Issue: Fuel Costs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> Election 2008



Message

Jeff_from_Kentucky -> Issue: Fuel Costs (6/20/2008 5:35:35 PM)

I am interested in hearing what people think about the current fuel costs and how this issue will affect the election this year for President, the Senate, and the House.

I have no problem with the Democrats talking about researching greener and cheaper alternative fuel sources. I think that is a good idea. The problem is, they don't seem to have a plan for immediate relief for our wallets! They are against new drilling for oil and natural gas and a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax. Granted, those two things would only help a little bit and wouldn't solve the long range issue but at least it would show that they care about the affect that the high gas prices are having on our economy.

If the Republicans play it smart, they will use that fact to hammer away at the Democrats as the election approaches, especially if the gas prices don't go down by then. People often vote with their wallets and if the Democrats continue to refuse to come up with any ideas to help us now, it could come back to bite them in the election.



csl7037 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/20/2008 8:42:36 PM)

Floridians have supposedly been against drilling in the gulf for as long as I've lived here (since the 80s). Most just really never cared and the noisy environmentalists seemed to win out. Now that we're getting slammed at $4/gallon you're hearing what Floridians really think - and Bill Nelson needs to get a grip...he needs to get booted! Is he up for reelection? Wow, I hope so! You could really see his seat go to a Republican.

I hope the gas prices stay high and the debate rages on because it's so painfully obvious Obama doesn't have a clue what he's talking about on this one (either). I'd love to see the Democrats also pass a "windfall" tax on oil companies and let everyone's 401Ks take that hit . . . if I thought people would be smart enough to make the connection but they wont.



Evangel70 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/20/2008 9:45:21 PM)

quote:

The problem is, they don't seem to have a plan for immediate relief for our wallets! They are against new drilling for oil and natural gas and a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax.


IMO there is no immediate relief for the gas crisis. Drilling along our coasts will take 5-6 years to go online before we can get even a gallon out of the ocean and then there's the issue of who picks up the tab when we have another Exxon Valdez-type oil spill along the east coast?

A temporary suspension of the gas tax is simply a political ploy. If McCain really intended to propose that, he would have already done so. Even a gas tax holiday will only save the average person about $40. That wouldn't even fill up my gas tank.

IMO a windfall tax on the billions of profits made by the oil companies would be a good idea if those tax funds are used to build greener technologies or even build new refineries on U.S. soil. The oil companies have been given billions of dollars in tax incentives by the republicans who believe in "trickle down" investment and it obviously hasn't worked so maybe a tax penalty will encourage them to do the right thing.

I also find it ironic that GWB was not pushing for drilling in Florida when his brother was governor and opposed the idea.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/20/2008 11:38:58 PM)

Maybe the relief wouldn't be much but it would be better than what the Democrats are doing now, which is nothing but talk! And their talk is only about long-term solutions. I agree that long-term solutions are vital, but we also need something short term. To focus on one and ignore the other is not smart at all.

What are we supposed to do in the ten, twenty, or thirty years it takes to develop clean, cheap alternative fuel sources? At least new drilling would get us more oil and natural gas in far less time than that. And a temporary suspension of the gas tax is better than nothing at all.



Leslie_JnJs_mom -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/20/2008 11:42:48 PM)

There is nothing that can be done right now. OPEC are the ones charging whatever the record rate is today and there is nothing we can do about it. We can drill for our own oil and get car companies to make cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. I saw one on Fox news that Honda just made. Between the two our country would not need to go buy oil from terrorists.
I do remember the subject coming up a few years ago when gas first started to climb. I remember everyone going nuts over 1.99 a gallon gas! The senate said no way.



wing2000 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 12:06:51 AM)

quote:

Maybe the relief wouldn't be much but it would be better than what the Democrats are doing now, which is nothing but talk! And their talk is only about long-term solutions. I agree that long-term solutions are vital, but we also need something short term. To focus on one and ignore the other is not smart at all.

What are we supposed to do in the ten, twenty, or thirty years it takes to develop clean, cheap alternative fuel sources? At least new drilling would get us more oil and natural gas in far less time than that. And a temporary suspension of the gas tax is better than nothing at all.


There is no short term solution....thanks to the short sightedness of past and current adminstrations. It will be 8-10 years before oil is produced out of newly opened areas.

