http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits - Political squabbles

Will sink us all

Basically, Democrats won't let the Republicans drill for new Oil, and the Republicans won't let the Democrats tax oil companies to induce heightened imports.

I don't give a rat's hind end what your political views are, both sides are equally moronic in this whole thing. While they bicker over saving the caribou or saving profits, you and I get to sell kidneys to put gas in our cars.

The fun part is, there's no end in sight.

I don't know what my point is, I guess I'm just a little annoyed over the system being designed to fail at our expense.

/angsty political gripe.

I just read somewhere in my local a guy in my area took a pickle jar and put  a 2" peice of metal fence post on the outside of a 1 1/2" peice of the same in the jar full of water, and somehow charged it and ran a tube from the jar to the injectors. It breaks the water down and the hydrogen goes in the cylinders. His crown vic gets 55 mpg now. But it looked really simple. 

Reb Cpl wrote: Benjichang wrote: Rather than look for new places to drill for oil, I think more effort needs to be placed in developing alternate energy sources The problem with that is, the oil companies will buy the released technology immediately, and sit on it to preserve their profits. I wouldn't be too surprised if that's happening now. I can't really substantiate this claim, but it would make sense from a tycoon's point of view. My theory, and there are many holes in it, but it makes me feel better to think that I have an idea.....is to put a price cap on gasoline. Then, when they pitch a huge fit over the loss of profits from rising oil costs, tell the oil companies that every dime they make from backing and marketing alternative fuel sources, they can keep, with a fraction of the taxation they're getting on the profits from gasoline. Someone, somewhere is going to have to be bought out for this to break. Everyone in a seat of control is making too much money to feel for the common folk.

I'm not sure I've ever said this before but....agreed!

Wow, that's interesting that it's the liberals fault they stopped production in 1995. Especially considering that Republicans had control over Congress at that time. Playing the partisan blame game won't make anyone believe you more.

So if the Supreme Court ruled, then it wasn't liberal fault. Once again, look at the actual problem, not partisan politics.

It's sad that people on both sides of the spectrum play this type of game. It's this bickering that was Reb's initial point.

First off, I would like to say that I do not believe in any government or corporate conspiracies to hide new technology or intentially drive up fuel prices. As said, taxing and price fixing will not work either. Attempts at price fixing will simply cause massive shortages as the OPEC nations will simply ship their oil elsewhere. I also wonder just how much drilling here in the U.S. will even affect prices. Most likely what this will lead to is OPEC nations further reducing production to keep prices steady. Also, with the increased capacity, it will drive additional usage from Americans along with increasing usage from China and India. I guarantee, we will be right back in the same boat. How many of you realize that in oil producing countries that fuel is dirt cheap? I think I read somewhere that it is $.25/ gallon in Venezuela. You know why it is so cheap? Because the industry is government owned and subsidized to keep the prices low. Do you really think that will happen here? Umm... doubtful. Part of the reason gas is so expensive here, is because it is so cheap there.

Oh, and from my understanding the cost of crude accounts for nearly 80% of the final price of gas. Refineries may help, but the days of $1.50 gas are gone my friends.

My last comment is that this is most likely what our country needs to realize how excessive we are in our power/fuel usage. Go to Germany sometime and see how you like the fuel charges there. Two years ago when I was in Munich, diesel was nearly $4.00/ gallon at the time. This would account for the heavy reliance on public transportation and lack of gas guzzling SUV's. The vast majority of the cars were small, deisel and stick shift. Also unlike here, the freeways weren't choked with semi after semi after semi. Motion sensors were used on buildings to turn lights out when not in use, in the hallways, rooms etc. Look around you. Does the soccer mom with 2 kids really need a 4wheel drive V8 Expedition to take the kids 2 miles down the road every day to daycare or to grab a carton of eggs? Don't even get me started on Hummers. How many of you can look around your house right now and see one of more lights on in rooms where no one is in? is your HVAC set on 65 in the summer and 75 in the winter? Whens the last time you walked to the grocery 2 blocks away? Or rode your bike?

Time to wake up guys.

