rushmc 18
Andy9o8 0
QuoteRick Santorum
And there's the proof.
Google the word "santorum".
We're all getting buggered.
rushmc 18
Quote>But sure as hell not here!
What don't you agree with me about? I'd be suprised if we disagreed on this particular issue.
What would have the gov regulate here? And how?
I do agree the $100 is a dumb plan if that is what you are talking about
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
"Big Oil" is currently making .09c per dollar of sales. Mircrsoft is making .33c per dollar of sales. Why is Big Oil evil here??
Oh, and we are not (suppoed to be) a socialist country. The kind of regulation you want does not work here and never has..........
let's see, where to begin...
how about, the world 'alternatives'. looks to be quite a few in the software market, even *gasp* in the OS area. don't see that many alternatives at the gas station though. let's see, 87, 89, 91 and diesel. hmm, maybe i'm missing something?
btw, i think bill started the thread to illustrate a 'dumb plan by congress' i didn't see him mention that big oil was 'evil'
/assuming i even believe your stats, source?
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
"Big Oil" is currently making .09c per dollar of sales. Mircrsoft is making .33c per dollar of sales. Why is Big Oil evil here??
Oh, and we are not (suppoed to be) a socialist country. The kind of regulation you want does not work here and never has..........
let's see, where to begin...
how about, the world 'alternatives'. looks to be quite a few in the software market, even *gasp* in the OS area. don't see that many alternatives at the gas station though. let's see, 87, 89, 91 and diesel. hmm, maybe i'm missing something?
btw, i think bill started the thread to illustrate a 'dumb plan by congress' i didn't see him mention that big oil was 'evil'
/assuming i even believe your stats, source?
The only way the gov should be involved in development of alternative energy is by reducing taxes. In any other way the gov gets involves someone makes big money and someone gets screwed (just like changes to the tax code)
Market forces and people will make the biggest difference with the best result.
I do not understand why many of the same libs that say we burn too much gas are now bitching about the current price of gas when one of the solutions offered to reduce gas was to raise the price!!! Now, the prices are high and someone must pay. My opinion? political election year politics
So, if the enviro nuts want alternatives then let the price go to $10 a gallon. You can dam well bet there is a Bill Gates of energy (I stole the bill gates statement) who is going to come up with something better. But they want it both ways......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
So... when you say the Oil Companies are only making $.09 per dollar of sales(I would LOVE to see the ACTUAL BOOKS on that shit)... is that aftar all of the expenses like the 680 MILLION EXXON paid their retiring CEO?????
That is one HELL of a lot of SKIMMING OFF the top..(I meant executive perks) and writing it off as an expense..
That is one HELL of a lot of SKIMMING OFF the top..(I meant executive perks) and writing it off as an expense..
billvon 2,403
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>What would have the gov regulate here? And how?
I don't think the government should try to stop "price gouging" (i.e. higher price) unless there is evidence that oil companies are corroborating to raise prices - and there's no evidence of that yet.
I don't think the government should try to stop "price gouging" (i.e. higher price) unless there is evidence that oil companies are corroborating to raise prices - and there's no evidence of that yet.
Amazon 7
QuoteI don't think the government should try to stop "price gouging" (i.e. higher price) unless there is evidence that oil companies are corroborating to raise prices - and there's no evidence of that yet.
And when you have Senator Stevens of AK blocking HIS committee from puttingHIS BUDDIES the OIL EXECS under OATH.. you never will get the truth from them..nice way to not HAVE to tell the truth.
rushmc 18
QuoteSo... when you say the Oil Companies are only making $.09 per dollar of sales(I would LOVE to see the ACTUAL BOOKS on that shit)... is that aftar all of the expenses like the 680 MILLION EXXON paid their retiring CEO?????
That is one HELL of a lot of SKIMMING OFF the top..(I meant executive perks) and writing it off as an expense..
I love the lefty class envey lines
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
QuoteLast I checked..... Frist was the Majority Leader.. and he presented it.. and look at the USUAL suspects behind it...... would you prefer henchmen??
henchmen, cronies, 'associates', chums, pals, all are good all good words for 'incumbents'
Incumbent = any politician looking to buy or steal votes from their base in order to stay in office. Even with stupid ideas like taxing $200 from someone in February and then 'rebating' $100 to them in June and expecting them to be ignorant enough to be thankful. Also look up "republican", "democrat", "senator", "congressman"
Edit: Let's see if the Democrat counterprosal is any better in ways that are other than focused on which voter demographic they are trying to buy off with either a monetary or emotional fix. It might be fun to compare and contrast the lack of content of both proposals. As well as the fervent debate in support and derision of two equally futile proposals designed 90% for PR purposes only.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rushmc 18
Quote>What would have the gov regulate here? And how?
