"A Plague That Does Not Discriminate By Economic Class, Race Or Age"

By haystack Posted in | | | Comments (85) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[image courtesy Red Planet Cartoons]

Such has our fuel price crisis been described by AP reporter Alan Fram:

[S]oaring fuel prices are inflicting pain throughout the U.S. Nine in 10 expecting the ballooning costs to squeeze them financially over the next half-year, an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Monday says.

Nearly half think that hardship will be serious. To cope, most are driving less, easing off the air conditioning and heating at home and cutting corners elsewhere. Half are curtailing vacation plans; nearly as many are considering buying cars that burn less gas.

As the price has spiraled upward so, too, has the public's ire.

Reid and Pelosi don't care. Whatever liberties and freedoms to move about the country we might otherwise enjoy, were we able to actually afford to GET there, are slowly being taken away from us by the inaction of our elected officials. BOTH Houses of the "do nothing" Congress blew off any energy legislation to help us get through the summer...THEY are on vacation now, and we can't afford to join them. Instead, we look out our windows at cars we can't refuel and worry about how we're going to get back and forth to work so we can keep supporting these losers through ever-increasing taxes.

Nearly 70% of us are travelling less or not at all, in large part because the national average price for a gallon of gasoline climbed to $4.086, and "Gas prices have risen 2.9% in the last month and are almost 38% higher than where they were a year ago." Waddya think jumpin' genius Joe Klein over at Time says we ought to be doing?

More below the fold...

George W. Bush's failure to call for sacrifice — and fuel conservation would have been a great one — after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has been one of the great failures of his presidency. The next President will not have the luxury of that sort of indolence, and, happily, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been talking about conservation as a means to get our energy situation under control. So why not start now? I'd like to see both candidates call for an immediate 5deg.F thermostat adjustment, just to get the conservation ball rolling — and because it would be a "personal virtue" for each candidate to ask it of us. And I'd like to wish you all a nice, warmer summer.

Yeah Joe-that's the ticket-turn off the AC and open the windows...THAT'LL put gas in our tanks man... You know, Klein may like it hot, but far too many of the rest of us aren't very interested in sitting inside with the AC turned off, staring at cars with empty gas tanks.

So, what have our Political Heroes been focusing on while we all suffer lifestyle deaths by a thousand cuts?

There's the little flap over those 68 million un-drilled acres that even the Obamessiah has fallen for...and, of course there's the pitchfork-totin' lynch mob chasing their tails over eeevil oil speculators. All this followed closely by the drill v. don't drill soap opera...and the ever-popular "NO more refineries, NO more nukes" tomfoolery.

The real plague that reaches across all classes ages and races is Democrat politicians. They control the country, and by choosing to go on vacation instead of addressing the critical needs of their constituents they clearly show us just how much they care about our suffering...

I don't suppose that I could prevail upon the Obama campaign to stop pissing off Canada?Comments (11) »
"A Plague That Does Not Discriminate By Economic Class, Race Or Age" 85 Comments (0 topical, 85 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

"I'd like to see both candidates call for an immediate 5deg.F thermostat adjustment"

This is old news. I have it from good sources that Arianna Huffington, Laurie David and Al Gore have instructed their Gulfstream pilots to ratchet the cabin temperatures up from 68 to 73.

Of course, at 40,000 feet, it's -100 outside...

Since the price of gas hit the 3 dollar mark, I've done ALOT less.... but it doesn't matter.

I drive 64 miles a day for my commute.

That I don't buy ammo or go to the shooting range doesn't put a dent in what I spend on gas every week.

Dependence is Slavery.

Of course, you are correct that few Americans feel like sweating away their summer without A/C, but in reality, that is only one of two viable short term measures available to reduce our use of oil and perhaps move the commodity's price down a shade.

Passing legislation to allow offshore drilling or opening up ANWR is not a short term solution. At best, new supplies could come from those sources in 10-12 years. It's impact as a long term solution is also negligible since US government estimates show the price impact from both being in the pennies per gallon range. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. In fact, if we think this will help at all, we should get started right away. However, anyone that says this will lower prices any time soon is not being honest.

Another viable medium term solution that should lower gas and oil prices is balancing the Federal budget. Because petroleum trades in US dollars, the weakness in the US dollar has inflated the price of oil. However, since both John McCain's and Barack Obama's current economic plans do nothing but increase our deficit and our national debt, we're not likely to see relief in this manner either.

Interestingly, the only other workable short term relief for American consumers is the repeal of the Federal gasoline tax. Yes, it is political pandering in the finest tradition and yes, the relief is tiny and yes, we would either need to forego highway infrastrure projects, find other sources of revenue by cutting other programs or add to the Federal debt by borrowing to fund highway repair and improvement projects, but it is the only thing that will truly lower the price of gasoline at the pump in the next 12-18 months.

At best, new supplies could come from those sources in 10-12 years.

Best? Worst? What's the difference!

Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

Drilling companies tell us that there is no deposit in the world where they can't get oil out in 6 years maximum. 1-2 years is what they say for the OCS. I think thats best-case scenario, but 10+ years is just silly...the numer gets higher each time I hear a democrat get asked about it.

I don't buy the 10 to 12 years crap.

Congress could EASILY pass an emergency bill to fasttrack some of the trusted drilling companies and get drilling up and running within a year to 18 months.

