be the fastest ways to cheaper gas. ANWAR alone would give the world market an extra 2-3 million barrels of Oil per day. That type of increase in the world is actually a really big deal. On top of that, people need to buy more efficeint cars. The free market already gives us consumers the chioce to buy a gas guzzler or a Hybred.
Back to drilling. This is really the only big thing the Fed’s can control as they simply need to let the Oil companies into these places by voting on it. The rest of the solutions rely mostly on the free market. These solutions will over time come true, but you won’t see any big movement for at least 20-30 years. Whether I like it or not, all the Oil in the world that is available to be drilled will be drilled as that is human nature (for better or worse). The Oil field on the Florida coast is a great example. Out congrss has voted to not allow US oil companies to drill it for years and years. Now we see China paying Cuba to drill that very oil field. So, we now have China (which is much more unregulated then the US) drilling our Oil field. I know I would want the US drilling in those waters over China. Either way it proves my point, ALL OIL WILL BE DRILLED in the long run.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#87,
Your delusions of grandeur are exceeded only by your monumental lack of cognitive ability.
Now, back to the subject at hand, energy. Are there any scientists or electrical engineers on this thread who can speak to the viability of renewable sources of fuel such as solar systems?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#88-Gary,
You do not solve a crack addiction by finding more sources for crack. You cannot even say “solar” can you. Are you under some sort of contractual obligation in that regard?
Your insistence that the ONLY solution is to drill for more oil suggests that you work for an oil company. No other sane individual would make such a claim unless greed was their only motivation.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pmGood article here : http://www.treehugger.com/ files/ 2006/ 04/ holographic_sol_1.php
holographic solar panels cutting costs by 75% and eliminating the need for bulky lenses etc.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:44 pmHumanist,
I can tell your angry for some reason, but I fail to see why. I fully agree that we need alternative energy sources. I am merely pointing out that they are not here today. Saying “solar” doesn’t really mean much as that is not an alternative to gas. The free market would never accept it as it is not equally as powerful or as useable as gas for vechiles. As far as energy for a house, solar can work fine but I haven’t seen the solar energy sector booming yet either. So, all I am trying to say is that we need to figure out how to get our gas price down today as we look for the free market to find an economic solution for an alternative fuel for tommorrow.
Rest assured, the day they find a cheaper, equally powerful, equally useable fuel that is equal or less expensive then gas, we will ALL change over. Today simply isn’t that day I’m afraid.
Today, we do have solutions to reducing the price of Gas and they are all on American property.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:49 pm#92-Sexion,
July 11th, 2006 at 4:51 pmNow that is a serious allegation, and I truly believe, from what I have witnessed on this site, that such actions would be condemned by those who post here and the site owner. I recommend that you report such immediately.
Oh,
Solar energy isn’t “free” either. We still need to buy solar panels from the free market just like we have to buy gas from the market. Either way, there are obvious market reasons solar isn’t the “standard”.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:52 pm#83 - Here’s the evidence you requested.
#84 - We could have fixed exactly what with the $300 bil? Do you mean we could subsidize retail gasoline?
And as far as proving it - I gave some illustrative examples. Here’s more, from CNN/Money:
July 11th, 2006 at 4:52 pmNow that is a serious allegation, and I truly believe, from what I have witnessed on this site, that such actions would be condemned by those who post here and the site owner. I recommend that you report such immediately.
Comment by Humanist — July 11, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I definetly agree. If someone found your parents information, and was harrassing them, they need to be reported. That is not “fun and games!” ….and from this democrat, I condemn it
July 11th, 2006 at 4:57 pmSomeone at Think Progress thought I was important enough to go calling my family to dig up information. Obviously my “delusions†aren’t anything other than factual. –Seixon
TP called you in Norway?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:57 pmOH YES!!!
I completely forgot, we need to push for the Fed’s and the State Government’s to reduce Fuel taxes as that actually could reduce the price of Gas overnight!
July 11th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#93-Gary,
You do not speak the truth. Electric vehicles have already been produced that match and exceed the horsepower of combustion engine powered vehicles. Now that is a fact.
As far as solar not being viable, I know of a COUNTY in Northern California that receives its electricity from a solar farm. Hmmm, wonder how that can be.
Finally, I can see your “expertise” on this subject by your assertion that solar cannot be a solution because you don’t think that you would be able to insert a solar panel into your gas tank. Now, you’ll have to excuse me as I finish falling out of my chair laughing.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm#96-Chase,
I’m sorry that I was not clear. I asked for a R-E-P-U-T-A-B-L-E source. I look forward to your considered response.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#100
This may in fact be true. There is a huge difference between merely producing a vehicle and having a vehicle available for mass production.
Nevertheless, I’m sure one day electric production vehicles will be as powerful as internal combustion engine vehicles are today. We are a number of years away from that point.
As a sidebar, off the top of your head, do you have a link to the powerful electric car? I’d like to see it.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#101 - There was nothing wrong with my source. At all.
But to make you happy, how does Reuters work for ya?
http://today.reuters.com/ News/ newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-06-23T104819Z_01_ENG000067_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-IRAN.xml
July 11th, 2006 at 5:14 pmThese same analysts also claimed gas would reach $7 a gallon last year. If an alarmist claims it’ll reach $4 this summer, logic suggests we’ll actually be just fine. I wouldn’t worry.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:19 pmYou are saying that we have 100% solar powered cars that are equal in power and usability to gas cars at the same price? You need to show me proof as I am calling BS on that one.
I have never seen a 100% solar car that can run 24 hours a day with the same power a gas car can. Can these magical solar cars drive for 5 or more days straight without stopping for more then a restroom break? Can these cars pull a full size truck trailor throughout the night across the entire country going 65 mph? Can these 100% solar cars pull your boat starting at 1 am for 5+ hours to get you to the lake? Do these 100% solar cars have the ability to hit 60mph from 0 in under 6 seconds 60+ times in a row at 2am? Can these 100% solar cars run the AC on high throughout an entire night even if they were parked inside all day?
If these 100% solar cars cannot do all that, they are not equal in the eyes of the free market (which you are part of), hence they aren’t a viable alternative afterall.
We need an alternative fuel that is equally powerful, USEABLE, and is equally as cheap as gas. They day we have that is the day the market will indeed start to switch.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:21 pm#84 - We could have fixed exactly what with the $300 bil? Do you mean we could subsidize retail gasoline?
Comment by Chase — July 11, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Are the words ‘alternative fuel sources’ invisible to you? Because I’ve written those words as the fix to the current problem 3 times now, and yet you keep ignoring them and building strawmen to attack instead…
$300 billion would have gotten us an alternative fuel source or three by now instead of higher gas prices (was $1 before the Iraq invation, by the way), and a catastrophic crisis on teh horizon.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:24 pmGary would call BS on the fact that lettuce is an alternative source of human fuel to greasy hamburgers…
July 11th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#102-Chase,
There are too many to list. A search utilizing the “google” search engine returned 4,010,000 hits. I strongly recommend that you do some research. You will be amazed at what is already out there.
And, I’m sorry, but who drives your “markets” the consumers or the producers? Keep in mind that if you say the “producers”, then you have just acknowledged that you are a slave. What think ye?
July 11th, 2006 at 5:26 pmChase,
That article says that Iran has a shortage of refineries, so they are partly dependent on foreign oil. NOT what you said.
Don’t turn into Seixon. One of him is already enough.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:28 pmThe electric car that beat the Ferrari Enzo…
http://money.cnn.com/ 2006/ 05/ 04/ technology/ business2_wrightspeed/ index.htm
Other companies are building low end high range cars.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:31 pmNevertheless, I’m sure one day electric production vehicles will be as powerful as internal combustion engine vehicles are today. We are a number of years away from that point.
Comment by Chase — July 11, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
GM has two that are ready for production. They let CNN’s John King be the first non-GM employee to test drive one. They are as powerful as gas engine cars. The problem is getting hydrogen refueling stations accessible, and of course, because the technology is new, the price of the car is comparable to the Lamborghini.
They expect to be able to mass produce them in about 10 years. Had they had the $300 billion that we’ve spent in Iraq, just think how that could have been aided to get it to the marketplace faster and for less…
July 11th, 2006 at 5:33 pm#107 -
Alternative fuel sources! Got it!
So you would have spent the $300 bil exclusively on alternative fuel research? Who would you have given it to? Who would administer such a huge grant program?
I’m surprised how sure you are that throwing a specific lump of cash at an issue would surely lead to solutions (you even go as far as to say “three”). Has it occurred to you that the technology doesn’t yet exist?
People are investing in alternative fuel. Scientists are conducting the research necessary to bring it to market. If you want to do more, invest some of your money in alternative fuels.
And actually, the US city average for unleaded gas on 3/15/2003 was $1.924 per gallon. Much less than today, but almost twice as much as you pretend it was.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:34 pmhow that could have aided getting it to the
July 11th, 2006 at 5:35 pmChase,
Put it in reverse and go all the way back to your first sentance. Then stop there.
Everything afterward was more strawmen…
I never said give it to one source. I was posing a hypothetical to make a point that IF you were going to spend $300 billion on something that the occupation of Iraq was a horrible first and only choice. And that the alternatives to that war were things like freedom and knowledge - the two things that seem to keep eluding the neocons at the helm.
Besides, if given the choice, I would rather give a lump sum of $300 billion to subsidize the set up of hydrogen fueling stations and the purchase of hydrogen/electric cars than to an ileegal and invalid war…
July 11th, 2006 at 5:40 pmHumanist,
Now that is a serious allegation, and I truly believe, from what I have witnessed on this site, that such actions would be condemned by those who post here and the site owner. I recommend that you report such immediately.
Ah, but you’d be so wrong. There has been virtually no one here at Think Progress who have had the least bit of concern for what happened. In fact, half a dozen people here took part in dilvulging personal details about me here. After that, Judd excused their behavior and denied my request to have the personal information removed.
Pharm,
Thanks, but I’m not sure there is anything I can really report. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t really think there’s anything I can do about it legally.
kelso rich,
No, someone called my folks in the USA because they were too chickenshit to call me.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:40 pmKermit,
That car is not even close to a Gas car. It has a 100 mile range which the market will NEVER accept. It also takes a whopping 4.5 hours to recharge it. Again, the market will never accept that car.
If you want an all solar or all electric car at least start by meeting the following:
1) Be able to drive at least 250 miles through city like traffic (stopping and going)
2) Once the car is low on energy, by able to recharge it with the same amount of time it takes the normal gas powered car to refuel.
3) Be equally as powerful as it’s gas counterpart. Most of us that aren’t big city folks like to camp, fish ect. We would never buy a car that can’t drive for 8-10+ hours pulling a camper and/or a boat.
Anyways, if you could meet all that, you got something!
July 11th, 2006 at 5:42 pmunbelievable,
And that the alternatives to that war were things like freedom and knowledge - the two things that seem to keep eluding the neocons at the helm.
Freedom and knowledge for who? Certainly not the Iraqis.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#106-Gary,
First off, I have said nothing about “solar” cars. I have talked about ELECTRIC cars. Solar cells are able to convert the light from the sun into electricity through a photovoltaic process. Electric vehicles, or EVs, utilize motors that are powered by electricity to generate their propulsion (makes them go). The source of electricity for EVs is usually a system of batteries. Now, with that explanation I believe that you can see where these two technologies can work in synergy to solve some of the current problems.
Oh, and that whole “night” thing that seems to be a major stumbling block for you in regard to solar systems, I have two thoughts for you to ponder. 1) A solar generation system can charge batteries during the day that then use the batteries to dispense power in the hours of non-sunlight. 2) The sun is shining on half (50%) of the planet at each and every moment.