Additionally, the US is estimated to hold only 3 percent of the worlds oil supply. I'm not sure how additional exploration is really going to put much of a dent in the price of oil...(which is determined by globally).

One step Congress should take....regulate the speculation in the energy futures market (go back to pre-Enron days).



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 12:18:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

One step Congress should take....regulate the speculation in the energy futures market (go back to pre-Enron days).


I can agree with that idea. Unfortunately, neither major party will even touch that one. I believe Germany and a couple of other European nations recently passed laws to end oil speculation. I normally don't want the US to do what other nations are doing but they might be on to something this time.

I know one of the possible long term solutions that has been discussed is to improve our mass transit systems and model them along the lines of the European systems. The major problem I see with that is that we are much more spread out than Europe. Everyone is packed in together over there so their mass transit system is a perfect fit for them. We're a lot more spread out so their type of system isn't necessarily practical here. The cost alone of constructing such a system would be astronomical. It might work in larger metropolitan areas such as NY, LA, DC, Chicago, etc. but where I live in the greater Cincinnati/northern Kentucky area, it wouldn't work.

There has been talk of putting in a light rail system around here. It sounds good in theory but as spread out as everyone is around here, it was estimated that such a system would need over ten thousand miles of new track! That just isn't workable for this area.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 12:23:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

There is no short term solution....thanks to the short sightedness of past and current adminstrations. It will be 8-10 years before oil is produced out of newly opened areas.


I'm not sure about that. I remember reading some months back that the oil company execs said they could start pumping oil out of ANWR within two years. It isn't an immediate fix but at least it is something and would be much closer than alternative sources are right now.

I say we give it a shot, but also work on developing cheap, clean, alternative fuel sources at the same time. I really believe that we need to closely look at both long-term and short-term possibilities at the same time.



Sophie11 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 12:39:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evangel70

A temporary suspension of the gas tax is simply a political ploy. If McCain really intended to propose that, he would have already done so. Even a gas tax holiday will only save the average person about $40. That wouldn't even fill up my gas tank.

I agree entirely. The whole idea of it is nothing but a joke. I laugh at McCain for his stupid proposal.

quote:

IMO a windfall tax on the billions of profits made by the oil companies would be a good idea if those tax funds are used to build greener technologies or even build new refineries on U.S. soil. The oil companies have been given billions of dollars in tax incentives by the republicans who believe in "trickle down" investment and it obviously hasn't worked so maybe a tax penalty will encourage them to do the right thing.

I disagree entirely. For a multitude of reasons, but let's take just a few. First of all, any extra tax on the oil companies is really going to be nothing more than an extra tax on consumers buying gas, which is basically the entire country. The government surely knows this too. They are doing nothing more than taxing the citizens through the backdoor instead of the front.
Secondly, while the government wants to say to the oil companies "I command you to build more refineries!!!!!" it is also a joke. Because when it comes down to it, where are these oil companies supposed to go to build these refineries without the same said government stepping in to save a fish or a donkey or a cricket or a mouse from "displacement"?
Also I do not really know how the idea of the oil companies "doing the right thing" makes any sense in the first place. Do what right? Don't they provide us with the oil we need to run our vehicles, heat our homes, and cook our food? Yes. Do they provide us with this product and service at a reasonable cost? Yes, the US still does not pay near as much as some other countries. Are they a business? Yes. Do they have the right and need for that matter to make a profit? Yes. (Anyway, all those answers are in my opinion)

As a side thought on that last part of my entry, there are a lot of things that people need as much as they need gasoline: food, water, shelter, electricity, clothing, toilet paper, Little Debbie snack cakes. All of these things have increased in price. People don't like it I'm sure but they pay it because they need it and they don't expect the company to start slashing prices, they don't expect to get it for wholesale pricing because the company should feel badly for their financial troubles. To me, the oil companies are the same thing. I don't expect them to lose money in their business just to help me out, you know?



saved9201 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 1:45:24 AM)

There's a lot of things you can do, but because we're Americans and we're free and cain't no libral tree hugger tell us what to drive, we refuse to do it.
Like some people will insist they have a right to drive a Ford F350 dually back and forth to work everyday cause you ain't a man less you drive a truck, and a big 'un at that. And they have a right to drive two blocks to the store in their Chevy Suburban 6 times a day when they could walk. And they have a right to refuse to carpool because carpooling is for libral sissy tree huggers. And they have a right to make fun of sissy librals on bicycles and scooters and those elitest who talk about alternative energy sources like electricity and hydrogen celled cars, cuz the people on Fox told them those things were a hundred years away. But of course they also have a right to complain about high gas prices.