10 to 12 years depends on having to fully explore a site, then go through gobs of red table to be able to drill.

We KNOW where there is oil on our coasts.

Dependence is Slavery.

time for the oil companies to conduct their geological test, get equipment, supplies and staff out there and begin drilling test shafts, etc. Sure, they can get some oil out in a few years, but prime production capacity isn't achieved for 10-12 years and in some cases not until 2030 or beyond. Here are the reports from the EIA.

Bottom line is not much oil and not much of a drop in the price of crude.

We still probably need to drill everywhere we can so we can transition as smoothlessly and with as little pain as possible from an oil driven economy to one driven by other energy sources like nuclear and solar and niche sources like wind and hydroelectric. However, anyone that says that domestic drilling will bring oil prices down much below today's prices is not being honest.

Remember that the knowledge of vastly increased domestic drilling will drive down the futures market.

Also, regarding your reports you linke to, they say nothing that i can see about the elimination of red tape. They just take for granted that it'll take 10 years to start production and another 10 years to reach peak flow.

Note that the government has never been a wise steward of money nor an accurate predictor of timetables.

Dependence is Slavery.

True, the reports probably assume the existing level of permitting, environmental revue,etc. However, even I want some environmental impact review before we go ahead and start drilling, especially in the OCS. So, if we assume we can shave 5 years off the timeline above, you still have 5 years to begin production and 15 years to reach peak production. The futures markets will take into account the volume of new supply (small) and the time to get to market (5-15 years) and my point remains valid. Drilling is not a short term solution to high prices. By the time this supply comes online, world demand will also have risen. So, the EIAs projections for the price impact remain intact.

I still doubt your and the EIA's figures.


And as for environmental review, such things can be quickly fastracked by giving such contracts to the American Oil companies that drill elsewhere.

They know MUCH more about environmental impact, safety and quality control than any government agency.

They, also, are the ones that get sued if there is a problem. Remind them of that when fasttracking the approval process.

We can start the construction by the end of the year and have oil starting to flow in mid to late 2009.

Yes, it will not be 'peak' flow, but that it starts out small is not a reason to take a "The brakes are out, don't bother steering" attitude.

Dependence is Slavery.

production capacity, I don't see how you can just "doubt" the study. But let's put that aside for the moment. My point is not that we shouldn't drill. My point is that domestic drilling and potential domestic production is tiny compared to global and US demand for this commodity. So, anyone claiming that this will lower gas prices today or even in 5 years is not very credible. So, when talking about domestic production, I wish politicians would simply tell the truth: "Gas prices are high. They are going to remain high for the forseeable future. We need to drill as much as we can domestically so that we have some cushion in the supply as we transition from an oil driven economy to one driven by other energy sources." Is that so hard?

I doubt any Government Agency that says it'd take 10 to 12 years to build a rig and drill for and start to pump oil.

I doubt that because I have family that works in the oil industry, both now and long ago.

They all say the same thing... If the government butted out, they could drill and be up and running in a fraction of the time it currently takes.

They worry about damaging the environment, whether the government watches or not. They're not evil people, despite the PR campaign by the enviro-weenies that people who drill for oil hate the planet and like killing wildlife via oil spills if it means another dollar in their pocket.

Drill everywhere there is oil. While we find out if there is oil in land we haven't surveyed yet, start drilling where we KNOW there is oil.

If a spot doesn't have oil, what a great place for a nuclear power plant or wind mill power plant.

Anyone who says "No, Don't drill! Think of the Polar Bear!" needs to be swiftly kicked in the butt, laughed at, then ignored.

Dependence is Slavery.

I understand that you are for drilling, but why do people insist on using the 10-12 years statement as an argument against drilling. If we would have started drilling 10-12 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess now. So lets get started, so in 12 years gas prices aren't any higher. If we started right now, I would be willing to bet that we could level off prices right where they are. If we keep saying well it will take 12 years than it is never going to happen, and that is the worst case scenario.

Some do use the 10-12 years as an argument to not drill. I am not using it that way. Go ahead. Drill away. Just don't ever expect gas prices to dip to 2001 levels again. At best, we ease the transition to new energy sources.

as well as deveolping shale oil and coal to oil, we would have more than enough potential supply to significantly affect world oil prices.

On OCS access:

Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.

In other words, their estimate of 10 years assumes 5 years of delay up front, because that's when the current moratorium expires.

Heck, expire it today, and that moves up to 5-6 years.

All of these delay assumptions build in the regulatory "status quo". Were the President, the Sec'y of the Interior, the Administrator of the EPA et al get on board and make it a national priority, you bet these projects could be fast-tracked.

And that's probably the single-most effective thing we could do, today, at no cost, to help ourselves out of a gasoline price bind: demonstrate the fortitude & the national will to help ourselves instead of wringing our hands and hoping our "friends" the Saudis bail us out once again.

"PsychObama, qu'est-ce que c'est?"

Were we to repeal the Federal Gas Tax, highway projects would have to be stopped or severely cut because there is not as much money to spend on those projects. That is, unless, we find another source of revenue. I'd propose toll roads, such as the ones you find in Europe, albeit they'd be privately run. Were every major interstate and federal highway to become a tollroad 2 things would happen: 1) people would drive less on these toll roads, and so they would either carpool or find/create other forms of transportation to get them from point a to point b and 2) the roads would generate enough revenue to pay for the maintenance and possibly the expansion of these roads.
4.62, 0.51

(Which I don't buy either) it's better than NEVER. Remember what they said about ANWAR when Clinton vetoed it? That was... 10 years ago.