Reb Cpl wrote: Fantastic points. I think. First, yes, the cost of crude determines the price of refined products. But wouldn't domestic acquisition of crude drive the cost of foreign crude down? If there's more of it in the market, the cost has got to drop. Crude is so high because of the limited amounts of production. Enhance that market, and you'll have a downward movement of crude prices, especially abroad. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that domestic drilling and production of oil in the U.S. would benefit the global market, not just help me fill my SUV at the pump. (A simplified outlook, it took me two tries to pass economics) As far as 'no need for gas guzzling 4-wheel drive...yadda yadda' Not all of us live in areas where public transportation is available. In fact, if a family around here doesn't have two cars, they're practically screwed. Where I live we measure distance in 'miles' and 'hours' so walking or biking to get a loaf of bread and half a gallon of milk is not feasible. We rely on our cars for every day existence, and often depend on 4 wheel drive transmissions to get us though a Catskill's winter. You say "Its time to wake up" I say "I've been awake, and still need help."

It's been a "few" years since my college economics course, but I am pretty familiar with supply and demand as I deal with it every day. It is a very simplified veiw that raising supply will lower demand and thus prices. Do you really think that the OPEC nations are going to lower prices? I would put money on the fact that they will continue to lower production to keep prices artificially high. Think about it, if you are selling 10 barrels at $100/ barrel, you are making the same as selling 20 barrels at $50/barrel. Decrease production and you keep the prices high. All we saw for the past couple of years was OPEC testing the waters to see what was the pain threshhold. What they saw was that even though with increased prices, we still continued to take it right in the seat and continue on unabashed. Truthfully, even if we reduce our use, will prices lower? Most likely not. It is in our best interest to use current techonologies to lower our usage to keep our cost down, not expecting it to lower overall prices.

As for where people live, I agree mass transit is not viable for a lot of areas outside major metro. I grew up in Orlando, and now live in BFE Ohio. In both, you still need to have a car. I agree to a certain extent that some people need 4x4's, but a Hummer? An Expedition? How about a 6 cylinder Explorer? or a 4 cyclinder RAV4? While I mention Florida, go check out Orlando, Boca, Miami and you will see Hummers, Expeditions, Escalades etc commonly. Need based doesn't work there. I believe 1991 was the last time it snowed there.

By no means am I saying that anyone is going to 'force" Americans to start driving smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles. Simple economics will. A lot of people on here don't remember the 70's. I do. What do you think killed the muscle car? Sure, high insurance rates helped, but so did rising gas prices and public opinion. All happened about the same time that Honda, Toyota and the other imports grabbed a toe hold in the U.S. Americans demanded smaller more gas efficient vehicles.. Honda gave us the Civic, Toyota gave us the Corolla, Ford gave us the Pinto, AMC gave us the Gremlin, and Chevy gave us the Opel. This statement alone explains the vast majority of the downfall of the American auto industry.

oldpbnoob wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: Fantastic points. I think. First, yes, the cost of crude determines the price of refined products. But wouldn't domestic acquisition of crude drive the cost of foreign crude down? If there's more of it in the market, the cost has got to drop. Crude is so high because of the limited amounts of production. Enhance that market, and you'll have a downward movement of crude prices, especially abroad. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that domestic drilling and production of oil in the U.S. would benefit the global market, not just help me fill my SUV at the pump. (A simplified outlook, it took me two tries to pass economics) As far as 'no need for gas guzzling 4-wheel drive...yadda yadda' Not all of us live in areas where public transportation is available. In fact, if a family around here doesn't have two cars, they're practically screwed. Where I live we measure distance in 'miles' and 'hours' so walking or biking to get a loaf of bread and half a gallon of milk is not feasible. We rely on our cars for every day existence, and often depend on 4 wheel drive transmissions to get us though a Catskill's winter. You say "Its time to wake up" I say "I've been awake, and still need help." It's been a "few" years since my college economics course, but I am pretty familiar with supply and demand as I deal with it every day. It is a very simplified veiw that raising supply will lower demand and thus prices. Do you really think that the OPEC nations are going to lower prices? I would put money on the fact that they will continue to lower production to keep prices artificially high. Think about it, if you are selling 10 barrels at $100/ barrel, you are making the same as selling 20 barrels at $50/barrel. Decrease production and you keep the prices high. All we saw for the past couple of years was OPEC testing the waters to see what was the pain threshhold. What they saw was that even though with increased prices, we still continued to take it right in the seat and continue on unabashed. Truthfully, even if we reduce our use, will prices lower? Most likely not. It is in our best interest to use current techonologies to lower our usage to keep our cost down, not expecting it to lower overall prices. As for where people live, I agree mass transit is not viable for a lot of areas outside major metro. I grew up in Orlando, and now live in BFE Ohio. In both, you still need to have a car. I agree to a certain extent that some people need 4x4's, but a Hummer? An Expedition? How about a 6 cylinder Explorer? or a 4 cyclinder RAV4? While I mention Florida, go check out Orlando, Boca, Miami and you will see Hummers, Expeditions, Escalades etc commonly. Need based doesn't work there. I believe 1991 was the last time it snowed there. By no means am I saying that anyone is going to 'force" Americans to start driving smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles. Simple economics will. A lot of people on here don't remember the 70's. I do. What do you think killed the muscle car? Sure, high insurance rates helped, but so did rising gas prices and public opinion. All happened about the same time that Honda, Toyota and the other imports grabbed a toe hold in the U.S. Americans demanded smaller more gas efficient vehicles.. Honda gave us the Civic, Toyota gave us the Corolla, Ford gave us the Pinto, AMC gave us the Gremlin, and Chevy gave us the Opel. This statement alone explains the vast majority of the downfall of the American auto industry.

i have an 4wd expedition and an 4wd f-150 with a 5.4L trition V8. a explorer or a rav4 wont cut it in 4ft of snow like a bigger SUV/truck will. not in north dakota annyway.

Tolgak wrote: An SUV is the only way to be safe, and is the way to go if you have kids.

Nonsense. As mentioned, big SUVs are nearly non-existent in Europe and their mortality rate is no higher. Also take into consideration that you actually have a higher roll over rate in an SUV than you do in a passenger car. The only higher rate I can imagine would be if one vehicle is an SUV and the other is a small car. However, if we are all driving small cars this scenario is negated to being irrelevant.

oldpbnoob wrote: Tolgak wrote: An SUV is the only way to be safe, and is the way to go if you have kids. Nonsense. As mentioned, big SUVs are nearly non-existent in Europe and their mortality rate is no higher. Also take into consideration that you actually have a higher roll over rate in an SUV than you do in a passenger car. The only higher rate I can imagine would be if one vehicle is an SUV and the other is a small car. However, if we are all driving small cars this scenario is negated to being irrelevant.

you have a point. but i think hes talking about size wize, you have a better chance of surviving a crash in a SUV than a small car.

ammolord wrote: ] i have an 4wd expedition and an 4wd f-150 with a 5.4L trition V8. a explorer or a rav4 wont cut it in 4ft of snow like a bigger SUV/truck will. not in north dakota annyway.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but interesting that people have been living in North Dakota for hundreds, if not thousands of years prior to having these vehicles. Wonder what they did? If there are four feet of snow on the ground, what are you doing on the roads anyways? Anything more than a couple of inches here in Ohio and there is a level 3 snow emergency. And for the other 8 months of the year that there isnt 4 feet of snow on the ground...?

oldpbnoob wrote: ammolord wrote: ] i have an 4wd expedition and an 4wd f-150 with a 5.4L trition V8. a explorer or a rav4 wont cut it in 4ft of snow like a bigger SUV/truck will. not in north dakota annyway. There are always exceptions to the rule, but interesting that people have been living in North Dakota for hundreds, if not thousands of years prior to having these vehicles. Wonder what they did? If there are four feet of snow on the ground, what are you doing on the roads anyways? Anything more than a couple of inches here in Ohio and there is a level 3 snow emergency. And for the other 8 months of the year that there isnt 4 feet of snow on the ground...?

they havent canceled school for 4ft on the ground, so i have no choice.

and for the rest of the year, i have this (click sig)

Gator Taco wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: Tolgak wrote: An SUV is the only way to be safe, and is the way to go if you have kids. Nonsense. As mentioned, big SUVs are nearly non-existent in Europe and their mortality rate is no higher. Also take into consideration that you actually have a higher roll over rate in an SUV than you do in a passenger car. The only higher rate I can imagine would be if one vehicle is an SUV and the other is a small car. However, if we are all driving small cars this scenario is negated to being irrelevant. Have you ever seen what happens to a Honda Accord when a Chevy Tahoe nails it doing 45MPH?

thats what i was talking about in my post, il try and find a good pic to make my point.