Sir, expand your mind. You’ll see that there is a whole universe of wondrous things out there that exist regardless of whether or not you have thought about them.
May peace be with us all.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:43 pm#110 - They have a shortage on GASOLINE not oil. Big difference. Their shortage is so dramatic they are now rationing gas.
And read the non-Reuters article above as well. It’s much more detailed.
#111 - Cool car indeed.
It costs $1.25 million dollars. Not exactly accessible.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:43 pmGary,
That car is not even close to a Gas car. It has a 100 mile range which the market will NEVER accept. It also takes a whopping 4.5 hours to recharge it. Again, the market will never accept that car.
100 mile range is plenty for most people. Most people commute back and forth from work, or to go do errands. I worked as a courier in high school, and I didn’t ever rack up 100 miles in a single day. 4.5 hours is nothing when your car will mostly be parked for most of the day anyways. The only problem with that type of car would be that it is not good for road trips or those who have to travel far - which doesn’t include that many people.
In other words, I don’t see why the market wouldn’t accept a car like that since that would meet the needs of most people who need/use a car.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:49 pm#120 The Bugghatti costs $1.25 million. The electric Wrightspeed is about $100,000. That’s less than a gas powered equivalent.
#117 It’s a fun car, not a daily driver. It’s open top! This is a car for weekend joy rides. Other companies are working on long range commute cars, google plug-in hybrids.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:51 pmThe market in Los Angeles wouldn’t accept a 100 mile range on a car. A lot of people in this city drive 30 or 40 miles or more one way. The between urban sprawl, and housing prices, living close to where you work can be difficult at best. The 100 mile range would work in a medium size city.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:52 pm#122 - Yeah, I just saw that. Poor reading on my part.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:55 pmSeixon,
“road trips” include all of us I would guess. At least up here in Minnesota, I know of no one that would buy a car that could only go 100 miles and then need a recharge time of 4+ hours.
I guess you could argue that a car like that could be your everyday car for work and we could all own a gas powered SUV for camping, boating, and extended road trips (that most people I know do almost every single weekend in the summer and at least once a month in the Fall and winter). The problem still comes down to cost as owning 2 vechiles regardless of price is still much more expensive then owning 1.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:56 pmEspecially when you have to factor in licensing and insurance.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmWhy not $4 dollars a gallon. Make it $10 a gallon.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:03 pmGary,
Very many families in the US already own two or more vehicles, so I don’t quite see the problem in making all but one of them an electric car of the type being described. The whole idea behind such a car is to use it precisely as a daily driver, one that you take to work, to school, to the mall, not for road trips.
If Americans used electric cars for their daily driving, and SUVs for road trips, I think we could cut down on a lot of pollution that way.
Well, except for the problem of where we’re going to get all the electricity from… Nuclear power?
July 11th, 2006 at 6:07 pmThey have a shortage on GASOLINE not oil. Big difference. Their shortage is so dramatic they are now rationing gas.
Hence the issue of refineries… But that’s still not what you said.
And read the non-Reuters article above as well. It’s much more detailed.
Okay.
#111 - Cool car indeed.
It costs $1.25 million dollars. Not exactly accessible.
Comment by Chase — July 11, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
The ones by GM are much less. Still pricey, but only thousands instead of millions.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:11 pmWhich brings up the other problem with electrical cars. Where does the power come from? Some places have Hydroelectric, Nuclear, cole, wind, etc. You still have to produce the power some where. I don’t think that electrical is the way to go. Bio-desiels or ethanol may be a superior choice. Especially if the per gallon price was reduced. Who cares if it is not as effeiceint, if it’s a buck a gallon?
July 11th, 2006 at 6:11 pmKrazny,
Indeed. Norway has largely hydroelectric power but this is heavily dependent on the rainfall of course. I think a good solution would be to have nuclear power plants out in the middle of nowhere. Or something. Wind power is just not good enough, too much space wasted for so little energy. Of course, you have technology using the tide to generate energy, but I guess that would harm wildlife in the ocean…
Thinking that electric cars are the solution is like trying to break into your own house through a window in the basement, only to realize that the door on the inside is still locked.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:29 pmFor tide generators, I would wonder how effecient they truly would be? Creation of electrical current is based upon moving copper wires around a magnetic core. If the generator had to stop and swing the other way every few seconds, I don’t see that as being effecient.
Nuclear power has its own downside as well. Paticularly in disposal of waste. I know it is hyper effecient. but even out in the middle of nowhere and accident could have catastrophic effects. Didn’t the clouds form Chernoybl go all over the place?
July 11th, 2006 at 6:35 pmHmmm yes but Chernobyl was a particularly bad accident, wasn’t it? Three Mile Island wasn’t as bad was it? I thought there was some serious discussion on tide generators, but I think the main obstacle was wild life. As for nuclear waste… hmmm.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:41 pmNot sure how a tide generator works. I supose I could look into it. As for wildlife, Hydroelectric dams could prove useful in how to avoid damage. They have to deal with some of the same problems a tide generator would. I recently moved from Washington State. They have lots of hydrodams. they have been dealing with how to produce power, and protect wildlife for some time.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:45 pmOkay here is a decent report on experimental tide generators. The two major problems they list are:
1.) floating sea life ( i.e. Jelllyfish)
July 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pm2.) surviving in the saltwater enviroment.
http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/news/2005/tidal.htm
sorry didn’t post link
July 11th, 2006 at 6:51 pmChernobyl was about the worst that cold happen. I don’t know about 3-mile, I think it was close, but resulted in the blow off of a relatively small amount of radioactive steam. A near miss.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:56 pmpretty good info on the 3-mile island disaster
http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/ amex/ three/ sfeature/ index.html
July 11th, 2006 at 7:01 pmAnd chernobyl
http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/
July 11th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThe question of whether you want an SUV to take long trips or haul your boat will become moot as gas prices continue to rise. The only real question is do we all drive SUVs for the next 20 years, or do we drive economy cars for the next 100 years?
Unfortunately, that question has already been answered.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:35 pmGas prices would need to rise pretty high before people completely stop using a Boat or a Camper IMO. Even if gas got to $5 a gallon, we are still only paying an extra $15-$25 per tank of gas. It will hurt a little, but I wouldn’t stop having fun with my family on a lake because of $15!
Hell, college kids spend more then that on there nightly bar tap. I only want to spend that much 1 time per week.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:51 pmGas prices will be around $2 in early October and I will be elected back to the House.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:41 pmExxon profits are climbing higher every quarter,,,How about this!!! Buy your fuel from someone other than Exxon and lets watch their profits fall!!! when the big dog drops his price to attract more business, then the others will follow!!
Jay Priest ? Pine Bluff, AR
July 17th, 2006 at 10:42 amHome Owner Insurance Company Rating.html
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:18 amEric
I found you while searching google today. You’ll be happy toknowyour site was at the top of the results. Anyway. I added you to my Digg bookmarks. Good stuff!
March 19th, 2008 at 9:11 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 4:42 amCheap Baby Shoes
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus - I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox - Just for your Info.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:36 amReatha
I have seen many sites before and most of them do not look this good. I cannot wait to let my friends know about this site. Thanks for the excellent content.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:17 amHealth Insurance Gulf Breeze Insurance Flood Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pmWill Gas Prices Reduce
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 amflorida boating accident lawyer
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful: Excellent source for lawyers wannabe. It presents the reality in the life of the lawyer within himself, family, work and society. It also presents the truth that lawyers are afraid to say when working …
April 6th, 2008 at 1:17 ampet dog tags
I don?t agree with you in 100%, but you covered some good points regarding this topic?
April 6th, 2008 at 11:42 amInsurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pmbuying a classic car
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:13 amJack
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 2:25 am