As Rush put it, with that attitude, why bother starting anything? Why go to college? It's not gonna do me any good RIGHT NOW?. Why should we send our kids to school? It's not gonna benefit them for about 12-13 years anyway...

As for the "Environmental Impact Studies" (really just a way for libs to thrown a wrench in the spokes) just suspend them. The situation is getting desperate.

Or maybe not. At what point will it be? $7/gal.? $10/gal.? We will reach a breaking point sooner or later and just like what happened with illegal immigration, Washington WILL hear about it.


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --- John Adams

I would like to see how many of these guys would vote against a bill that would deduct the ammount of gas and aviation fuel that they use from their own paychecks. I realize that they actually have to travel more than the average person, limit it to actual gasoline then! Every single american who has a job has to buy gasoline. These guys should too...maybey the pay cut will make them change their minds about drilling.

Maybey they can all drive a Prius and junk those Black tinted armored suburban convoys and private jets.

We'll put that on the list of things Congress ought to vote for itself.

Just behind the elimination of legal "insider trading" by congressional members and a requirement that they pay for and be a part of the Social Security program and medicare, rather than their "Uber-good Congressional Pension and Healthcare"

I've floated, on other blogs, an idea of a change of Congress.

It does involve doubling the number of congressmen, but stick with me.

Instead of electing 2 Senators, for example, from each state, you elect 4. They each serve on alternate years.

Senator A is in Washington and Senator B stays in the home state, working a non-consultant job, not on any director board, or any fluff job.

Actually having to be one of us.

Then in the next year, Senator B is in Washington and Senator A is in the home state, working as one of us.

Of course, I've also floated the idea that State and Federal Congressmen must send their children to public school.

Once the problems of America actually affect Congress, THAT is when good change comes.

Dependence is Slavery.

and have been since the 80s. John McCain already collects SSI.

McCain for POTUS so the left can't ruin SCOTUS.

Congress is a part of a special congressional pension. As long as they serve a few terms, they get paid very well for life and get a VERY nice healthcare package for life.

As for McCain, though he is on disability for the trauma in the prison camp, I am not aware of him collecting regular social security, as the money he receives as a Senator would kind of eliminate the need for that.

Dependence is Slavery.

5! by Mord

Exellent! I havn't been around here long, but I try to read most things. Sorry I missed those posts, but awesome idea. 50 extra senators' paychecks would't be a drop in the national budget.

Senator B can work the local govornment complaint line and be required by law to ride Mass transit to work IMHO.

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention. You only get the 'senator's pay' while you're in your DC year.

In your off-season year, you get paid the normal wage paid by the employer.

Dependence is Slavery.

I suppose we could, and that'd work for the Senate, but not for the House, as each district would only have 1 rep.

Besides, I'd rather have 100 people deciding things than 50.

Dependence is Slavery.

There have been plenty of diaries at RedState here refuting your second pragraph. First, the production of oil could be shortened to 3-5 years if we don't allow those opposed to drilling to tie up the permits, etc. in court for 10-15 years.

Also, since we're dealing with marginal supply to the domestic market, even modest supply increases will have dramatic price impact because of inelasticities in the market.

However, you're quite correct that reducing Federal taxes will have the most direct impact on pump price - and there's nothing to stop Congress from allocating other funds to highway repair. Certainly, reducing this tax load will have saluatory effects on the economy as we get to keep more money in our pockets.

However, this will be a tough sell since all the recent proposals from Congressional Democrats have been to increase gas taxes further (either directly [e.g. Cap and Trade] or indirectly via so-called Windfall Profits taxes].

Not to mention that these same Democrats have been blocking drilling for years with the same argument that the benefits of drilling are X years in the future. But as we see, if you never drill, then the benefits will always remain X years in the future, which makes this a self-perpetuating argument.

As an aside, I starting to think the Democrats want to keep oil prices high to improve their chances for a Democratic President, and then plan to exploit these high prices to declare a crisis as a pretext for nationalizing the oil industry, which they can plunder short-term for their other programs to bribe the populace as they run it into the ground over the long term - the same sad script that almost all government-run oil enterprises (except Saudi Arabia and Norway) have played out. Not to mention that these government companies are the greatest environmental villains. Ironies abound.

And Rightly So!

We are always saying that the market will correct for things, aren't we? If we truly believe in it, then why don't we let the market correct this in the following ways:

1. Individuals will buy less gas as its price exceeds what they are willing to pay for it.

2. Alternatives will pop up as the market makes the R&D of those alternatives more rewarding.

People are already trading in their SUVs for hybrids in droves. As those technologies hit some economies of scale, they'll get better and cheaper. If this is the market force that is needed to foster American innovation in terms more efficient cars, who are we to try to cut that off at the knees?

All of this is not to mention that, as shooflyguy68 says, new production takes years and years. The likelihood is that we'll all be driving much more efficient cars WAY before we'd see (slightly) cheaper oil from opening up new land for drilling.

When you sell megatons of oil to the richest nation on the planet for 20 years you can buy anthing.


All of that money could have stayed in America.

I partially agree, but there are some things that make gas a bit different than, say, levi jeans.