**edit**

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04Yj9Ged6Daos/610x.jpg - http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04Yj9Ged6Daos/610x.jpg

those cars were hit by that blue SUV, look at the diffrence.

the oil companies are just greedy now, they are making redcord profits on the billions QUARTERLY. its rediculous and the gov.. needs to step in, gas is supposed to reach 5.50/gal if the rise is steady as it is now. i say all the company owners need to lose a kneecap since we are losing our kidneys for them.

however its not just that, all the overzealous people who want thier bigass SUVs and dont even need one. My dad owns a F-250 diesel and has only but once put a trailor on it and never uses the bed for anything but his empty coke cans. if people would just understand that bigger isnt better (in the car aspect only) then they wont be whining and b*ing over having to pay $100 to fill up.

so basically its a mix of morons and greed with a hint of not caring from the government

Ace_Of_Spades wrote: the oil companies are just greedy now, they are making redcord profits on the billions QUARTERLY. its rediculous and the gov.. needs to step in, gas is supposed to reach 5.50/gal if the rise is steady as it is now. i say all the company owners need to lose a kneecap since we are losing our kidneys for them.   however its not just that, all the overzealous people who want thier bigass SUVs and dont even need one. My dad owns a F-250 diesel and has only but once put a trailor on it and never uses the bed for anything but his empty coke cans. if people would just understand that bigger isnt better (in the car aspect only) then they wont be whining and b*ing over having to pay $100 to fill up.   so basically its a mix of morons and greed with a hint of not caring from the government

hasent this already been brought up??

i think thats what hes gettin at.

Reb Cpl wrote: ammolord wrote: i think thats what hes gettin at. Oh. Then he's wrong.

i know

it depends on what you use them for, SUVs = high occupancy, if you drive it for yourself only then your stupid, trucks, if you dont carry stuff in it alot or tow, then your stupid

no your not the greedy aspect, your the moronic aspect of my rant

the oil businesses are the greedy ones

i figured you could fill in the balnks a little better thanthis but apparently i hvae to get more detailed so you can better grasp what im trying to say...those who drive BIGASS vehicles just for the hell of it are MORONS the vehicles that get BAD mpg...blazer get decent mpg i believe 17-24 last time i checked its good, besides a blazer isnt really a HOV like say a Suburban or Expedition. Blazers a re lossely qualified as an SUV by what people think of them as next to the actual definition of it.

so before you slap a "fail stamp" on me speaking practicality why dont you recall what i said and start thinking WITH what i say instead of AGAINST it because the impracticallity of the Amercan mind with vehicles and spending is what makes us hated by the rest of the worlds people and loved by the foreign market

ammolord wrote: "pepole who drive big trucks are stupid".

without a purpose, who drive it "just cuz" are stupid, how many times must i say this

Ace_Of_Spades wrote: ammolord wrote: "pepole who drive big trucks are stupid". without a purpose, who drive it "just cuz" are stupid, how many times must i say this

nobody gives ace, get over it! we drive what we want! your point fails, suck it up and move on!

ammolord wrote: Ace_Of_Spades wrote: ammolord wrote: "pepole who drive big trucks are stupid". without a purpose, who drive it "just cuz" are stupid, how many times must i say this   nobody gives ace, get over it! we drive what we want! your point fails, suck it up and move on!

the american mind at its finest..."whatever, whatever i do what i want" once your wallet is in jeoperdy you'll be

a.) right here backing me up

b.) denying it all the way to bankrupcy 

Ace_Of_Spades wrote: ammolord wrote: Ace_Of_Spades wrote: ammolord wrote: "pepole who drive big trucks are stupid". without a purpose, who drive it "just cuz" are stupid, how many times must i say this   nobody gives ace, get over it! we drive what we want! your point fails, suck it up and move on! the american mind at its finest..."whatever, whatever i do what i want" once your wallet is in jeoperdy you'll be a.) right here backing me up b.) denying it all the way to bankrupcy

il take b.

nice south park quote. you obviously know what your talking about.

/Sarcasm

Reb Cpl wrote: Or, c. selling the truck and moving on with life. What about those whose wallets won't suffer because of responsible budgeting that allowed them to get the truck 'just cuz' in the first place? You can't make a sweeping generalization and expect to be heralded as a hero whose groundbreaking thought process should be the new standard for living.

well seeing that he said hed rather STAY with his truck, it wouldnt be c

id like to see how this would go over anywhere else int he world, Tolgak u just validated my point even more so, once again i didnt say those who drive big things are stupid, i said those who drive big things with no purpose than just to drive it are, adn there ar SOOO MANY of them in the united states its just rediculous, your taking my words and turning htem into something else which is getting rather irritating, i understand that some people have big trucks and hvae to make long trips with or with out stuff, ( i just took one so dont tell me i DONT understand)

Ok, Guido. I understand some peoples necessity occassionally for an SUV if they use it for work. As far as needing one to haul supplies once a month, most big box stores offer delivery and/or a rental truck. Before you say it, if you offset the cost of ownership i.e. higher payments, gas and general upkeep of SUV's it will more than make up for the $35-$50.00 it costs to rent a pickup for one to two hours.

I live in a very rural area and yes some people need trucks and such to haul grain trailers and farm equipment. This is a business need and there is no reason to have to justify it. However, the average family does not truly NEED an SUV to haul around the family.

Also, I am not necessarily talking about V6 vans. I am more specifically talking about larger vehicles such as Escalades, Expeditions, Tahoes, Hummers, Full size truck etc. Most minivans actually get halfway decent gas mileage compared to these.

*sigh* wrong again Reb, i live in both a rural and city environment (parents divorced) and in both environments people drive vehicles just for the hell of it and not for practicality, im not making personal attacks im stating a fact. im going for practicallity, which any person with common sense shoudl live by, and stating that those who get f-350s just for the hell of it, arent really looking to far down the raod but instead are looking at whats infront of them without a care in the world of what the future holds...and before you say "well no one can redict the future" im calling BS on it, in todays day and age we can see far enough into the future in the economic aspect that buying an f-350 just to look cool is utterly rediculous, completely impractical, and overall a VERY bad idea.

even people riding motorcycles that are getting exponentially more MPG than I do have a right to complain

but they arent because they did the practical thing and got something that still makes you look cool, gets amazing mpg, and, well practical so no one who owns a motorcycle is complaining. and in all honesty im probably going to get a motorcycle because even with my 33 mpg civic, it has room for 5 but is only me and my friend most of the time and my thinking is that i could get a motorcycle, save mpg, save money and still get to where im going just fine and "look cool" doing it. Since motorcycles are becoming more popular as the gas prices go up, its only practical to get one since their prices are going down.

For the record, I meant renting a vehicle from Lowes, Home Depot or paying the $50 delivery fee, not renting a vehicle from Uhaul. However, since you are probably arguing from a position of inexperience, I will let it go.

I am not looking to argue model by model as to what is and isn't and SUV and to be quite blunt, you have missed the overall point to the discussion.

Here is the point. As a society, Americans are going to have to deal with the fact that fossil fuel prices are going to continue to increase and little or nothing we can do will lower them. It is in our best interests to basically get used to it and learn to deal with it through use of learning to live more modestly as it pertains to fuel/energy consumption. If you want to consume, do it, but it will cost you. No matter what our politicians do or don't do it is not going to change anything. OPEC controls the production and therefore the price of oil and therefore gas. So unless we plan on attacking and taking over every OPEC nation, we are screwed. Even if we drill for oil in every corner of our country, it may not have an effect as economics and corporate profits will overwhelm patriontism. Market value and the race for the almighty dollar will prevail. If anyone thinks that any of the oil companies is going to sell oil domestically for $20.00/ gallon when the world market value is $100? And again, if we start drilling for oil and producing it, OPEC will decrease production to keep prices steady.

oldpbnoob wrote:   I am not looking to argue model by model as to what is and isn't and SUV and to be quite blunt, you have missed the overall point to the discussion.

thank you for understanding what i was getting at and not being a nit-picky, hole shooter looking for an easy escape to avoid the overall point of the matter