advertisement
(Related) Riding a Segway: Not nearly as easy as it looks
(Related) As a speaker, Clinton still dazzles a crowd
(Related) A matter of record
(Related) Wheelers fight led to suspension
(Related)
37 comment(s) 37 comment(s) |
Rate this article |
Default |
Large
In your May 24th edition, you ran a story “House OKs gas price controls.” Within that story it states “the legislation would give federal authorities the power during presidentially declared energy emergencies to investigate and prosecute anyone selling fuel at a price that is ‘unconscionably excessive.’”
The headline is great and we the public would love to see the existing price gougers to be prosecuted but when do you think that our OIL MAN president will declare a so called “energy emergency”? Thus since he never will then this legislation is another worthless piece of paper.
How are we not in an energy emergency right now?
We all know that we can do limited savings to our gas use. I for one take several kids to school on my way to work some 18 miles away. Does President Bush suggest I get a very long bike and continue to use it in the frigid Midwestern winters? Does he suggest I spend 40K on a new energy efficient vehicle?
I do use 10 percent ethanol fuel but how is it that I only save five cents per gallon, especially when the producers are getting major tax savings from the government?
So go ahead Mr. Mission Accomplished President and make my day and declare this energy emergency. Of course he’d probably lock the prices where they’re at now, insuring tens of billions of profit for his oil buddies.
Larry Bickmann
LeClaire
uber patroit wrote on May 31, 2007 4:17 AM: Larry, I have a better idea. Let's declare a war on oil. Yeah, that's the ticket. Makes about as much sense as a war on terror. Git'ur done.Report Abuse (Related)
Michael Burt wrote on May 31, 2007 7:18 AM: Mr Bickmann, what is the emergency? You consider it a national emergency that you have to pay more? Oh boohoo. Americans have enjoyed artificially low prices since Ford's assembly line opened. Now, as we morph into a "global economy", so do our gas prices.
Who do you accuse of gouging? Your local stations, the shippers, the refiners, the pumpers, or is it one huge conspiracy, that has remained in total secrecy for decades?
And why are you driving kids that far to school? I know they must offer bus service, so unless you're delivering to some private school, you are probably doing it for some voluntary reason.
Prices aren't going anywhere but up, and govt interference is futile, and ultimately more expensive. Look what's happening in Illinois with electric rates. Government interfered ten years ago, and now the price is coming due. Whatever happens next, govt doing anything beyond the present level is nothing but a attempt to buy votes.Report Abuse (Related)
Jenius wrote on May 31, 2007 7:50 AM: The "emergency" is not the cost of gas, it's our continued dependence on foreign oil.
If we did not have that dependence we would probably not be spending a trillion dollars of our childrens' future taxes in Iraq, leaders in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia would not have the clout with the world or over their own citizens that they have now, nor the nearly unlimited resources for supporting terrorists.
That's the "emergency" that should have been a primary focus after 9/11.Report Abuse (Related)
Michael Burt wrote on May 31, 2007 8:28 AM: We have been dependent on foreign oil for decades. Kind of a long-winded "emergency" wouldn't you say? So Jenius, what's a solution? Stop importing? That's OK by me, but I wouldn't have to wait in line, either. Maybe we should just conquer the world, it's our "god given right" right? Then we would have enough oil for many decades, if we chose not to share. Nothing has changed more than superficially since 9/11, why was in then an "emergency", moreso than in the 70's? Then we had sever shortages, now we have adequate supply just higher prices. If the price hadn't ballooned, would there be cries of "Emergency"? I seriously doubt it, so how can you say the cost is not the emergency? To the average citizen, the cost most certainly is the emergency, because it subtracts from other areas they wish to spend their money.Report Abuse (Related)
JK wrote on May 31, 2007 9:05 AM: We have been dealing with this "emergency" since the 1970's, as noted by Mr. Burt. We, as a people, have chosen the path of least resistance - continued reliance on fossil fuels and therefore continued reliance on foreign sources of same. Until we change, nothing will change. Yes, it's a hell of a dilemma. As I type this, I'm about to leave - to drive my internal combustion powered vehicle to a meeting 35 miles from my home. No other reasonable way to get there. It seems to me that we, as a society, have three choices: 1) Continue as is and put up with the economic and policy issues as they come up; 2) Expand our imperial foot-print, like we are doing in Iraq. Asserting control over these huge oil reserves will mean less bouncing on the yo-yo string controled by the Saudis, Venezuala, etc.; or 3) Actually change how we do things, to break our addiction to foriegn oil. (I'm defining addiction here as continuing use in spite of serious negative consequences - seems to fit). We continue to suck up foreign oil, and in the meantime elected a president owned and operated by the oil-gas biz. We made our bed...Report Abuse (Related)