To your first point, I ALREADY drive only to and from work, and pay around 50+ bucks a week for gas. I drive a car that gets mileage in the mid 20s and I can't afford to just go and 'buy a hybrid'

When I am ALREADY at that point, how do I 'reduce' my gas usage as the prices go up?

Answer: I can't.

None of the typical solutions work. Can't carpool, busses don't go where I need to. Too far to walk or bike.

It isn't a situation where I can just 'not buy gas' for a while. If jeans became too expensive, I'd just wear what I have and patch any holes I get. You can't do that with gasoline in cars. Doesn't work that way.

As to your second point, that does happen, however it does not help the majority of Americans. Having some 60 thousand dollar car that runs off of hopes, dreams and celery does not help the middle class American driver.

I suggest that it'd take twice as long for alternative energy sources to filter down to help the average driver than drilling for oil based on the ever-growing timeline the Democrats put forth.

The solution is to increase supply and kick anyone in the butt who tells us "no, don't drill there, think of the Caribou!"

I also expect big things out of the upcoming Iraqi oil drilling program. Maybe, due to our help, the United States can get discounted oil for a short time, to help until we get our drilling rigs set up.

Dependence is Slavery.

I don't think moving to more efficient cars is that onerous, though. Here are some base MSRPs:

Prius - $21,300 (46MPG)
Civic hybrid - $22,600 (42MPG)
Malibu hybrid - $22,800 (American - 28 MPG)
Saturn Aura Green Line - $22,100 (American - 27 MPG)

When you get into the SUV/truck space, the US automakers are already a little ahead of the curve:

Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner hybrid - ~$27K (American - 32 MPG)

Those aren't huge prices compared to what the average American would spend anyway. Using a gas savings calculator like the one at http://www.hybridcars.com/calculator/ , replacing a car with its hybrid equivalent seems to usually save at least a grand per year in gas (assuming 15K mi./yr. and $4.50 gas). And that's for comparisons like a Ford Escape to a Ford Escape hybrid. If I compare (say) a Ford Explorer to a Malibu hybrid, I get a savings of $2000. If I compare it to a Civic hybrid, it's a savings of almost $3000 per year. Over the lifetime of a car, you're knocking of $8 to $10 grand. I know everyone can't transition down to a smaller car, but most of us could - cars were way smaller even 10 years ago.

And it gets cheaper as the technology improves and you hit economies of scale.

I guess my point is that here we are with the ingenuity to solve this problem on the small scale (I buy less gas with a more efficient car), the ability to drive down demand and thus cost (if more people use less gas), a chance to help propel a new American sector (by rewarding the innovation of products like the Escape hybrid which is currently class-leading in this technology), and we can do it all NOW, and let the market solve this the way it's already trying to, in a natural fashion.

I just fail to see the need for government involvement in this.

Yeah, see, spending over 20 thousand dollars for a car is not reasonable, unless one loves to live in debt.

My car was 1,100 dollars.

I have paid cash for every car I've owned. The most I've paid for a car was 2,000 dollars.

Remember that when you transition from owning your car to buying a new car that the bank owns until you make the last payment, you not only have to pay more for car insurance, but you also have to make a regular car payment.

I pay 48 bucks a month for car insurance.
I pay 0 in car payments.

So, each month I pay out 48 bucks.

Let's say you buy a car and pay 200 a month for it, add on another 80 bucks a month for insurance (i'll go cheap and we'll pretend we found a good price on comprehensive coverage and collision)

So, new car: 280 bucks a month, plus gas.
My car: 48 bucks a month, plus gas.

I spend 50 a week. That's 200 a month.
Let's say in a new car I get 40% better mileage, and only spend 30 bucks a week: That's 120 bucks a month.

so, new car: 400 a month.
My car: 248 a month.

Buying a new car to get better mileage is a losing deal.... I'm even leaving out the idea that if I lose my job and miss a few payments, I lose the new car. If I lose my job now, I drive much less and need less gas, reducing the amount I spend per month.

Dependence is Slavery.

I completely agree that (at this point) the economics don't work for your case. For you to consider such a transition, we'd have to fast forward five or ten years to a time when cheap _used_ hybrids (or E85 or whatever) become available.

However, I don't think you reflect the "average" case (regardless of the budgeting smarts of your model), so I'm not sure that your experience is very relevant here.

The only reason why I don't reflect the 'average' is because I am paying out of pocket for school while also paying loans from my first go at college, and pay out of pocket for cars, so that I can save money to pay for college and avoid debt.

I call it the Dave Ramsey affect.

Dependence is Slavery.

Even if you remove all taxes and other barriers to domestic production, gas prices will continue to rise since petroleum is a finite commodity and one that is largely controlled by a cartel that has great influence over global prices for this commodity. So, unless we come up with transportation alternatives that aren't dependent on oil, people in rural and exurban areas are going to feel to pain more intently. So, you may have to make a choice to either get a job closer to home, move closer to your work, or get a job that pays enough to make energy prices irrelevant.

well... 1.) I don't know what kind of millions you're rolling around in at random, but I'm not able to 'just move' . . . given my specialized field, I'm not able to 'just get another job' (In fact, I've already worked for half of the companies that do what I do.... there are only 4 or so total)

2.) IF oil is all controlled by some cartel, that's just another reason to push for more domestic drilling for domestic use. Eliminate the hold the cartel has on us by making our own. (Unless, of course, you think that the American Oil Companies ARE that evil cartel.... )

As I see it, the only job that makes energy prices irrelevant would be.... well.... Congress.

Dependence is Slavery.

I know most people can't move or change jobs or careers at the drop of a hat. My point was that you and I (I wish I had millions)and most Americans are going to have to deal with this by driving less, spending less money on other things and just generally adjusting to a high oil price economy.

The cartel that controls oil is OPEC. I wish it was US oil companies. Unfortunately, US and other independent oil companies are dwarfed in size and access to proven and potential oil reserves by the nationalized oil producing countries of OPEC and the largely nationalized Russian oil companies. Even if we could go full bore on domestic drilling, we just don't have the supply domestically to make a big enough dent in the global supply. Also, since oil is a fungible commodity, domestic oil can be sold internationally. Exxon doesn't need to sell domestically produced oil to domestic refiners or to US consumers. Their oil will be sold in the marketplace at market prices.

So, as long as most of oil sits in the earth beneath OPEC nations and Russia, we are not going to get ourselves to significant lower oil prices by drilling domestically.

We don't need to 'make a dent' in the global supply.

Offer tax breaks to the oil companies if they divert the oil to their own gas stations via domestic refineries rather than trying to sell it on the world market to someone else.

In other words, reduce our need to buy from the world supply by using our own.

The only way to keep Opec from having a hold on what we buy is to buy less of it from them and use more of it ourselves.

And, of course, to keep the Government out of it.

Dependence is Slavery.

by having the government dictate prices and markets to domestic oil producers? Where is the money for the tax break going to come from? OPEC will always have us over a barrel (no pun intended) because they have most of the oil. We cannot produce enough domestically to take away their advantage and since you don't really want to nationalize our domestic oil production, you cannot dictate to whom and for how much domestic oil producer can sell their oil.

Funny, I didn't call for price dictation.

I called for tax breaks on domestic oil companies that use the oil they drill for their own gas stations, so as to make a reason for them to do so.

No requirements. Oil Companies are free to do as they wish, but they miss out on the tax break if they go to the world market to buy and sell rather than using their own.

Frankly, if I have a product that I can sell, but I'd need it to make another product I sell.... I'd keep what I have and use it for myself.

Add a tax break in and we're set.

And where is the money going to come from for a tax break? Doesn't have to come from anywhere, we're not giving them money, we're just taking less of it.

I'm sure you're referring to 'how do we make up for the money we don't take from them?' Answer: We cut costs of Government by demanding not a Balanced Budget, but a budget that leaves some black at the end of the year to pay down the debt.

We live in a society that says "Debt is ok as long as I get what I want right now" when reality says "Debt is dumb."

Dependence is Slavery.

in free markets. If an oil company can maximize it's profits by selling domestically, they will. There are obvious advantages to selling domestically like reduced transportation costs. There is no need to alter economic activity by artificially subsidizing the domestic oil markets, unless you believe the tax code should be used to apply a level of government controls in these markets.

I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph. Having some "black at the end of it to pay down the debt" requires a balanced and surplus budget at some point.

It is pretty obvious to see that if the goal is to drive down domestic gas prices, there will not be an incentive to use oil domestically as compared to selling it on the world market.

Thus the call for a tax break.

It is not government intervention or government regulation.

It is asking the government to tax less those who would use the oil they drill for refining and use as gasoline here in the United States.

While it is not the same as just saying "No government opinion/thought/involvement in any way" it is something that I think would be MUCH more realistic.

While it may not be the ideal, it is much better than where we are, and it get fuel into our gastanks instead of drilling it here to be sent somewhere else, only to have to buy oil from opec to put into my gas tank.

I'm not calling for extra taxes, just a tax break for those that choose to keep american oil in America.

Do you have a problem with a tax break? Are you suggesting that they don't pay too much as it is?

Dependence is Slavery.

Why provide a tax incentive just for domestic oil companies? Should the government's tax policy decide which companies are "worthy" of paying lower taxes? Why not just eliminate the corporate tax for everyone?

And you obviously like for everyone to lose.

Ooo I guess we can both make stupid statements. Of course, mine is in jest.

Why a tax incentive for domestic oil companies? I said, as an incentive to use the oil here, rather than selling it overseas where they might net more profit, a tax break might be in order. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

As for the elimination of Corporate Tax, it isn't a bad idea, but let's phase this in by first making a budget that leaves us in the black every year so we can pay down the nearly 10 drillion dollars we have in debt.

Slowly lower the taxes paid by companies, to encourage more small companies to be created, so that each person can live the American Dream.

You still have not come up with a viable alternative other than "Well just drive less or stop complaining."

neither of those fix the problem.

All you've done is whine about others who are coming up with possible ideas for helping to fix our problem.

And, once again, you're acting like my personal little stalker.

Dependence is Slavery.

I'm not the one that is whining. It's those that want to drive SUVs 80 miles to work and back that are whining and buying into the pablum that there is a magic bullet to lower gas prices called domestic oil production.

So, let me be clear:

1. Drill away. Get as much domestic production as possible

2. Tax breaks for specific industries or companies is corporate wellfare. I oppose it. Cut taxes accross the board.

3. Call out any politician that claims that drilling in ANWR or off the continental shelf is the solution to our energy problems. It is not. It is a drop in the bucket, though we need every drop.