I don't think the government should try to stop "price gouging" (i.e. higher price) unless there is evidence that oil companies are corroborating to raise prices - and there's no evidence of that yet.
Now this I agree with. Price fixing should be prosecuted
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,403
>And when you have Senator Stevens of AK blocking HIS committee
> from puttingHIS BUDDIES the OIL EXECS under OATH..
Stevens is a lunatic (although he is certainly one of the more entertaining members of congress.) If they want to subpoena oil company execs to get their take on it, I'd be all for that.
But there's no evidence I've seen that oil companies are _causing_ the price increases. Basic economics would do that without any meddling at all. Supply is dwindling, demand is increasing. Therefore prices go up. (Needless to say, they are profiting from the high oil demand, but there's no law against that.)
> from puttingHIS BUDDIES the OIL EXECS under OATH..
Stevens is a lunatic (although he is certainly one of the more entertaining members of congress.) If they want to subpoena oil company execs to get their take on it, I'd be all for that.
But there's no evidence I've seen that oil companies are _causing_ the price increases. Basic economics would do that without any meddling at all. Supply is dwindling, demand is increasing. Therefore prices go up. (Needless to say, they are profiting from the high oil demand, but there's no law against that.)
Quote
The only way the gov should be involved in development of alternative energy is by reducing taxes. In any other way the gov gets involves someone makes big money and someone gets screwed (just like changes to the tax code)
Market forces and people will make the biggest difference with the best result.
i hope you enjoy the time from now-->'market forces' make everything OK. i know i will!
Quote
I do not understand why many of the same libs that say we burn too much gas are now bitching about the current price of gas when one of the solutions offered to reduce gas was to raise the price!!! Now, the prices are high and someone must pay. My opinion? political election year politics
you must have me confused me with another hippy. i don't remember making the claim that we 'burn too much gas'
Quote
So, if the enviro nuts want alternatives then let the price go to $10 a gallon. You can dam well bet there is a Bill Gates of energy (I stole the bill gates statement) who is going to come up with something better. But they want it both ways......
yes yes, no need to develop alternatives for the sake of having alternatives, i.e. backups, i.e. choices BEFORE the price hits $10/gall. no need at all...after all, the 'market' was sooooo smart it was able to anticipate future shortages (based on historical data) and compensate for them adequately. right? right??
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
rehmwa 2
Quote>(Needless to say, they are profiting from the high oil demand, but there's no law against that.)
Wait a bit, we're working on it. Can't do it all in 7 days you know.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
Quoteafter all, the 'market' was sooooo smart it was able to anticipate future shortages (based on historical data) and compensate for them adequately. right? right??
So what you are saying is that the international and national governments must interfere in this market in order to compensate for a crappy situation caused by previous interference in the same market by the same governments?
Because I'd agree with that position to some extent. And I am normally very much a free market type. But to stimulate invention and the market, I'd say higher gas prices would do it. BUT NOT IN additional TAXES - what an incredible waste of money. And the higher prices are doing now without intervention.
So at this point, unless the price of fuel accelerates greatly (even compared to now) - I'd only really stick with incentives to invent new energy sources and build infrastructure to support same.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
mnealtx 0
QuoteI think Bill Frist and his cohorts. really do BELIEVE that Bribing the American people should be as easy as the Lobbyists bribing him and his cohorts.
It's worked for the Dems for decades... just look at how the inner city entitlement enclaves vote...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteSo... when you say the Oil Companies are only making $.09 per dollar of sales(I would LOVE to see the ACTUAL BOOKS on that shit)... is that aftar all of the expenses like the 680 MILLION EXXON paid their retiring CEO?????
he wrote .09c, but I think you're right in that is 9cents. Which looks to be about right. 10% profits isn't bad outside of the software industry. And when your sales are 300-400Billion, that means a sweet (and record) $34B profit on the year.
I'm interested in what the profit margin was back in 2000, or just a year by year trendline. I think the book cooking by the industry lies in how they show spending in R&D to make it seems like they're making less money than they really are.
QuoteWell, may not be the dumbest plan ever (the Alaskan bridge to nowhere or the Iraq war might take that title) but this one definitely makes the top 10. A proposed amendment to an emergency spending bill will give a $100 rebate to every american taxpayer, ostentibly to 'offset the pain' of higher gas prices.
This is the US Congress, which was once the most powerful branch of government in the US. They have the power to set new CAFE limits, remove fuel taxes, close oil-company tax loopholes, stop the SUV incentives, give greater tax breaks for fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles, push mass transit, set mass transit fares, and fund new mass transit projects. And their answer to high fuel prices? Send everyone a check. Which, if used as anticipated, will INCREASE fuel prices.
I am reminded of the Tocqueville quote - "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html
*bump*
CA Attorney General finally does something:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/ca_cafe.html
"California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit challenging the Bush Administration's new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks..."
...