uber patroit wrote on May 31, 2007 9:38 AM: Sounds like you work for the Saudi royal family, Mr Burt. The only reason that gas prices have spiked is due to a monopoly controlling the price. Save me the tired rhetoric about the EPA not allowing refineries to be built. I drive by new ethanol plants all the time in Iowa and Minnesota. Enron pulled the same crap in California. To try and tell me that in the year 2007 you can't efficiently refine oil into gas without shutting down several times a year is a real strain on anyone's common senseReport Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 9:57 AM: If you are going to criticize the Saudi's then you should be doing the same with Canada and mexico. we import more from each of those countries individually than we do from Saudi Arabia. You didn't know that did you? More people should look at facts instead of Bar Room gossip. And Ethanol plants are not the same as oil refineries. The is a shortage of refineries because the environmentalists have prevented more from being built. Some permits to build new ones have been on hold for up to 10 years because of them.Report Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 10:15 AM: I just did a Google search and the last new refinery was built in 1976. Despite our increased consumption we have not increased our refining capabilities. Thus, higher prices. So save your paranoid conspiracy theories. Report Abuse (Related)
pk ripper wrote on May 31, 2007 10:52 AM: The fact that a refinery has not been built since the 70's is not really the issue. The talking heads and oil execs both agree the existing refineries rarely run at capacity. They cite Katrina, and maintenance as the issue keeping supplies down. One obvious question I ask, why do the schedule "maintenance" during peak summers. That's like the power company saying we're going to take our plant off-line in say late July or early August during peak demand to do maintenace...so sorry. Why don't they schedule maintenance during the winter months. Or why don't they have a routine "outage" type situation to get ready for the peak months. I mean if it runs on supply and demand after all the history we have on the American buying habits then surely all those experts should be able to find a time to schedule routine maintanence and inspections thus heading off many of these issues. Report Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 10:56 AM: Citing Katrina and Maintenance as the issue is the same thing as saying not enough refining capabilities.Report Abuse (Related)
Michael Burt wrote on May 31, 2007 11:09 AM: Mr uber patriot, since I didn't so much as mention one of the things you berate me for, I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Who is this "monopoly" you speak of, and how do they control gas prices as well as oil?
I don't blame the EPA for the lack of refining capacity, that is directly related to NIMBY. The EPA is just a handy scapegoat. pk ripper, don't know where you get your data, I'd be interested to read where. Report Abuse (Related)
Fly on the Wall wrote on May 31, 2007 12:08 PM: To G: The foreign country that we import the most oil from is Venezuela.Report Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 12:36 PM: The March 2007 totals for Crude oil imports by country in thousands of BBL per day are; Canada 1,776 , Mexico 1,621 , Nigeria 1,290 , Saudi Arabia 1,231 and Venezuela 1,036 which puts Venezuela 5th for that month. Venezuela was 4th on the list for 2006 Totals.Report Abuse (Related)
Jenius wrote on May 31, 2007 12:38 PM: Actually, one could make the case that the gas prices, even at the current high levels, do not adequately reflect the 'real' cost, which would include costs for the Iraq war, a portion of our annual defense budget required for security in the oil producing regions, subsidies and other indirect costs.
If these costs were figured into the price of gas, we probably really would consider it an emergency and make more of an effort to wean ourselves off of imported oil - some possibilities include higher CAFE standards, and more hybrid, electric, bio-fueled or hydrogen fueled cars, which would become more cost-effective compared to the true cost of gasoline.Report Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 12:46 PM: How can you argue the cost of the Iraq war should be included in the "real" cost of gas? Only 5% of our imports come from Iraq and Only 21% from the region. 49% (almost half) comes from the western hemisphere. The cry that the Iraq war is about Oil is just plain wrong.Report Abuse (Related)
jenius wrote on May 31, 2007 1:00 PM: Actually I've never bought into the conspiracy theory that we invaded Iraq for their oil.
My assumption is that, if Iraq had no oil or if we were not dependent on imports, we would not have cared what Saddam was up to and would have had no inclination to 'liberate' the Iraqis.
That's why I include the costs of the Iraq war in the true price of gasoline.Report Abuse (Related)
Teenager wrote on May 31, 2007 1:00 PM: Hey Larry, good letter. In response to your question, no, Mr. Bush doesn't want to ride your bike to work (he's not environmental friendly), he just expects everyone to have tons of money, and if you don't, he doesn't care. He just wants you to go broke giving money to his oil buddies!Report Abuse (Related)
RiverCity Rose wrote on May 31, 2007 1:07 PM: Teenager - that is ABSURD. Bush wants ME to ride a bike to work, expects ME to have tons of money and wants ME to go broke giving money to his oil buddies? What garbage have you been tuning in to?
You sound like, totally saturated with far-left wing propaganda. Beyond ridiculous. I weep for the future!
Take a walk on the wild side - stop listening to Michael Moore and George Soros and start looking around without the left-colored glasses. Might do you some good!Report Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 1:16 PM: Sounds like the younger crowd needs their paranoid medication. That really doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.Report Abuse (Related)
andy a. ness wrote on May 31, 2007 1:53 PM: Obviously this writer didn't live through the Carter years with gas shortages and long lines to get what you could. Price controls have never worked or why aren't they in use today? After all, if the cure for supply/demand problems then it should be used universally. It isn't because it doesn't work. This is a mis-direction play by politicians who want to make you think they have(or can)sctually done something. They have not. Just like "gouging". Every investigation into gouging hasn't found any. So we must use something else, increase the supply or lower demand. Wait till Iran gets going on threats/action to the Saudis and the flow of oil falls. Then you will see a REAL problem. This is just the camel's nose under the tent. Their are some people out there who really intend to make us hurt, like the dictator of Venezuela. It won't be that difficult.Report Abuse (Related)
bcjr wrote on May 31, 2007 2:13 PM: hey teenager, go look up bushs crawford ranch. i'll bet your gonna find that its a heck of a lot more "green" than your buddy algore. i hope you get around to thinkin for yourself one of these days.Report Abuse (Related)
Pile of Debris wrote on May 31, 2007 3:02 PM: Hey Teenager, maybe you should check out Bush's eco-freindly ranch before you go spouting your Bush hate. Damn....bcjr beat me to it! Anyways, gas prices are high because we refuse to build more refineries, period. They are already running at 93%, they cannot run like that forever. They also have to have maintenace from time to time. Bush and his "buddies" don't control the price of the world crude oil supply. Lastly the only thin the Gov't can do for gas prices is to raise or lower taxes on gasoline, right now they are charging you over $.50 per gallon. It you want lower gas prices urg your gov't to lower the taxes on it. Exxon had a 9% profit margin, less than your local bank, get over it.Report Abuse (Related)
G.N.C. wrote on May 31, 2007 3:05 PM: Wow Rose, nice display of hatred.
Teenager is entitled to her opinion. I guess just because she's right doesn't mean you need to spew your vitriolic comments.
Heard of common courtesy?
Report Abuse (Related)
voterepublican wrote on May 31, 2007 3:18 PM: Here are some questions I have for the writer of this editorial (and all you other Libs out there):
1) What type of car do you drive? If not a hybrid, it better be a V4.
2) Why do you live 18 miles from work? Move closer - it's your choice where you live and work.
3) Someone already mentioned why are you taking your kids to school? Do you carpool? If not, why not?
3) Why don't you (and your Eco-wacko buddies) promote building more refineries and more nuclear power plants? France has built (not sure on the number) but more than 10 since we last built one.
A few comments:
1) Oil is NOT the problem. There is PLENTY of oil. The issue is the refining of the oil. There are so many regulations on what type of gas can be produced (state by state - especially mexifornia)and when they can produce what - that they have to continually do maintenance on the lines. Read a up on the industry.
2) The oil companies receive ~$.09 of profit from every gallon of gas sold - after PAYING for finding it, drilling, extracting, hauling, and refining (after the $$$ of building the refineries). The US government gets ~.50 FOR DOING NOTHING. It's not the oil barons taking your money. That's a tax on you - complain about that!
3) Start reducing the profits of the oil companies. You'll see layoffs. That will mean more issues on the lines, that will more shortages and more $$$ at the pump. Report Abuse (Related)
Michael Burt wrote on May 31, 2007 3:25 PM: voterepublican, you could have written the same content without the partisan BS and the insults. Why don't you try it sometime, and maybe you'll like it. Many of us sure will. Report Abuse (Related)
G.N.C. wrote on May 31, 2007 3:35 PM: Michael, he could have, but that would have required him to think before he typed. I'm willing to answer:
1) Hybrid
2) 3 Miles (I did move). Yes, I carpool the kids and I carpool to work.
3) I'm all for bringing the current ones up to capacity before we we build refineries. This is also the choice of the Oil companies. They all stated they wanted to expand existing if possible, not build new. Since Bush's speech regarding alternative fuels, they lowered the amount they wanted to produce from an increase of 1.6 - 1.8 million barrels a day (an increase of 10 percent), to 1 million barrels per day.
These are quotes from the oil companies, not the lefties, not the libs, or anything else you wish to call people.
Look it up.
Report Abuse (Related)
G wrote on May 31, 2007 3:36 PM: Thank You Michael, I agree. But in all fairness the same should be said to a few other posts here also.Report Abuse (Related)
mel wrote on May 31, 2007 3:40 PM: I'm impressed at the discourse backed up by research most of the posters have made on both sides of this issue. However, RiverCity Rose once again has nothing more to bring to the table other than name calling and sarcastic remarks. Leaves a bad taste. I think I'm done with this QC Times hobby. Have fun everyone. Report Abuse (Related)
Michael Burt wrote on May 31, 2007 4:14 PM: G.N.C., I never said I agreed with him, just asked for politeness. You're preaching to to choir.
G, I do try on occassion, but it almost always falls on deaf ears, or blind eyes. Maybe the new character limits will help, depending on size. Report Abuse (Related)
Jenius wrote on May 31, 2007 6:32 PM: A couple of comments:
It must be part of the current far-right mantra to blame the lack of refineries for the high oil prices, but what do refineries have to do with the increase in the world market price of a barrel of oil over the past few years?
Also, it's not quite right to say that the Government does nothing for the $.50 per gallon it gets, since that money is targeted toward the highway system that allows us to use up all that gasoline.Report Abuse (Related)
mrs00 wrote on May 31, 2007 9:24 PM: Please Mr. Government, provide for me because I cannot provide for myself. 18 miles to work each way X 5 days a week = 180 miles. Divide that by a decent car (NOT a $40,000.00 car) that gets 30 mpg = 6 gallons a week. Today gas is $3.11 per gallon so that would be $18.66 for the week to work and back. Work is a must, all of the extra driving you want to do can be held to a minumum (remember, we are all supposed to "sacrifice"). If you can't afford $18.66 per week for gas, you have another problem beside big-bad-oil. Gas guzzler, income problem, etc.. Do something to better yourself instead of relying on or blaming the Government. The oil company averages $.08 per gallon profit, the gas station owner averages $.04 per gallon profit, and the Government averages $.48 per gallon in profit (taxes). If you think you are being abused, look at the numbers and figure out who is abusing you. You think the Goverment is the answer, but they are usually the problem. Blaming Bush is easiest though!Report Abuse (Related)
hm... wrote on May 31, 2007 10:46 PM: pardon me here...but isnt bush the government? and wasnt the bush family a bunch of oil tycoons? therefore...a member of a family of oil tycoons in the government, and the price of gas goes up? i see the problem here...coincidence? and didnt gas prices go up when senior bush was in office too? hmmmmmmm...suppose that's just a coincidence too
Report Abuse (Related)
JoeyButtafuoco wrote on May 31, 2007 11:24 PM: To GNC: Once again someone disagrees with you and your line of liberal thinking and you start giving them the mighty then thou speach. How about if you just let people just give their opinion and leave them alone. You're not always right... in fact your so far left I'm sure the Howard Dean thinks your way out there.Report Abuse (Related)
mrs00 wrote on May 31, 2007 11:56 PM: to hm...I thought the Democrats were going to "right" all of these "wrongs" if elected. What have they done about the price of gas since they have been elected? I was not aware that Bush and his family were in control of the gas prices in the U.S. and probably the entire world. I was not sure the guy had the brains to control much of anything (I'm not a Bush fan). We could all learn something from you. Please provide detail. I am probably also wrong that people should be responsible for their own lives instead of demanding cradle-to-grave government support and intervention, but I guess the government IS probably the answer to all of our problems. They are doing such a good job with education, social security, medicare/medicade, our roads, keeping government spending in line, very little national debt, etc.. I think we need them to take over the oil companies and set gas prices also. I think I will take tomorrow off and sit at home and wait for the government to do something for me. Report Abuse (Related)
Teenager wrote on Jun 2, 2007 6:44 PM: River City Rose, I didn't say Bush wants you to bike to work. He doesn't, he doesn't care about the environment. And for all you other people who are saying Democrats aren't more environmentally friendly, look at the facts. I'm not saying there aren't Republicans who care about mother nature, but most don't. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the white house. Guess who took them down? Reagan. Reagan also wouldn't let any environmentally friendly bills go through . . . Reagan was any totally anti-environment. Bush isn't much better. So I'm just saying basically most Republicans don't care about the environment. Report Abuse (Related)
Teenager wrote on Jun 2, 2007 6:48 PM: Hey G! Don't even start to use my age against me. That is one way to get me extremely mad. People think because I'm sixteen I'm uneducated and brain washed. I'm not. Stop attacking my age, I'm more mature than a lot of posters on this site. River City Rose: You keep weeping, cause we're taking over and we're not taking the path you took. The future will be very different, and conservatives won't like it. =) And goodness, try to be more polite next time. I'm entitled to my opinions. Report Abuse (Related)
Teenager wrote on Jun 2, 2007 6:49 PM: Thanks G.N.C.!Report Abuse (Related)
Click here to get an account (Related) Click here to get an account
it's free and quick