4. A budget that is in the black every year is a good idea. We will need to lower government expenditures dramatically or raise taxes to do this. I choose the former.

5. Don't flatter yourself. I happen to disagree with you on many issues and I tend to post more to counter a point than to agree with one. Occasionally, I'll post a "555" but not often. You just happen to be wrong about most things, so I respond to your posts more often. :-)

First, domestic drilling is not "the Answer" . .. it is what we have to do, as much as possible, until we find and make viable "The Answer."

I'm not the one that is whining. It's those that want to drive SUVs 80 miles to work and back that are whining and buying into the pablum that there is a magic bullet to lower gas prices called domestic oil production.

You are whining because people are vocing their displeasure with high gas prices. Yes, we understand that. (and please note, I drive 64 miles, not 80, and I am in a 95 berretta, not an suv)

1. Drill away. Get as much domestic production as possible

We agree. Anywhere there is no oil, build a nuclear power plant.

2. Tax breaks for specific industries or companies is corporate wellfare. I oppose it. Cut taxes accross the board.

I'm sorry, you didn't like my idea because of the question "How would we pay for it?!" but you want to cut ALL taxes? Ok, not using my idea, how do YOU pay for that?
When you have a government that is in the red EVERY YEAR, you can't just cut all corporate taxes like that. You need to make sure the budget is in the black both before, and after, such a tax cut, and you have to do it in stages to make sure that any unforseen problems can be fixed before they become emergencies.

3. Call out any politician that claims that drilling in ANWR or off the continental shelf is the solution to our energy problems. It is not. It is a drop in the bucket, though we need every drop.

Nah, call out any politicians who say that it won't matter or that we shouldn't do it. I don't know of any who says "Boy, if we just drilled in ANWR, gas would be 25 cents a gallon!" They all say that we need to increase supply across the board.

4. A budget that is in the black every year is a good idea. We will need to lower government expenditures dramatically or raise taxes to do this. I choose the former.

I would agree. Even if we had no debt, we ought to operate in the black. Nothing wrong with the government having a savings account for bad years.

5. Don't flatter yourself. I happen to disagree with you on many issues and I tend to post more to counter a point than to agree with one. Occasionally, I'll post a "555" but not often. You just happen to be wrong about most things, so I respond to your posts more often. :-)

That's fine, just noting how often you manage to find me to disagree with me.

Dependence is Slavery.

I post relatively infrequently and you have become one of the most ubiquitous posters in your short time here. Because you are almost everywhere, I am bound to run into you when I do have some time and the inclination to post something. So, I am sure we will continue to run into each other and someday may even find that we agree on something.

I have been called many things by many people (generally four letter words said in anger) but never "ubiquitous"

I appreciate your recognition of my Divine Nature. Please go to the processing center, as there is a chip we need to implant into your hand.


Dependence is Slavery.

Ok, this deserves a 5,5,5!

Why do I have to move? I like where I live

Why should I get a different car? I like my truck withh it's 4WD, since I drive through snow 4 months of the year.

Why do we need energy alternatives? Oil has fueled our economy for 100 years and there is no indication I have seen that it might be running out. Look at Brazil. They decided to look for oil, and they found 19 billion barrels off the shore. Instantly they become one of the top oil holding countries in the world. We have never even looked off of our shores in the last 30 years. America could potentially be the biggest oil exporting county on the planet, we won't know until we look.

Transportation alterantives? Have you ever had to wait on the bus to get to work? no thanks.

Why do I have to move? I like where I live
You don't have to move. It's your choice to live where you want. Just don't whine about how much it costs to drive to work, school, shopping, etc.

Why should I get a different car? I like my truck withh
it's 4WD, since I drive through snow 4 months of the year.

You don't have to get a different, smaller, less snow capable car. Just don't whine about how much it costs to fill your tank.

Why do we need energy alternatives? Oil has fueled our economy for 100 years and there is no indication I have seen that it might be running out. Look at Brazil. They decided to look for oil, and they found 19 billion barrels off the shore. Instantly they become one of the top oil holding countries in the world. We have never even looked off of our shores in the last 30 years. America could potentially be the biggest oil exporting county on the planet, we won't know until we look.
Good point, that may happen though I haven't heard one credible claim that this is probable. So, let's put all our eggs in one basket and ignore the possibility that we won't find major new sources of oil and then pay the price if we don't find it.

Transportation alterantives? Have you ever had to wait on the bus to get to work? no thanks.
I take the train to work every day (on days I don't work from home). It's fantastic. Clean, relatively cheap and I can work, sleep or read the paper while I ride. When I bought my last 2 houses, I made sure it was close to public transportation. It was my choice because I didn't want to drive into the city. So, you can choose to drive to work on your own, just don't whine about the price of gas.

I will whine all I Damn well want to! Offer me an alternative before you tell me to Stop whining!

Stop whining about drilling and I'll stop whining about the price of Gasoline...starting in 3...2...1

The answer is obvious:

Move into teepees on government land and make hemp clothing.

*evil grin*

Dependence is Slavery.

HAHA by Mord

That idea keeps looking better every day :)

else to tell you. Unless you win the Lotto or come into great wealth some other way, you will have to cope just like I will and just like every other American. You will need to take the money you make and spend it on things you need and probably have a little less discretionary income at the end of the month. Drilling domestically is just not going to drive down the price of gas in any meaningful way. I agree that it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We probably need to just to slow the inevitable increases.

To put up with do-nothing losers in DC. Of course we all have to Cope! That doesn't mean you have to live with high gas forever.

Do you cope with the sun? or do you look for shade?

Do you cope with being hungry? or do you go out and get some food?

Do you cope with anything that you can do something about? Not unless you are lazy or too weak-willed to do anything productive about your situation.

There has been an inevitable increase of every single item mankind uses/consumes throughout history. What has the usual answer been to coping with a shortage of any essential resource throughout our history as a species? Make more.

So are you saying that oil is the one thing that we cannot get more of?

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

We cannot make more oil. Only carbon in the form of dead plants and animals, intense pressure and heat from the Earth and eons of time will make more oil. There is a finite amount of oil in the world.

What we have been able to do in the last 50 years is use technology to make it economically viable to reach oil that is available in harder to reach places. Higher prices will make even more oil recovery economically viable. Oil shale, ultra deep sea deposits and even high sulphur oil become more economical to recover and process. So, that will moderate future price increases but it will not increase supply beyond the growth in demand. As soon as demand wanes, the cost of recovering oil from shale or deep water wells, or processing high sulpher oil becomes too high and producers do less of it.

the point was "get" more oil, not make more oil.

We can get more oil, a lot more oil...we are being prohibitted from doing that presently

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

according to www.ridetowork.org, motorbikes on average get about one-and-a-half to double the mpg that an average passenger car does. On average they cost anywhere from $3,000-$10,000, which is about the price of a new Kia.
4.62, 0.51

My idea would be a small pickup (like the shortbed explorers or the toyotas) and a motorcycle.

Motorcycle for the nice days, pickup for hauling or for the rainy/cold days.

Dependence is Slavery.

4.62, 0.51

I already have the Prius, so that's one vehicle that gets good mileage. I'm planning to trade our 2002 minivan for a small Ranger or S10 for me to drive to the airport for my trips and for hauling larger loads (like taking my kid to college). And we're buying a Vespa or reasonable facsimile for my kid to ride to school (~$4K, 80MPG). That's the best strategy I can come up with...

The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

we want government to get out of the way so that something can get done. Government interference has caused the problem.

My car gets 16 mpg. I can't buy a new car, it isn't an option. Grad students just don't make a whole lot of money. Am I supposed to go another $25,000 in debt because some environmentalists are worried about the caribou?

I vote that we eliminate air conditioning in the Capitol and all the offices that our elected morons and their minions inhabit.

I know, it wouldn't save many $s, but wouldn't it feel good to all us poor sops that just canceled our 4th of July travel plans because of fuel prices.

And those putrid SOBs went on vacation without even allowing a vote on domestic energy production. If I were God for a day, there would be shrunken heads on pikes all around the Mall.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

...the near term problem is not electicity generation, its liquid fuel for transportation; our entire transportation infrastructure depends on liquid, petroleum-derived fuels. We have lots of different kinds of electric power generation systems not just oil, but we basically have only one kind of transportation fuel --- petroleum.

There are massive fleets of automobiles, trucks, trains and aircraft all of which depend on "fossil" fuels. Unless someone develops a cheap, 100% backward compatible alternative solution this afternoon we still have to deal with the existing vehicles and distribution systems. And if it isn't fully petroleum-fuel compatible manufacturers could not build enough cars, trucks, locomotives and aircraft to replace the existing fleets in ten years.

And I will guarantee that whatever alteratives emerge the enviros will tie it up with "concerns" about the environment. Count on it. Someone on the Left Coast has supposedly developed a genetically engineered microbe that can "eat waste" and produce various kinds of fuel. If this is a reality how long will it take before the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or one of the other left wing enviros goes to court to prevent it being used? Afterall, how do we know if the "bugs" ever got loose they only eat waste and not San Francisco*?

*On reflection this might not be such a bad thing afterall.

Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

are the VERY same people the ones who have been instrumental in causing the fuel/food increase claim to want to protect.

The lower socio-economic class are the martyrs for the Liberals/ Environmental cause.

Drill now and lift restrictions to get fuel to us cheaper ASAP!

get lower class enough and you're looking at people who live on welfare, do not own a car and take a bus anywhere they need to go.

I would suggest that, out of everyone, they're hurt the LEAST by this issue.

But I do agree with your sentiment.

They are not only the martyrs, but also the prototype of the Left's plan for America.

Dependence is Slavery.

costs for all those trendy new coal burning cars. I am wondering how the supply problem is manifesting itself. Shouldn't there be gas stations that are out of gas and long lines at the few stations that still have it? I find that I can buy all I want (that'd be afford.) Does anyone remember Jimmah Carter's energy strategy? Sweaters.

The situation today is nothing like the OPEC embargo of the 70's. In that case, the supply was reduced dramatically in a short amount of time. Instead, today you see demand increasing at a brisk pace especially in Asia read: China and India. Since India and China aren't likely to reduce their demand any time soon, we are stuck with high prices for now. Of course, a global recession caused by these high commodity prices (oil, food, minerals) should cause prices to decline. However, that won't be a pleasant way to get back to $2.50/gallon gasoline.

Prices will go down, it is simple. So it takes a while, so what!! I don'twant to pay $50 a gallon when I am trying to live on retirement pay.

Plan for the future, adapt to today.

If alternatives are viable, they will make it in the market.

CD's used to be an alternative...today you can't even find a cassete tape in a regular store.

Cel phones used to be an alternative.

GPS is still an alternative...but most people want it and the nice, expensive cars have it standard.

Once a technology is available to move an individual around cheaper and just as independantly as an automobile is invented, the automobile will go the way of Betamax, dial-up internet, phones with cords, and many other items that I can't think of right now.

If the enviro-mentals will just get out of the way. The technology has long existed, and is now viable at current prices, to convert coal into any product made from oil.
We have lots of coal, and lots of untapped oil, and oil shales. All put together, enough to last over 200 years of current consumption.

And we also have nuclear.

The problem is, that the longer we put off developing these resources the worse our situation will be, because there is about a five year lag for all of these, even more for nuclear.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

Wholly agree.

Dependence is Slavery.

Sorry, Mord. China, India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and eventually even Africa will continue to dramatically increase demand. There is not enough oil in our territory to meet that demand. So, prices are not likely to decline dramatically even with modest new supplies over the next 20 years.

As for alternatives, I agree. I do not want to dictate which alternative energy sources should succeed. The market will dictate which alternatives will be viable and which will not. High oil prices will drive companies to develop products to provide energy to meet increased demands.

Sorry, Mord. China, India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and eventually even Africa will continue to dramatically increase demand. There is not enough oil in our territory to meet that demand. So, prices are not likely to decline dramatically even with modest new supplies over the next 20 years.

Ahh, then your resistance to programs that push more domestic drilling REALLY make sense now....

So you're opposed to drilling anywhere and everywhere we can, but you recognize that demand is going to rise in 20 years.

Isn't the future rise in demand exactly why we need to drill everywhere we can?

Drilling isn't "the Answer" . . .. it is what we need to do as much as possible until we can fully develop a viable "answer"

Dependence is Slavery.

I have not. I merely say and am supported by evidence that domestic drilling and production will not do much to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. I suppose we could also say that not drilling domestically would mean slightly higher prices in 10-20 years since our domestic oil would not be available in the market. That still doesn't equal lower prices at the pump for us.

Our president just went to Saudi Arabia to beg them to drill more oil. They recently said they would increase output and the price of oil dropped $4 a barrel in a short time.

If the USA..the largest economy on earth (for now)started drilling domestic Oil and stopped buying it off the world market (like LanceKates suggests) the price of gas would drop in a short time.

How do you not get that?

First, $4 on a barrel of oil comes out to about $0.04 at the pump. Second, in case you haven't noticed, oil hit record levels again last week despite the Saudi increase. Third, oil is a fungible commodity. Oil is bought and sold in an international marketplace, so it doesn't matter if it was produced in Saudi or Alaska. The price is the price. The one advantage to domestic production is transportation but the cost of importing the 65% of foreign oil we need will be spread accross to all gasoline regardless of where it came from.

Not just the lowered cost of importing, but also the increased supply and public statements by the Government that we are going to increase our domestic supply to reduce our demand for foreign oil will have its own affect on the markets.

Another good piece in this puzzle is to push for the Iraqi oil to start flowing again, to really increase supply.

Now you have two nations with ALOT of oil pumping out oil that is above and beyond what was previously being pumped by the other suppliers.

Now you have quite a bit more supply than before. That gives us 10 to 20 years to make a viable electric car system that runs in the north as easily as in the south, and enough time to build numerous nuclear power plants to power them all.

Dependence is Slavery.

Simply saying that they would start pumping more dropped the price for a little while. They still havn't started pumping more yet, so the price went back up. They comitted to less than 1mil barrels a day and the price dropped $4 dollars per barrel. Imagine what will happen when the US says we will start producing several million barrels a day in the near future. I have no idea, but I want to find out.

As I read you expanded comments I don't little in your total package that is problematic.

You agree with starting drilling.

Good start

You note that an annoucement to, say open ANWR or to start offshore drilling will not noticeably affect prices in the near-term, say through this election cycle.

Agree. I think the market will be moved more by actual supply projections and by the dollar exchange rate than by Congressional actions to open ANWA or off-shore exploration. blackhedd would be more on top of the financial aspects than I.

Your timeline suggests that significant production will not start until at least 10 years out and full production probably further out.

This is where I defer to Achance and Vladimir, who have a better handle on production times. I gather this could be shortened to perhaps 3-5 years to get the facilities reasonably on-line. However, a Democratic Congress will be unlikely to fast-track the process even if they are dragged kicking and screaming to approve more drilling. Thus your timeline is probably closer to what will eventually result - but due to political rather than technical reasons.

Reducing (or perhaps even ending) federal gasoline taxes will have a favorable impact on pump prices as well being good economic policy.

You seem to coming around to this position as a long-term approach rather than a temporary fix. You're also standing against governmental meddling.

The only thing that I'm still not sure about your position is whether you think that bring online ANWR or off-shore or even shale oil will not seriously affect oil prices. This is where there seems to be disagreement from a number of RedStaters.

From what I can tell, world supply should be able to keep up with demand; the question is whether oligopoly/cartel control is artificially constraining supply; if so, bring non-cartel U.S. sources should help restore free-market pricing.

So what am I missing or misstating as to your positions? Why the hue and cry from RedStaters?

And Rightly So!

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service