- Julius



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 3:06:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

There's a lot of things you can do, but because we're Americans and we're free and cain't no libral tree hugger tell us what to drive, we refuse to do it.
Like some people will insist they have a right to drive a Ford F350 dually back and forth to work everyday cause you ain't a man less you drive a truck, and a big 'un at that. And they have a right to drive two blocks to the store in their Chevy Suburban 6 times a day when they could walk. And they have a right to refuse to carpool because carpooling is for libral sissy tree huggers. And they have a right to make fun of sissy librals on bicycles and scooters and those elitest who talk about alternative energy sources like electricity and hydrogen celled cars, cuz the people on Fox told them those things were a hundred years away. But of course they also have a right to complain about high gas prices.

- Julius


Problem is more than a few of the so-called tree huggers have a rather large carbon foot print themselves.... I always recall a picture of the Sierra Club having the huge meeting at Lake Tahoe on one of the largest and most beautiful redwood deck I have ever seen... The enoviroment as a cause has probably the largest group of do as I say not as I do types...

John



csl7037 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 7:44:58 AM)

Listening to the environmentalists is largely what got us into this mess and I think people are slowly beginning to understand that . . . no, nobody's going to listen to any more of that and start driving that ridiculous Saturn Astra's in droves.

I agree that it took decades to get into this mess and will take a long time to get out - to become more self-sufficient and begin to take advantage of the resources we have in our own country. But there would be a slight short term bump if they passed legislation to allow drilling in Florida and/or Anwar if only on speculation.



PolarBear -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 9:36:04 AM)

I think we need a multi-pronged approach. We MUST do ALL of these:

* Drill in ANWR and more in the Gulf and other regions in the States where oil might exist
* Work on alternate technologies -- both alternatives to oil for existing cars and other things like electric cars
* Encourage folks to drive less -- provide more (electric) public transport, bike paths, whatever



saved9201 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 9:53:05 AM)

While we debate drilling for oil, a commodity that no matter what we do, will always be in limited supply, and controlled by some form of cartel, even if it's a domestic one, look at what Honda is doing.

I know, Rush and Hannity will tell you that H2 powered vehicles are years down the road, but here's one you can lease for 600 bucks a month, now in Southern California. If you read the article you'll see that the goal one day is to develop a device where each home can produce it's own hydrogen fuel for the car. This could potentially let OPEC know, who are primarily to blame for this, by the way, that one day the world won't need their stinking oil. That day is closer than we think people. Just letting the world know that we're serious about turning away from oil altogether may be enough to get OPEC to back off.

By the way, one of the reasons we buy most of our oil from foreign sources even though we have our own, is not just because of the tree huggers. It's also because we have other regulations, mainly safety regulations, that make it more difficult and costly for us to do what they do. That includes building new refineries. Some folks think that if we pass a bill today to allow drilling anywhere, anyhow, we'll have cheap gas flowing in our cars tomorrow. I know the Godly Christian Conservative thing to do is to blame liberals for everything, but we've got to use common sense here and realize fossil fuel is about to become a thing of the past. Do we want to invest trillions in something that could easily one day become, well, obsolete?

Me, personally, I'd rather spend the 4 bucks a gallon today, knowing that in a few years, or at least in the not too distant future, I or my children and grandchildren will never have to spend a dime for fuel to run vehicles again. And on top of that, the air will be cleaner as well. It's possible, but it also depends on where we focus our resources. If the angry mob pushes to drill here, drill there, drill everywhere, then that's what we'll do. And then when we finally find the oil, they'll be no one left to buy it.

- Julius



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 10:06:17 AM)

Julius, everyone on here seems to agree that we need to develop alternative fuel sources. I don't think any of us are against that idea. But in the mean time until those alternative sources are plentiful and available nationwide, which probably will be at least ten years if not more, what is wrong with using what we already know that we have? This isn't a case of either/or. We use the one (oil) while working to develop the other and make it available and affordable. It makes perfect sense to me, and that is what most conservatives are arguing in favor of.



its_GO_time -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 10:22:22 AM)

There's a saying, don't be afraid of moving slowly, but be afraid of standing still. It's sad there are so many in Washington, who are more concerned with the lifestyle of squirrels, and insects, than with the people they are supposed to represent.

I for one cannot afford to lease(a joke unto itself- leasing a car), a car for $600 a month(![sm=eek.gif]!), and I'm sure the majority of those posting, have more important thing to do with their money, than flushing it down their Government mandated, low-flow toilets, in an auto lease.

A windfall profits tax would be passed on to the consumer.("corporations dont pay taxes, people do"-R. Reagan) As someone else posted, most of us here, are the "fatcat investors of BIG OIL", in our 401k's so we'll be hammered 2 ways; At the pump(some more) and in our investments for the future.

Drill now, and encourage investment in alternatives for the future. Simple enough for me.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 10:54:49 AM)

One thing that hasn't been suggested is lowering the national speed limit to 55. If we got together with Europe and put this together, we could likely reduce worldwide consumption by 400 kbpd. This is equivalent to 1/3 of the world's spare capacity.

One thing, though, that most people don't understand is that when you have something in the market called contango- that is, where further-out contracts cost more- future expectations about oil supply can pull up the price to buy oil and have it delivered today.

So if we figure out policies to bring the price of oil down in the future (or cause investors to panic on the expectation that oil will be worthless in 15 years), we can probably bring today's spot prices down.



ken1906_4 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 11:06:54 AM)

Not sure if this belong in the Conspriacy theory thread, but I saw this the other day.

Has anyone heard of this loophole.....

Enron Loophole

Also, there is a book out by Lindsey Williams called "Energy Non-Crisis". I recommend checking it out and be the judge.

I'm all for alternative energy/fuel sources, especially unlimited clean sources such as wind, water and even nuclear, but there are a lot of safety regulations to keep this from going mainstream.

On the flip side, I honestly think if we drill what we have here(i.e. Alaska, which potentially has the biggest oil field on the planet, discovered in the 70's) would make us independent from OPEC. Unfortunately if what the link I posted and what Lindsey Williams said in his book is true, freeing up Alaskan oil and getting rid of this loophole will ruin the US economy. The Dems and repubs that run our government are responsible for all this and of course we the people, the consumers are the ones paying for it. The sad part is that we are so bogged down on which political party better that we can't see they are one in the same.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 11:09:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, everyone on here seems to agree that we need to develop alternative fuel sources. I don't think any of us are against that idea. But in the mean time until those alternative sources are plentiful and available nationwide, which probably will be at least ten years if not more, what is wrong with using what we already know that we have? This isn't a case of either/or. We use the one (oil) while working to develop the other and make it available and affordable. It makes perfect sense to me, and that is what most conservatives are arguing in favor of.

Jeff,

I think the interesting here is that it's actually faster to develop renewables than it is to develop oil.

A wind turbine costs $1 million and one year to build, has a generating capacity of 2 MW, and generates the oil equivalent of maybe 40 barrels per day. Just to buy an oil field in the North Sea, an oil company might have to shell out $60K just to bring 1 barrel oil per day online, making oil 2.4 times as expensive. Within three years, one utility expects to take its wind capacity from 275 MW (5.5K boepd) to roughly 2200 MW (44K boepd).

Meanwhile, it might take 10 years to get a sizeable amount of oil out of ANWR. So oil probably has a longer lead time than renewables.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help out the oil industry, but I am saying that the market seems to imply that more renewables might be a more viable solution to the energy problem than more oil.



saved9201 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 12:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, everyone on here seems to agree that we need to develop alternative fuel sources. I don't think any of us are against that idea. But in the mean time until those alternative sources are plentiful and available nationwide, which probably will be at least ten years if not more, what is wrong with using what we already know that we have? This isn't a case of either/or. We use the one (oil) while working to develop the other and make it available and affordable. It makes perfect sense to me, and that is what most conservatives are arguing in favor of.

Jeff,

I think the interesting here is that it's actually faster to develop renewables than it is to develop oil.

A wind turbine costs $1 million and one year to build, has a generating capacity of 2 MW, and generates the oil equivalent of maybe 40 barrels per day. Just to buy an oil field in the North Sea, an oil company might have to shell out $60K just to bring 1 barrel oil per day online, making oil 2.4 times as expensive. Within three years, one utility expects to take its wind capacity from 275 MW (5.5K boepd) to roughly 2200 MW (44K boepd).