"These rules fail that test by not requiring enough from the auto industry. The Bush Administration once again has missed an opportunity to promote new technology, fuel economy and conservation by issuing fuel economy goals that are status quo."
...
"The lawsuit's allegations mirror comments the plaintiffs submitted to NHTSA during the public review period on the rules. In a November, 2005 letter, the plaintiffs stated NHTSA "failed to consider alternative approaches that would have promoted energy conservation, made meaningful contributions to increased fuel economy and encouraged technological innovation."
...
"President Bush is making empty promises to Americans about fuel economy," added Lockyer. "He wants Congress to give him authority because he claims he will increase gas mileage in cars, but he has failed to set meaningful increases for gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks."
NO! say it ain't so...our Commander in Chief is out there promoting the status quo when it comes to auto/oil. And all the while we sit here thinking "These outrageous gas prices will CERTAINLY encourage new technology. The Free Market, with a little help from the Gov will get a hybrid in our driveways in no time..." But wait, Bush said we have to use less oil, right? Oh that was just B.S. I get it...
Thanks again Mr. Attorney General. This is the second time you've stepped up to the plate and called bullshi...
/how bout them CAFE laws now...lookin MIGHTY effective...
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
just one more post to stir the pot a bit...
same news, different source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050200704.html
In March, the Bush administration approved a 1.9 mile-per-gallon increase in the standards for sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickups -- all in the light truck class that includes big gas guzzlers -- to 24.1 mpg between 2008 and 2011. It also rewrote the rules for calculating how far light trucks must go on a gallon of gasoline.
But the lawsuit, joined by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, says the move included language that could "create incentives to build larger, less fuel-efficient models" and attempts to pre-empt a California law requiring a reduction of greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.
hmm, i seem to recall saying this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2187515;#2187515
so while all the legislation gets sorted out, the car companies get their acts together, and i save to buy a new vehicle i'm stuck with the responsibility of absorbing the higher fuel costs from now-->then.
btw,
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/...69eea57529cdba046a0/
seems like they're focused on 2008 model year. at the very earliest(and really its 2011, according to the PDF 'final rule'). what do you and i do from now till then? i still have to drive to/from work everyday in something...
upon further reading (this analysis may be incorrect tho, so take it as .02) seems like they are making SWEEPING changes from their current standards for 2008 MY (which is 22.5mpg for a mfr fleet) to a whopping 24MPG. WOW! a whole 1.5 additional mpg avg on their entire fleet... (pg 12, para 2, 'we estimate...)
so i wasn't the only one who looked at the 'amazing power' of congress and our exec to fix the problem with skepticism, given the direction that was issued on paper...looks like quite a few Attorney Generals read that same PDF and also decided it was garbage. hoooray. at least some of our elected officials are out there reading and doing the math...
this kind of bull will not fix the problem. i guess i'll say it again: american auto mfr's have screwed the pooch royally and our legislators are paralyzed to assist. have fun at the pump ya'll.
same news, different source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050200704.html
In March, the Bush administration approved a 1.9 mile-per-gallon increase in the standards for sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickups -- all in the light truck class that includes big gas guzzlers -- to 24.1 mpg between 2008 and 2011. It also rewrote the rules for calculating how far light trucks must go on a gallon of gasoline.
But the lawsuit, joined by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, says the move included language that could "create incentives to build larger, less fuel-efficient models" and attempts to pre-empt a California law requiring a reduction of greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.
hmm, i seem to recall saying this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2187515;#2187515
so while all the legislation gets sorted out, the car companies get their acts together, and i save to buy a new vehicle i'm stuck with the responsibility of absorbing the higher fuel costs from now-->then.
btw,
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/...69eea57529cdba046a0/
seems like they're focused on 2008 model year. at the very earliest(and really its 2011, according to the PDF 'final rule'). what do you and i do from now till then? i still have to drive to/from work everyday in something...
upon further reading (this analysis may be incorrect tho, so take it as .02) seems like they are making SWEEPING changes from their current standards for 2008 MY (which is 22.5mpg for a mfr fleet) to a whopping 24MPG. WOW! a whole 1.5 additional mpg avg on their entire fleet... (pg 12, para 2, 'we estimate...)
so i wasn't the only one who looked at the 'amazing power' of congress and our exec to fix the problem with skepticism, given the direction that was issued on paper...looks like quite a few Attorney Generals read that same PDF and also decided it was garbage. hoooray. at least some of our elected officials are out there reading and doing the math...
this kind of bull will not fix the problem. i guess i'll say it again: american auto mfr's have screwed the pooch royally and our legislators are paralyzed to assist. have fun at the pump ya'll.
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
First off we have not been attacked again since 911. IMO we are not "less secure" and if you say we are please show me the light.
Second, who is GWB making rich? I see who is getting rich but you are saying the Bush Admin is causing this. Please show me the proof.
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln