Price of Gas too high - What do you do?

Published on December 27, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

That is an interesting question. When the price of gas was too high, what did you do?

Many bitched and moaned and accused the greedy oil companies of price gouging. Indeed, Congress wants (another) committee to look into it. And some of the moaners were actually Republicans. But alas, most were Green Friendly democrats. So question number one is: Why?

When the price went through the ceiling, I cut back. Many did, some could not. But consumption did fall. Which means that less bad gasses were getting into the atmosphere, and hence global warming was delayed by a day or two. So what was the problem there? For all the green friendly people, what is so bad about high energy prices? Don't you even listen to your constituency? Earth friendly, ELF, The Sierra Club, all want that, why don't you? If you goal is to reduce the green house gasses, jack up the price! Hell, those quick trips to the market will disappear as will many long vacation drives.

OK, so you are not a green. But you are all for the poor and do not want them to suffer. So prices have to stay low. Now question number 2: How do you ensure low prices?

Answer: Increase supply! The more available gas, then the producers cannot demand a price, they have to bid for your patronage! And how do you increase the supply? Drill for more! So why are the liberals who pretend they want to help the poor, not for drilling in ANWR? While that may not reduce the price of oil to 50 cents a gallon, it will do a couple of things. First, it will moderate the price rise (that is called a cut in Washington-ease - just ask Gideon on his Food Stamp article). Second, it will increase the supply, which will lead to actual reductions in price. The poor will be helped! A perfect solution to one of the poor's problems. Actually many since oil is the basis for many of life's taken for granted pleasures!

So why are the "For the Poor" liberals not in favor of increasing the supply?

So here we have a nice little quiz. I would love to hear how we can stop global warming, decrease the price of oil, help the poor, save the environment, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil so we don't have to have another war for oil.

But wait! We have one more question. OK, substitutes. How many are for replacing oil as an energy source? OK, how many have voted against new Nuclear power plants. Since the first one built, only one has had a significant accident, and that was in the old USSR. They are environmentally friendly, so there is no green house gasses. But, there is that pesky spent uranium! Yea, that is a mess, right?

OK, so their is solar power and wind power and water power! But wait! Strike water power. That stops fish from fulfilling their manifest destiny. So how about solar and Wind power? Oh, drat! There are those ugly windmills and solar panels! As we heard from Bobby Jr, better to burn oil, than to despoil a view of a beach! And those solar panels? Well, on a large scale they have not been commercially feasible yet. But they are on an individual basis!

So the next question is - How many of the Greens now use solar or wind energy solely? What? only a handful? Why how could they be dangerous? Is that not the be all and end all of their positions? What? They still burn fossil fuels? (a misnomer BTW).

OK, Final Question: Who is bitching about no energy policy? And how does their voting record stand with the above issues and questions?

And you still vote for them on this issue?

Sorry, one more question. If you are a green, why are you not producing alternate sources of energy to oil? Are you so lazy as to let someone else get rich off your ideas, and then blast them for getting rich because they are more ambitious than you?

Comments (Page 3)

Dr Guy

on Dec 27, 2005

That would go a long way to providing the needed money for energy and many other things like moving toward a balanced budget.

Balanced Budget! AHA! So not an energy policy, just another liberal tax plan! Nice try. I was asking for an energy plan.

sushiK

on Dec 28, 2005

You are right and wrong (and perhaps that is my fault). YOu are right in your answer, but not in the context of that answer. MY question was meant to be "How do you help the poor", and the answer was as above. You decrease cost to them.YOu are right in your response, but then the poor do not have the flexibility to do that, now do they?

Damn it I got confusedigated when reading the art and missed the main point.
Please disregard my previous statement and I will fall back to my 5 bucks a gallon call.

Also, please understand I hate Bush.
I take no stance in any party.
I hate Bush simply for what he stands for and his actions taken while in office. (And he's dumb as a fucking mule to boot)

COL Gene

on Dec 28, 2005

I gave you an energy plan. You said how to pay for it. Simply drilling in Alaska will not come CLOSE to solving the problem which is to bring our consumption into balance with supplies of energy controlled by the United States.

That will require more effective use of existing supplies and the most important element in that regard is higher gas mileage which Bush has refused to consider. We also need new sources of energy and new types of cars. That is where tax incentives can help. The Bush plan of just giving $12 Billion to the mature oil companies to drill for more oil is not the answer. The profits of the oil companies are more the enough to fund drilling which they must do in order to sell more gasoline to the consumer. The Bush policy has not worked. We are MORE dependent of foreign oil then ever!

sushiK

on Dec 28, 2005

Well another idea would be to dramatically improve the public transportation system here in the states around big cities. Maybe I am spoiled by spending 8 years in japan but our public transit system sucks here. Help the poor by getting them to their jobs cheaply, maybe even so cheaply they need no car saving the loan money and insurance.

Drilling only delays the problem

DJBandit

on Dec 28, 2005

Much of the added cost to drive our cars and heat our homes goes either to the FAT oil companies or to foreign countries for the oil.

You make it sound like this only started after Bush became President. News flash buddy, this has been going on for a long time. Way before Bush became President.

DJBandit

on Dec 28, 2005

Drilling only delays the problem

I agree. We don't need more oil. We need more education, more sense (specially Col). What we need is to learn to not be so dependent in our own vehicles. Why is it that we can't just walk once in a while to work if it is not so far? Why can't we catch a bus, trolly, train or bicycle to work? Why can't we wake up one hour early to avoid the traffic that makes you waste so much gas when stading in the same spot for more than 10 minutes?

This is mostly our fault, oil companies, car part stores, etc just take advantage of it to make money. And I don't know anyone, who being in a position of profiting from it wouldn't try to make a profit.

The day we become less dependent of our Govt, our cars (for short trips or work), our electricity, we will be able to better ourselves. Well maybe not electricity so much, more like the exagerated equipment some people have that waste too much electricity just to hear a song or 2. You get my point.

COL Gene

on Dec 28, 2005

DJBandit

I acknowledged in earlier Blogs and in my book that the Energy dependence goes back to the 1970's and before. The issue for me is that here we have a President and VP that were in the oil business and they have undone some of the progress like Cafe Standards. The Bush/Cheney team with their experience should have been MORE able to help us move toward energy independence. The exact opposite has occurred. All we have done is give MORE to the big oil companies and pay even more too foreign oil producers!

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2005

Also, please understand I hate Bush.
I take no stance in any party.
I hate Bush simply for what he stands for and his actions taken while in office. (And he's dumb as a fucking mule to boot)

Hate is not always bad. However if you let it rule your life, then it is bad. It is not bad to hate Hitler or Stalin. But dont let it become an obsession.

COL Gene

on Dec 28, 2005

The way we have laid out our housing makes it impossible to use our cars less. In fact we must use them more as development moves out further and further. We are moving away from public transportation not closer. We need cars that use less gasoline and that use systems other then oil consuming engines.

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2005

I gave you an energy plan.

No, you gave us a socialistic system, not a plan. You cannot dictate CAFE standards, because there will always be ways around it. Where do you think SUVs came from? If you were a col, then you must be old enough to remember the Wage/Price Freeze of Nixon. It did not work simply because people did not want it to. So instead of Buying a T-Bone for$1.99/lb, they created a new cut that was not a T-Bone (still beef tho) for $2.49/lb!

CAFE has been tried. It failed. The only reason that cars get better mileage today is that people got tired of paying $1/gal and bought the economical cars. Impose CAFE standards when the public does not care, and you get the same situation. Instead of buying a tinker toy, they will buy a new Multi-seat truck or whatever else car companies want to call them. period.

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2005

Drilling does not solve the problem of consumption. It does alleviate the problem of foreign dependance. We have only to look at WWII Japan and Germany or even 73 oil Crises to know that when we hand our safety over to another, we are doomed. In the end, the only real solution is higher prices. And that would help mass transit as it would be too costly to drive.

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2005

You make it sound like this only started after Bush became President. News flash buddy, this has been going on for a long time. Way before Bush became President.

Col One Note just cant seem to take off blinders. I guess he is going to die and whither away in 3 years.

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2005

Why can't we catch a bus, trolly, train or bicycle to work? Why can't we wake up one hour early to avoid the traffic that makes you waste so much gas when stading in the same spot for more than 10 minutes?

On the latter, I already do that. On the former, it is because this was a sparsely (and still is) settled land, and we grew up with the auto. It will take a massive paradigm shift, and it will not come from any government edict.

Dr Guy

on Dec 28, 2005

The Bush/Cheney team with their experience should have been MORE able to help us move toward energy independence. The exact opposite has occurred.

You might want to take off the blinders and point your eyes at the nay sayers in congress that have REFUSED to even consider an energy plan. Bush may not have the best plan, but he has A plan. And congress has less than that.

COL Gene

on Dec 28, 2005

The policies of Bush were designed to help a certain groups of Americans. Those policies have been successful. The wealthy and those that benefit from certain big business like the oil and energy companies have done very well. The net worth of the top 5% is MUCH higher under the Bush policies then even during the 1990's prosperity.

The tax revenue has shifted to a greater percent coming from the middle income families and a smaller percent from the top 5%. The poor are about the same but have been impacted by higher costs, especially health, food and energy with very little increase in their take home pay. The problem is that only a small percent of the total population have benefited to any major extent from these policies!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!