Meanwhile, it might take 10 years to get a sizeable amount of oil out of ANWR. So oil probably has a longer lead time than renewables.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help out the oil industry, but I am saying that the market seems to imply that more renewables might be a more viable solution to the energy problem than more oil.


Thank you.
At least one person gets it.

-Julius



saved9201 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 12:39:38 PM)

Do y'all remember when the land line phone companies use to charge whatever they wanted? Especially for long distance? Even after the gubment stepped in and broke up the Bell monopoly, other companies were just as bad. What happened to drive down phone companies' prices? Giving them the go-ahead to put up telephone poles in places they hadn't before? Nope. Telling people to cut down on their phone calls? Nope. It was giving people an ALTERNATIVE. Cell phones. They were primative at first, compared to the ones we have now, but the land line phone companies took notice and realized they had to do something or lose customers. No, not everybody could afford cell phones at first, and no, the service wasn't as reliable as it is now. But the land line companies read the writing on the wall. Is it too far reaching to say that one day land line communications will be obsolete? Who would've thunk it back then? Technology changed the entire model of the communications industry. And I believe that technology can change the model for the transportation industry.

Those who claim that these H2 powered cars are 10 years away, well, in SoCal, they're here now (obviously some of you didn't bother to read the article). I know, some of you still insist you'll never be able to afford a hydrogen car at $600 a month. One of my first cell phone bills for minimal minutes and limited call area was $400. My point: the price will go down. And there is technology out there now that can convert existing vehicles to H2 based. And as experts have pointed out, how long do you think it would take for us to get a tank of gas after legislation is passed to drill anywhere, everywhere? Some of you think finding oil is easy as Uncle Jed "shootin' for some food, and up through the ground comes a bubbling crude." And who wants to depend on oil from anybody, if just around the corner, there's the potential for people to create their own fuel - for nothing.

OPEC's not stupid. They know what it takes and how long it takes to explore for, set up rigs, drill for, and distribute oil. They know they have at least a 5 or 10 year window where they can milk us for as much as they want. But what if we sent a message to them that we're tired of using oil. Period. We're on to something better. Cheaper. Cleaner. Who knows? A message like that might cause the price of oil to drop overnight. And save us and future generations money in the long run.

- Julius



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 1:20:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Jeff,

I think the interesting here is that it's actually faster to develop renewables than it is to develop oil.

A wind turbine costs $1 million and one year to build, has a generating capacity of 2 MW, and generates the oil equivalent of maybe 40 barrels per day. Just to buy an oil field in the North Sea, an oil company might have to shell out $60K just to bring 1 barrel oil per day online, making oil 2.4 times as expensive. Within three years, one utility expects to take its wind capacity from 275 MW (5.5K boepd) to roughly 2200 MW (44K boepd).

Meanwhile, it might take 10 years to get a sizeable amount of oil out of ANWR. So oil probably has a longer lead time than renewables.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help out the oil industry, but I am saying that the market seems to imply that more renewables might be a more viable solution to the energy problem than more oil.


I understand what you are saying but I don't see where wind power is replacing oil. Isn't it replacing the coal-fired electrical generating plants? If they are, that is a good thing because coal is probably dirtier than oil. I also understand the point Julius was making about hydrogen power. Yes, we are on the verge of it but it is still going to be 10 years or more before the majority of the people here can benefit from it.

As far as ANWR is concerned, as I recall the surveys were done years ago. They already know where to drill in ANWR. They just need the go-ahead. We could actually be getting a large supply of oil from ANWR within six months if they wanted to! We would be getting the benefit of that while we are waiting for the new technologies to become available and more wide-spread to the general public.

And for those who are concerned that there will be an environmental catastophe if we do drill in ANWR, I point to the Alaska pipeline. People were screaming about the problems that would cause. Guess what? There have been no ecological problems with the Alaska pipeline that I have heard of. And that was installed more than 30 years ago. The technology is even better now, creating even less of a chance of any ecological catastrophe occuring in ANWR.



