Gas Prices and Powerful New Cars... a contradiction?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by ProudPony
OIL COMPANIES don't want it to change...
Gee, who would want to give up a monopoly like that, especially just for "a cleaner environment" or some such lame excuse.
OIL COMPANIES don't want it to change...
Gee, who would want to give up a monopoly like that, especially just for "a cleaner environment" or some such lame excuse.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
I would like to hear you guys' opinions on TWO ISSUES, closely related...
1) How high do you think prices will go in the near future and why.
2) What impact are these prices going to have on performance vehicles offered for sale in the US?
1) How high do you think prices will go in the near future and why.
2) What impact are these prices going to have on performance vehicles offered for sale in the US?
If on the other hand, President Bush is re-elected, he will also be true to his character and stay the course in a direct confrontation with terrorists, until they are either killed, or completely convinced of the utter futility of their 'crusade'. Iraq will stabilize and embrace freedom. Oil supplies and prices will stabilize. And we will all be drooling over a 2007 Camaro Z/28!
2. Impacts of the prices? Again it goes back to my previous analysis. Kerry wins - we muscle car fans lose. Bush wins, WE win
This fol-de-roll about $3 or $4 for a gallon of gas... only in your wildest (liberal) dreams
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Originally posted by jg95z28
Guion is right of course.
Guion is right of course.
We have closed half of our oil refineries since 1981. No refineries have been built in 25 years because oil companies say that environmental rules make it "too difficult." That and the fact that they really wanted to reduce capacity in order to reduce supply and generate higher profits.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
I DEFINITELY think we are about to see a tanking of "sports cars" as we know them. You are going to see some high-perf models "die on the vine" soon, kinda like the Marauder and even the GTO sales have been. ... In my opinion, we are on the cusp of a mass-movement towards alternative fuels and hybrids
And this hooey about the Marauder... that car is dead because it was TOO LAME. If it had been issued a supercharger and some REAL power to go with its massive weight, it would be a success today. The GTO... well that one IS a success today!
And the 05's will be even better! In your face, the way authentic muscle cars have always been 
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by BigDarknFast
I agree 100.0% with this statement and I salute you Sir. Liberals have been more than eager for DECADES now to literally throw OUR money at these problems. What has it got us? Crumbling, decaying, failing, state-run inner-city schools and millions of poor souls addicted to public welfare. Foo. Privatize our schools with a fair and effective voucher system... set a reasonable but FIRM limit on welfare... and end the socialist system of dependency and despair.
I agree 100.0% with this statement and I salute you Sir. Liberals have been more than eager for DECADES now to literally throw OUR money at these problems. What has it got us? Crumbling, decaying, failing, state-run inner-city schools and millions of poor souls addicted to public welfare. Foo. Privatize our schools with a fair and effective voucher system... set a reasonable but FIRM limit on welfare... and end the socialist system of dependency and despair.
Liberal is a name "so called" conservatives use to blanket paint an entire party. Socialist are the ones jummping from the Democratic party to the Greens.
Welfare reform was instituted about a decade ago, and even San Francisco, the homeless magnet of the world with taxpayer provided checks for unrepentent drug addicts is now yanking the checks in favor of drug rehab and job training. BTW: Most welfare goes to the rural southern US mainly to the "Bubbas" and the trailer families who rail against it. Truth is surely stranger than fiction.
The problem isn't going to be resolved as long as we continue to resort to the "Consevatives did" or "the Liberal did" mentality. Both political sides have extremeists that need a boogie man or a label to rile them up enough to stuff envelopes and man the phone banks for free. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to fall for that bogus garbage though.
Both sides have car fanatics & both sides are paying big oil and refinery owners big bucks, and it's both the enviromentalist and the oil industry lobby and elected officials-energy stockholders who created the mess. In short, both sides.
That's why I'm independent.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Originally posted by guionM
The problem isn't oil supply, it's refinery capacity. Everything else is just a smoke screen. The US hasn't added refinery capacity since the 1970s. Even though it's the enviromentalists and government regs that created that, companies love it. It gives the ability to control supply despite drastically increased demand, and an easier ability to raise prices at least temporarily.
I also am against releasing supplies from the Strategic Oil Reserves. This is for emergency military use, and I think it's pretty ill advised to even think of using it.
As for Alaska's reserves, that's again a useless & pointless move that's more political than anything else. This is oil pulled from the ground of the US, yet it's put on the world market & sold at market prices! Anyone around from the 1970s remembers when Alaska 1st started pumping oil, ARCO has an exclusive deal, and started selling gas at roughly half of everyone else since Alsaka oil was much cheaper than what OPEC was selling at. California also was a recipient of Alaska oil, briefly having lower fuel prices than the east coast.
If oil pulled from Alaska was sold at the same margins as oil from other countries, it would mean lower priced fuel for us. However, what's going to happen is that oil pulled from preserves is simply going to enrich anyone holding oil stocks & stands to benefit from selling cheaper oil at OPEC level prices.
Australia has it right. 90%+ of the oil they produce is used inside Australia. Next to none is imported. Australia even exports oil.
We have more coal than anyone on the planet. Yet our powerplants run on oil. We have as much natural gas as anyone, yet outside California's urban areas, it's rare to see anyplace that uses CNG in taxis, buses, and city vehicles. We produce so much wheat that the government pays people not to grow it to keep prices up, yet we still don't use alcohol based fuels.
IMO, we have enough fuel to keep us going without oil imports and without "fuel cell" cars. However, there is just too many lobbys and intrests (from enviromentalists to oil companies to farm subsidies and so on...) that it isn't going to change.
The problem isn't oil supply, it's refinery capacity. Everything else is just a smoke screen. The US hasn't added refinery capacity since the 1970s. Even though it's the enviromentalists and government regs that created that, companies love it. It gives the ability to control supply despite drastically increased demand, and an easier ability to raise prices at least temporarily.
I also am against releasing supplies from the Strategic Oil Reserves. This is for emergency military use, and I think it's pretty ill advised to even think of using it.
As for Alaska's reserves, that's again a useless & pointless move that's more political than anything else. This is oil pulled from the ground of the US, yet it's put on the world market & sold at market prices! Anyone around from the 1970s remembers when Alaska 1st started pumping oil, ARCO has an exclusive deal, and started selling gas at roughly half of everyone else since Alsaka oil was much cheaper than what OPEC was selling at. California also was a recipient of Alaska oil, briefly having lower fuel prices than the east coast.
If oil pulled from Alaska was sold at the same margins as oil from other countries, it would mean lower priced fuel for us. However, what's going to happen is that oil pulled from preserves is simply going to enrich anyone holding oil stocks & stands to benefit from selling cheaper oil at OPEC level prices.
Australia has it right. 90%+ of the oil they produce is used inside Australia. Next to none is imported. Australia even exports oil.
We have more coal than anyone on the planet. Yet our powerplants run on oil. We have as much natural gas as anyone, yet outside California's urban areas, it's rare to see anyplace that uses CNG in taxis, buses, and city vehicles. We produce so much wheat that the government pays people not to grow it to keep prices up, yet we still don't use alcohol based fuels.
IMO, we have enough fuel to keep us going without oil imports and without "fuel cell" cars. However, there is just too many lobbys and intrests (from enviromentalists to oil companies to farm subsidies and so on...) that it isn't going to change.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
As far as the "war on poverty" and similar massive social programs, I would refer Proud Pony and anyone else interested to a 1995 Book by Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell called "Vision of the Annointed." Read just the first 3rd of that book then come back and tell me the answer to our problems is more social program spending.
Just as an example: Poverty among Black Americans declined for 10 years in a row prior to Johnson starting the "war on Poverty" with the Welfare program as it was first instituted. After that it skyrocketed. I ask you where was the compassion in that? The 1996 Welfare reform act was long overdue, simply tying the checks to an effort to find work and providing more job training did gobs more than the "usual way" of increasing taxes to dump more money into a program that doesn't work.
The truth is there is a difference between SMART Government and BIG Government. I prefer the former.
The true measure of compassion is not how many people are on government assistance, but how many people no longer need it.
Just as an example: Poverty among Black Americans declined for 10 years in a row prior to Johnson starting the "war on Poverty" with the Welfare program as it was first instituted. After that it skyrocketed. I ask you where was the compassion in that? The 1996 Welfare reform act was long overdue, simply tying the checks to an effort to find work and providing more job training did gobs more than the "usual way" of increasing taxes to dump more money into a program that doesn't work.
The truth is there is a difference between SMART Government and BIG Government. I prefer the former.
The true measure of compassion is not how many people are on government assistance, but how many people no longer need it.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by BigDarknFast
1. The direction of gas prices will be a direct function of who becomes our next President. If Kerry wins, he will cut and run away from Iraq, true to the cowardly character he is. Then terrorist attacks will rise against both civilian and infrastructure targets both here and abroad.
If on the other hand, President Bush is re-elected, he will also be true to his character and stay the course in a direct confrontation with terrorists, until they are either killed, or completely convinced of the utter futility of their 'crusade'. Iraq will stabilize and embrace freedom. Oil supplies and prices will stabilize. And we will all be drooling over a 2007 Camaro Z/28!
2. Impacts of the prices? Again it goes back to my previous analysis. Kerry wins - we muscle car fans lose. Bush wins, WE win This fol-de-roll about $3 or $4 for a gallon of gas... only in your wildest (liberal) dreams
1. The direction of gas prices will be a direct function of who becomes our next President. If Kerry wins, he will cut and run away from Iraq, true to the cowardly character he is. Then terrorist attacks will rise against both civilian and infrastructure targets both here and abroad.
If on the other hand, President Bush is re-elected, he will also be true to his character and stay the course in a direct confrontation with terrorists, until they are either killed, or completely convinced of the utter futility of their 'crusade'. Iraq will stabilize and embrace freedom. Oil supplies and prices will stabilize. And we will all be drooling over a 2007 Camaro Z/28!
2. Impacts of the prices? Again it goes back to my previous analysis. Kerry wins - we muscle car fans lose. Bush wins, WE win
This fol-de-roll about $3 or $4 for a gallon of gas... only in your wildest (liberal) dreams
Right.
Just remember, you heard it from me 1st. $3 per gallon by Labor Day with regular running no less than $2.80 at the bargin gas stores.
As far as Kerry goes, I'm not going to get into a political debate here, but I'll just say this:
Anyone who questions an individual who could have stayed home on deferments, but instead actually went to fight in a war, & got injured isn't credible.
Anyone who does this when they were safely here in the US working "Weekend Warrior" status that they may or may not have finished, or has his counterpart who actually said he had "better things to do" when he was asked about why he didn't go to Vietnam instead of taking a college deferment to me is low. It would have been completely absurd if Dukakis questioned Bush Senior's loyalty to country in 1988, same goes here.
If anyone want's to blindly eat up whatever is being dished out politically without actually checking into things themselves, so be it. But I've been completly turned off by the savagery at how they are going after this guy while none of them even left the continential US. To make it worse, that 87 billion "Defence Bill" that Kerry voted against was that same $87 billion handout we gave to Iraq to pay Halliburton to do the job Iraqis could have done themselves (who actually worked on the wells before good ole "Halli" came in to "fix it" for them & "show them how" to run their own facilities?... starting to get the picture?).
BTW: Kerry voted against it because the administration refused to cover military reservists on the same health plan active duty military had, even though they were called on and had objections spending another $87 billion (would you want your taxes raised to pay for all this?) on top of the administration's original projections. Though senator John McCain (a personal favorite of mine) voted for the bill, he also noted this and other problems he had with this, but that he voted for the bill simply because it's better than nothing.
Don't take this as a political rant, take it as a rant from a person who went through 2 wars (including being on a ship that was nearly blown in half in Desert Storm) taking serious issue with people who barely or simply didn't serve blasting the "Loyalty" of a fellow war veteran.
Last edited by guionM; Jun 7, 2004 at 04:51 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
I don't have to question Kerry, the majority of the people that served on that boat with him have already done it for me. They question his motivation to fight and his character.
Seems he was more interested in making a name for himself for future political gain than anything else.
Look up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
FWIW I am only paying about 25% more for gas...$2 gal vs $1.50, not 2x as much.
Ultimately, what's the Administration supposed to do to get prices down? They've already lobbied for more production. Its going to take years to build more refinement capacity. Aside from proposing a cut in the gas tax what are we supposed to be expecting?
I guess Bush could place a call to his cronies at Halliburton and ask them to cool prices until he gets re-elected. The fact he hasn't done that would suggest to me maybe they all aren't in bed together in a massive conspiracy after all........
Seems he was more interested in making a name for himself for future political gain than anything else.
Look up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
FWIW I am only paying about 25% more for gas...$2 gal vs $1.50, not 2x as much.
Ultimately, what's the Administration supposed to do to get prices down? They've already lobbied for more production. Its going to take years to build more refinement capacity. Aside from proposing a cut in the gas tax what are we supposed to be expecting?
I guess Bush could place a call to his cronies at Halliburton and ask them to cool prices until he gets re-elected. The fact he hasn't done that would suggest to me maybe they all aren't in bed together in a massive conspiracy after all........
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by PaperTarget
Even an independant has to vote for someone.
Even an independant has to vote for someone.
President:
Perot in '92
Clinton in '96
Bush in '2000
(I would have voted for Clinton again if I could)
California Governor last year:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senator AZ (when I lived there) and my 2000 primary choice:
John McCain
Senator (CA):
Diane Feinstein
Independents vote for the right person for the job & don't tend to fall for the whiny hysterics both parties use against each other.
Bush lost me with these extreme way overboard Kerry attacks that is pretty obnoxious even for politics. The fact that we took a perfectly good war and screwed it up (something his dad, a actual war veteran, would have never done) doesn't help.
Last edited by guionM; Jun 7, 2004 at 05:25 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
I don't have to question Kerry, the majority of the people that served on that boat with him have already done it for me. They question his motivation to fight and his character.
Seems he was more interested in making a name for himself for future political gain than anything else.
Look up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
I don't have to question Kerry, the majority of the people that served on that boat with him have already done it for me. They question his motivation to fight and his character.
Seems he was more interested in making a name for himself for future political gain than anything else.
Look up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
FWIW I am only paying about 25% more for gas...$2 gal vs $1.50, not 2x as much.
Ultimately, what's the Administration supposed to do to get prices down? They've already lobbied for more production. Its going to take years to build more refinement capacity. Aside from proposing a cut in the gas tax what are we supposed to be expecting?
Ultimately, what's the Administration supposed to do to get prices down? They've already lobbied for more production. Its going to take years to build more refinement capacity. Aside from proposing a cut in the gas tax what are we supposed to be expecting?
b) What's the administration to do to get prices down? It's being implied that Kerry will jack prices up. It stands to reason if a President can raise prices, he can lower prices too. If Bush can't lower prices, then Kerry can't raise them. My point.
c) A gas tax cut is a really bad idea. Government doesn't operate off of nothing but air & sunshine.
The Feds are already raising intrest rates, which in effect is raising taxes. How? Both take money out of the economy. One takes money out & it goes to something, the other takes money out & it in effect dissappears. Cut fuel taxes, watch the deficit grow, watch intrest rates go up, watch road repair (the 1st to go in a budget... no lobbists!) and improvements go out the window.
I guess Bush could place a call to his cronies at Halliburton and ask them to cool prices until he gets re-elected. The fact he hasn't done that would suggest to me maybe they all aren't in bed together in a massive conspiracy after all........
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
The reason there are no "investigations" is because they know what the problem is. We have begun "running out of oil" per say. Not in the way you think.. but that supplies in most oil fields are decreasing and the rate of production has slowed. Over the last few years the discovery of new supplies has also decreased. We have neared or passed peak oil production. There is still "plenty of oil" but it cannot be retrieved a rate to meet increasing global demand. Most oil fields around the planet are pumping at capacity. Even OPEC is for the most part, and the only one with extra capacity is the Saudis - This is why all the attention is focused on them. So, in other words, unless the US or China has a major economic collapse, you will see the prices continue to rise over time (or at best, stablize at the current location). To add insult to injury, the oil companies will recieve high profits because demand exceeds their ability to supply, not because they are "gouging". There are added factors such as refinery capacity and special fuel mixes, but this is not the root of the problem.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
I don't have to question Kerry, the majority of the people that served on that boat with him have already done it for me. They question his motivation to fight and his character.
Seems he was more interested in making a name for himself for future political gain than anything else.
Look up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
FWIW I am only paying about 25% more for gas...$2 gal vs $1.50, not 2x as much.
Ultimately, what's the Administration supposed to do to get prices down? They've already lobbied for more production. Its going to take years to build more refinement capacity. Aside from proposing a cut in the gas tax what are we supposed to be expecting?
I guess Bush could place a call to his cronies at Halliburton and ask them to cool prices until he gets re-elected. The fact he hasn't done that would suggest to me maybe they all aren't in bed together in a massive conspiracy after all........
Seems he was more interested in making a name for himself for future political gain than anything else.
Look up Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
FWIW I am only paying about 25% more for gas...$2 gal vs $1.50, not 2x as much.
Ultimately, what's the Administration supposed to do to get prices down? They've already lobbied for more production. Its going to take years to build more refinement capacity. Aside from proposing a cut in the gas tax what are we supposed to be expecting?
I guess Bush could place a call to his cronies at Halliburton and ask them to cool prices until he gets re-elected. The fact he hasn't done that would suggest to me maybe they all aren't in bed together in a massive conspiracy after all........
I have to go feed some starving children (MINE) then I will post more myth-defeating facts
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Here's how Kerry and his liberal pals REALLY feel about high energy prices:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...0323-6885r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...0323-6885r.htm
While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry — if his past is any guide — would be silently welcoming the upward trend.
In 1994, the price of oil hovered around $15 per barrel and the price of gasoline averaged $1.11 per gallon. Like today, the federal budget deficit in 2004 was projected to be above 4 percent of gross domestic product. What was Mr. Kerry's avowed policy prescription for both addressing the 1994 deficit and dealing with the U.S. energy market? He strongly advocated raising the federal gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. How strongly? Well, Mr. Kerry lambasted the deficit-fighting Concord Coalition for giving him a low score. Mr. Kerry, visibly angry (according to the Boston Globe), called the group's scorecard "irresponsible." He complained that it failed to reflect "my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax."
Mr. Kerry's 50-cent tax increase would have raised the price of gasoline to $1.61 per gallon in 1994. Adjusted for inflation since then, that price translates into $2.03 per gallon today.
Thus, Mr. Kerry was strongly supporting gas prices, measured in today's dollars, that were above $2 per gallon a decade ago. Now, given that there are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, a 50-cent-per-gallon tax increase translates into $20.80 per barrel. In terms of the pass-through cost to the consumer, Mr. Kerry's 50-cent-per-gallon tax hike would have produced the same effect as if OPEC had increased the price of a barrel of oil by $20.80 from $15 to $35.80. Adjusted for inflation, a 1994 price of $35.80 per barrel of oil translates into more than $45 per barrel today.
Mr. Kerry was ahead of his time. Ten years ago, he embraced the equivalent of today's $2-per-gallon gasoline. Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by today's projected budget deficit, why should voters believe that he would not attempt to pursue the same policy he advocated 10 years ago?
Mr. Kerry offers two essentially worthless short-term prescriptions for today's high gas prices. He proposes to divert the 105,000 barrels per day of oil that go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) this month and the 33,000 barrels per day that are planned for June. With worldwide oil demand at 80 million barrels per day, this amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Mr. Kerry also suggests that we jawbone OPEC. But not so long ago, he strongly supported gas prices that would have been generated by the equivalent of OPEC oil prices of more than $45 per barrel, which is about $5 per barrel above the current world price. In his heart, Mr. Kerry knows what he truly wants. And he is getting it today.
In 1994, the price of oil hovered around $15 per barrel and the price of gasoline averaged $1.11 per gallon. Like today, the federal budget deficit in 2004 was projected to be above 4 percent of gross domestic product. What was Mr. Kerry's avowed policy prescription for both addressing the 1994 deficit and dealing with the U.S. energy market? He strongly advocated raising the federal gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. How strongly? Well, Mr. Kerry lambasted the deficit-fighting Concord Coalition for giving him a low score. Mr. Kerry, visibly angry (according to the Boston Globe), called the group's scorecard "irresponsible." He complained that it failed to reflect "my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax."
Mr. Kerry's 50-cent tax increase would have raised the price of gasoline to $1.61 per gallon in 1994. Adjusted for inflation since then, that price translates into $2.03 per gallon today.
Thus, Mr. Kerry was strongly supporting gas prices, measured in today's dollars, that were above $2 per gallon a decade ago. Now, given that there are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, a 50-cent-per-gallon tax increase translates into $20.80 per barrel. In terms of the pass-through cost to the consumer, Mr. Kerry's 50-cent-per-gallon tax hike would have produced the same effect as if OPEC had increased the price of a barrel of oil by $20.80 from $15 to $35.80. Adjusted for inflation, a 1994 price of $35.80 per barrel of oil translates into more than $45 per barrel today.
Mr. Kerry was ahead of his time. Ten years ago, he embraced the equivalent of today's $2-per-gallon gasoline. Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by today's projected budget deficit, why should voters believe that he would not attempt to pursue the same policy he advocated 10 years ago?
Mr. Kerry offers two essentially worthless short-term prescriptions for today's high gas prices. He proposes to divert the 105,000 barrels per day of oil that go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) this month and the 33,000 barrels per day that are planned for June. With worldwide oil demand at 80 million barrels per day, this amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Mr. Kerry also suggests that we jawbone OPEC. But not so long ago, he strongly supported gas prices that would have been generated by the equivalent of OPEC oil prices of more than $45 per barrel, which is about $5 per barrel above the current world price. In his heart, Mr. Kerry knows what he truly wants. And he is getting it today.