Sophie11 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 1:28:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

Do y'all remember when the land line phone companies use to charge whatever they wanted? Especially for long distance? Even after the gubment stepped in and broke up the Bell monopoly, other companies were just as bad. What happened to drive down phone companies' prices? Giving them the go-ahead to put up telephone poles in places they hadn't before? Nope. Telling people to cut down on their phone calls? Nope. It was giving people an ALTERNATIVE. Cell phones. They were primative at first, compared to the ones we have now, but the land line phone companies took notice and realized they had to do something or lose customers. No, not everybody could afford cell phones at first, and no, the service wasn't as reliable as it is now. But the land line companies read the writing on the wall. Is it too far reaching to say that one day land line communications will be obsolete? Who would've thunk it back then? Technology changed the entire model of the communications industry. And I believe that technology can change the model for the transportation industry.

Those who claim that these H2 powered cars are 10 years away, well, in SoCal, they're here now (obviously some of you didn't bother to read the article). I know, some of you still insist you'll never be able to afford a hydrogen car at $600 a month. One of my first cell phone bills for minimal minutes and limited call area was $400. My point: the price will go down. And there is technology out there now that can convert existing vehicles to H2 based. And as experts have pointed out, how long do you think it would take for us to get a tank of gas after legislation is passed to drill anywhere, everywhere? Some of you think finding oil is easy as Uncle Jed "shootin' for some food, and up through the ground comes a bubbling crude." And who wants to depend on oil from anybody, if just around the corner, there's the potential for people to create their own fuel - for nothing.

OPEC's not stupid. They know what it takes and how long it takes to explore for, set up rigs, drill for, and distribute oil. They know they have at least a 5 or 10 year window where they can milk us for as much as they want. But what if we sent a message to them that we're tired of using oil. Period. We're on to something better. Cheaper. Cleaner. Who knows? A message like that might cause the price of oil to drop overnight. And save us and future generations money in the long run.

- Julius


Well I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread have heard about the fact that there are vehicles out there that do not require gasoline. It's not a matter of hearing about it it's a matter of affording it. And at $600 a month I'm sure you would find a lot of people "insisting" they cannot afford it because that is the truth. I don't know anyone who spends $600 a month on a car payment, if they have one at all. So I doubt that vehicle is going to be very popular anytime soon. Yes the price will go down but that takes time.
Also as far as sending OPEC a message? Simply threatening OPEC with the idea of us no longer using oil is not going to help. Even if they did drop the price they would just raise it again as soon as they discovered it was a bluff. For now the fact remains that there is nothing that is going to end this country's dependence on oil overnight. People still need oil and until demand goes down cost will remain up.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 1:52:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

Well I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread have heard about the fact that there are vehicles out there that do not require gasoline. It's not a matter of hearing about it it's a matter of affording it. And at $600 a month I'm sure you would find a lot of people "insisting" they cannot afford it because that is the truth. I don't know anyone who spends $600 a month on a car payment, if they have one at all. So I doubt that vehicle is going to be very popular anytime soon. Yes the price will go down but that takes time.


You got that right!. I own a 12 year old car that I bought used 9 years ago. It is starting to fall apart. Now that I have good job and will finally be above the poverty line for the first time in five years, I want to buy a new car. The problem is that I can't even afford a payment of $300 per month! And with my kids the size they are, a cheaper compact car is out of the question. Leasing is out of the question because a lease is nothing but a money-making rip-off for the dealership because in the end you get nothing in return for the money you paid. So, I'm trying to save enough money for a large enough down payment so that my monthly payment on the rest will be under $300/month. That will take me at least a year if I really scrimp and save and work a bunch of overtime.

There is no way I could afford Julius' $600/month hydrogen car.



saved9201 -> RE: Issue: Fuel Costs (6/21/2008 4:34:24 PM)

quote:

There is no way I could afford Julius' $600/month hydrogen car.


Neither can I. But did you take into account the fact that your no-payment car costs around $4 a gallon (and climbing) to operate?

I thought the same thing about cell phones when they first came out. I thought those gadgets were for rich people. No way common folks could ever afford them. Why would they need them anyway? If you're out and you miss a call, oh well. And how many people thought a computer was for business people and nerds? As far as OPEC thinking we'd be "bluffing", well, the key is, we wouldn't be.

I'd love to see those greedy, arrogant cartel running barons at OPEC who think they run things and can bring the world begging to their knees to be brought down to size, not militarily, but economically. Not by competing with them for market share, but by eliminating the demand for their only source of income entirely. Make them show the rest of the world some respect for a change.

-Julius



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI