Gas Prices and Powerful New Cars... a contradiction?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
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.
) ) have used the "hubbert approach" in support of such grim predictions. Like the absurd population explosion doomsday predictions of the 1960's, these predictions are based on some very shaky "science":
A wide variety of political, economic and geological factors affect oil production, and analysis requires an enormous amount of data, much of which is either not readily available or is unreliable. Few observers have the capacity to analyze the forecasts of others, let alone make their own forecasts. Thus, as Vannevar Bush realized, when an expert, particularly with a scientific background, comes forward with detailed work and large quantities of (albeit hidden) data, it gains almost instant respectability, particularly among editors who are not familiar with the subject.
But there are several methods of judging research that don't involve time-consuming or labor-intensive analysis. For one thing, analysts who don't acknowledge either data or research which contradicts their theories are implying they can't explain inconsistencies or weakness in their work. Because in a complex system like world oil production, there is always some data which can support alternative viewpoints. Dry holes are always being drilled and new fields are always being found, and citing one or the other to support pessimism or optimism proves nothing.
A better way to test forecast validity is to look at the historical record, and particularly, examine work done by the person making the forecast in question. In 1992, I did precisely this to improve long-term oil price forecasting. The realization that the previous errors were due to forecasters assuming a 3% per year increase in real oil prices over the long-term made it possible to produce much more accurate forecasts.
In 1996, I published a piece discussing the various methods which were used to forecast oil supply, and argued that they, too, were flawed by certain repetitive errors, namely: 1) bias, and especially pessimism, since nearly every forecast has been too low since 1978, despite relying on price assumptions that were much too high; 2) similar forecasts for every region, despite different fiscal systems, drilling levels and/or the maturity of the industry, suggesting omitted variables; 3) misinterpretation of recoverable resources as total resources by using a point estimate instead of a dynamic variable, growing with technology change, infrastructure improvements, etc.; so that 4) there is a tendency for all national, regional or non-OPEC production forecasts to show a near-term peak and decline, which was always moved out-ward and higher in later forecasts (the opposite of price forecasts).
But there are several methods of judging research that don't involve time-consuming or labor-intensive analysis. For one thing, analysts who don't acknowledge either data or research which contradicts their theories are implying they can't explain inconsistencies or weakness in their work. Because in a complex system like world oil production, there is always some data which can support alternative viewpoints. Dry holes are always being drilled and new fields are always being found, and citing one or the other to support pessimism or optimism proves nothing.
A better way to test forecast validity is to look at the historical record, and particularly, examine work done by the person making the forecast in question. In 1992, I did precisely this to improve long-term oil price forecasting. The realization that the previous errors were due to forecasters assuming a 3% per year increase in real oil prices over the long-term made it possible to produce much more accurate forecasts.
In 1996, I published a piece discussing the various methods which were used to forecast oil supply, and argued that they, too, were flawed by certain repetitive errors, namely: 1) bias, and especially pessimism, since nearly every forecast has been too low since 1978, despite relying on price assumptions that were much too high; 2) similar forecasts for every region, despite different fiscal systems, drilling levels and/or the maturity of the industry, suggesting omitted variables; 3) misinterpretation of recoverable resources as total resources by using a point estimate instead of a dynamic variable, growing with technology change, infrastructure improvements, etc.; so that 4) there is a tendency for all national, regional or non-OPEC production forecasts to show a near-term peak and decline, which was always moved out-ward and higher in later forecasts (the opposite of price forecasts).
Last edited by BigDarknFast; Jun 7, 2004 at 06:44 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Thanks to my 24/7 subscription to www.rushlimbaugh.com I am privy to certain information not available to the average reader 
That is, the spoken word of another of my heroes, Mr. Limbaugh himself! And one of the points recently made by him was in fact from a CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/05/18/summer.forecast/
Rock on, America! 
USA
That is, the spoken word of another of my heroes, Mr. Limbaugh himself! And one of the points recently made by him was in fact from a CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/05/18/summer.forecast/
"In the spring of 2003, many travelers delayed making vacation plans due to the Iraq war," said AAA's Hughes. "This year, travelers have largely ignored some higher costs in their desire to return to their traveling ways."
USA
Last edited by BigDarknFast; Jun 7, 2004 at 07:50 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
I also have that subscription 
We have more proven reserves today than at any time in world history. Oil is also cheaper today than at any time in world history.
In 1913 oil was the equivalent of over $100/barrel.
I have no doubt we're going to exhaust our supplies, but we have not yet reached the technological limits of exploration yet.
Besides, "known" reserves is a strict definition. There are billions of barrels not included in that estimate simply because of the industry's definition of the term. It has to do with how easy the oil is to get to. As technology progresses, however, it gets cheaper to go in and get the oil that it was once expensive to get.
We have more proven reserves today than at any time in world history. Oil is also cheaper today than at any time in world history.
In 1913 oil was the equivalent of over $100/barrel.
I have no doubt we're going to exhaust our supplies, but we have not yet reached the technological limits of exploration yet.
Besides, "known" reserves is a strict definition. There are billions of barrels not included in that estimate simply because of the industry's definition of the term. It has to do with how easy the oil is to get to. As technology progresses, however, it gets cheaper to go in and get the oil that it was once expensive to get.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Originally posted by guionM
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.
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.
I don't mind paying the extra. It is not a significant hit to my budget as compared to where it was before. The added cost will influence the market to rush alternatives to hopefully eventually lessen our dependence on both foreign oil and oil period, which is a good thing. So I figure if it stays about where it is now for several years, even though its not good for everyone on a personal level, it will give some ultimate benefit.
In that respect, any "gouging" the oil companies are doing is short sighted, because if it persists long enough we'll manage to wean ourselves off the stuff and they'll lose their customer base.
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.
By that logic, if fuel prices started dropping, say..... after Labor day, then we have a case here?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by BigDarknFast
Thanks to my 24/7 subscription to www.rushlimbaugh.com I am privy to certain information not available to the average reader
Thanks to my 24/7 subscription to www.rushlimbaugh.com I am privy to certain information not available to the average reader
Originally posted by BigDarknFast
I also have that subscription
I also have that subscription
Now THERE'S a Saint to idolize.
And I am the one accused of being a liberal, having a political agenda hidden behind a thin veil, and being brainwashed by socialists, etc.
I must say, I have a MUCH clearer picture of these two guys in my head now. Stereotypical.
Nice job of copy/pasting the limbaugh garbage into this thread too BTW.
Guy McCoy - I will stand by your side, buy you any drink you want, and go straight into battle with you ANY DAY. You have more than earned my respect in multiple ways today.
I too an am independent. Yup, imagine that?
I voted Perot in 92, Clinton in '96, and Gore in 00(with reservations - talk about little vs. none
).I have also voted for Republican candidates for Congress and the House - like Richard Burr and Liddy Dole. I voted for the Republican Sherriff in my county because I know the guy and approve of his positions in gun ownership and being able to protect your home and family. (I own over 100 guns BTW, and I'm a member of the NRA - not your typical "liberal" position.)
Not only do I give to charity, I give to any organization or person I can help. That means money, blood, clothes, bicycles, toys, furniture... whatever. Yes, I do enjoy giving, and I think that you get back what you give ten-fold.
You guys that think our education system is perfect need to get off the Limbaugh website and actually go into a school and talk to a real teacher. See how long it takes to find a teacher that spends their own take-home pay buying school supplies for the kids in her class.
I don't advocate that the government run my life or yours - but if the bastards are going to take my money, I would appreciate it if they would spend it wisely, and spend it on things that I think are important. IMO, we CAN'T POSSIBLY BE a global economic powerhouse if nobody can afford to buy a car to drive to the factory, much less put gas in it, because their taxed income is being sent to Iraq to fund a war justified by lies and give Homer Akbar gas for $.05/gal to put in his BMW and use as a taxi (or to drive the car into a crowd of American Soldiers and detonate his makeshift bomb - take your pick which one.
) Hell, I guess the poor bastard should be grateful he even has a job at all and kiss the big factory-owner's @ss... thank God for trickle-down economics or we'd have NO economy huh?As for the defense of the oil companies - Halliburton in particular - I refuse to defend them in any way. If you have not read about all of the underhanded and crooked shenanigans of this organization by now, I am not wasting my time on you. In one sentence, I can explain all that any sensible person needs to start a search that seemingly never ends... here it is -
Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, was the single largest supporter of the GW Bush campaign in 2000, and Dick Cheney is currently under investigation for activities related to Halliburton's contract awards in the Iraqi theater.
To me, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, and has the DNA of a duck... IT'S A D@MN DUCK! I've never known nice guys to choose to hang with crooks - I've always noticed that birds of a feather flock together... call me crazy.
Well, that's about enough of this political odyssey for a day or two. Nice seeing the true colors of those on this board for a change - I've had lots of things clarified for me today.
I am on a business trip for a few days to a distant plant to install some new equipment in production. I won't be on the board for a day or two, so you guys have free shots at me for a while (unless I can borrow a buddy's computer while at work.
) This darn work thing... if only the government was paying me for doing nothing, I could sit home and bang on these keys all day.Oh yeah, one last thing...
America is committed to preservation of freedom and promotion of capitalism and democracy. Nowhere in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights does it say that we are responsible for funding any unjustified war on an entire nation to institute a regime change, no matter how badly it is needed. If this was so, we would have already done so in Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Nigeria, and most recently Liberia. Hell, the entire population of Liberia was BEGGING for US intervention and to bring democracy to them, but we were too busy chasing suicidal camel-jockeys through the oil-rich desert to go and liberate a nation that was ACTUALLY BEGGING US TO DO SO. So you guys touting the "liberation" horn for Iraq need to pipe down... someone who really wanted the help might just hear you.
Last edited by ProudPony; Jun 7, 2004 at 09:36 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
I also have that subscription
We have more proven reserves today than at any time in world history. Oil is also cheaper today than at any time in world history.
In 1913 oil was the equivalent of over $100/barrel.
.
I also have that subscription
We have more proven reserves today than at any time in world history. Oil is also cheaper today than at any time in world history.
In 1913 oil was the equivalent of over $100/barrel.
.
Check this graph out: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
And so the true colors come out, the hits against the administration keep on coming in a thread supposedly about sports cars....
The vitriol has started now that Big Al and I have announced our radio listening preferences. The rhetoric in this thread just went up a notch. That's right PP, go ahead and write us off as non-free-thinking people because we listen to Rush, Hannity, et al. If you do that's your mistake, because you sell us both short. I love it when freedom of thought and free expression of ideas only applies to non-conservatives.
PP, Rush Limbaugh's relative personal imperfections do not make him less correct politically. Conservatives principles are correct regardless of the messenger, because Rush's principles are not his alone, they are the bedrocks of modern American Reaganite Conservatism. He is no less valid as a messenger than Clinton, about whom everyone who adored him suggested that his total lack of personal character reflected on his capability to be president. At least my guy is simply a commentator and entertainer and not the leader of the free world.
My ONLY point about money in education is that money ALONE is not the answer, and that throwing more money at a problem does not make us more compassionate by default. Liberals ALWAYS miss this subtlety with me, they always come back at me saying I'm for abolishing all social programs and jump to the classic conclusion I don't care about poor people, old people, or children.
I would remind PP that Enron gave craploads of money to BOTH parties in 2000, it is an error of omission to point only to the money given to Republicans. Everybody's hands are dirty in that scandal, including Mr. Kerry.
I must have hit a nerve or something because you really have come out to defend yourself. Was not needed in the least. Who cares how much money you give to Charity? That's a non issue in this debate. I was merely discussing the relative virtues of government spending on massive social programs and the lack of results we've gotten for our dollars over the last 40 years, and therefore the re-thinking we have been doing and need to continue to do about how to best spend taxpayer money. I did this only because you were trying to make the specious argument that select foreign aid contributions are unjust, at which point I mentioned that while we're at it I can think of a lot of other foreign aid contributions I'd care to revoke if its all "for the sake of the children."
A note about "independents". Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Left, right, middle. We all have our own set of rose colored glasses with which we view the world. Independent does not equal non-ideological. It merely means you fall in the middle, or actually that is what I'd call a moderate. Independent simlpy means you have no party affiliation. You could be very left or right and still claim to be an independent.
The annoying independents are the ones that act like they are "above the fray" of petty politics because they don't take sides.
I really only came back in to make a note to GuionM that based on the latest Gallup poll the majority of Veterans actually back Bush 54-41
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/j...ans_bush.shtml
I also read a similar article citing the same poll on MSN.com last week.
The vitriol has started now that Big Al and I have announced our radio listening preferences. The rhetoric in this thread just went up a notch. That's right PP, go ahead and write us off as non-free-thinking people because we listen to Rush, Hannity, et al. If you do that's your mistake, because you sell us both short. I love it when freedom of thought and free expression of ideas only applies to non-conservatives.
PP, Rush Limbaugh's relative personal imperfections do not make him less correct politically. Conservatives principles are correct regardless of the messenger, because Rush's principles are not his alone, they are the bedrocks of modern American Reaganite Conservatism. He is no less valid as a messenger than Clinton, about whom everyone who adored him suggested that his total lack of personal character reflected on his capability to be president. At least my guy is simply a commentator and entertainer and not the leader of the free world.
My ONLY point about money in education is that money ALONE is not the answer, and that throwing more money at a problem does not make us more compassionate by default. Liberals ALWAYS miss this subtlety with me, they always come back at me saying I'm for abolishing all social programs and jump to the classic conclusion I don't care about poor people, old people, or children.
I would remind PP that Enron gave craploads of money to BOTH parties in 2000, it is an error of omission to point only to the money given to Republicans. Everybody's hands are dirty in that scandal, including Mr. Kerry.
I must have hit a nerve or something because you really have come out to defend yourself. Was not needed in the least. Who cares how much money you give to Charity? That's a non issue in this debate. I was merely discussing the relative virtues of government spending on massive social programs and the lack of results we've gotten for our dollars over the last 40 years, and therefore the re-thinking we have been doing and need to continue to do about how to best spend taxpayer money. I did this only because you were trying to make the specious argument that select foreign aid contributions are unjust, at which point I mentioned that while we're at it I can think of a lot of other foreign aid contributions I'd care to revoke if its all "for the sake of the children."
A note about "independents". Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Left, right, middle. We all have our own set of rose colored glasses with which we view the world. Independent does not equal non-ideological. It merely means you fall in the middle, or actually that is what I'd call a moderate. Independent simlpy means you have no party affiliation. You could be very left or right and still claim to be an independent.
The annoying independents are the ones that act like they are "above the fray" of petty politics because they don't take sides.
I really only came back in to make a note to GuionM that based on the latest Gallup poll the majority of Veterans actually back Bush 54-41
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/j...ans_bush.shtml
I also read a similar article citing the same poll on MSN.com last week.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Z28x
reading on oil issues:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_leuffer/leuffer.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403310819.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/...0405100825.asp
In the third article we see this:
"If gas prices were as high today as they were in the late 1970s, we would now be paying about $6 a gallon for gas. Today’s price at the pump is higher than it was as recently as 1985.
The same is true, by the way, for the cost of oil. Adjusted for wage growth, oil is slightly cheaper today than it was 20, 30, and 50 years ago, and five-times cheaper than 100 years ago. How can gas and oil be cheaper since we’ve used so much of it over time? Well, thanks to human innovation, we are always finding new sources of oil, while at the same time technology makes it cheaper to drill for it. "
further:
"Gasoline prices paid at the pump have been on a steady rate of decline since the 1920s, with the obvious exception of the 1970s, when we faced an OPEC embargo and gasoline lines. In 1920 the real price of gas (excluding taxes) was twice as high as today. Electricity prices were about three-times higher 75 years ago. "
My correction on the price of oil in 1913, I should have specified a gallon of gas. Gas was extremely expensive in relative terms back then because refining technology was expensive.
reading on oil issues:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_leuffer/leuffer.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403310819.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/...0405100825.asp
In the third article we see this:
"If gas prices were as high today as they were in the late 1970s, we would now be paying about $6 a gallon for gas. Today’s price at the pump is higher than it was as recently as 1985.
The same is true, by the way, for the cost of oil. Adjusted for wage growth, oil is slightly cheaper today than it was 20, 30, and 50 years ago, and five-times cheaper than 100 years ago. How can gas and oil be cheaper since we’ve used so much of it over time? Well, thanks to human innovation, we are always finding new sources of oil, while at the same time technology makes it cheaper to drill for it. "
further:
"Gasoline prices paid at the pump have been on a steady rate of decline since the 1920s, with the obvious exception of the 1970s, when we faced an OPEC embargo and gasoline lines. In 1920 the real price of gas (excluding taxes) was twice as high as today. Electricity prices were about three-times higher 75 years ago. "
My correction on the price of oil in 1913, I should have specified a gallon of gas. Gas was extremely expensive in relative terms back then because refining technology was expensive.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 799
From: Mass
anyone remember the good days? when premium was 1.12 pre 911 of course in 01!! WTF, and now people are saying it will take 10 years to alleviate that!! Hell, i am this close to moveing to texas and buyin a rice rocket. OR if worse comes to worse move to FL and buy a metro. This **** needs to end, and the sad part is neither candidate seems to care, except for well, the green party good ol nader, but he doesnt stand a chance for winning. I HATE bush, he is a crooked man, and we all know why he chose iraq as his next target. Saddam was a threat but not an immediate one, he just wanted to horse f@ck saddam before he left office to simply say "see daddy i got him"..and now his *** is gettin rich off the oil industry. Which his family has a strong arm in. If i was a texan, i would be running for my huntin rifle and campin out infront of his house. Why do people still like this guy? And yes we all knew saddam had weapons because guess what? we sold saddam those weapons..but i am sure he was smart enough to sell them to iran in the 3 months we were saying we are gunna attack if you dont surrender..i mean what world leader would surrender if you approached him like that? None, especially in the middle east where your word is all you have and honnor and allah are what govern your life. That was totally stupid..and just him trying to show off. I know if i was president i would set this **** right...why cant people just make good choices for the public? instead of trying to squeeze what they can and for there special interest crowds.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Originally posted by LT-14me
anyone remember the good days? when premium was 1.12 pre 911 of course in 01!! WTF, and now people are saying it will take 10 years to alleviate that!! Hell, i am this close to moveing to texas and buyin a rice rocket. OR if worse comes to worse move to FL and buy a metro. This **** needs to end, and the sad part is neither candidate seems to care, except for well, the green party good ol nader, but he doesnt stand a chance for winning. I HATE bush, he is a crooked man, and we all know why he chose iraq as his next target. Saddam was a threat but not an immediate one, he just wanted to horse f@ck saddam before he left office to simply say "see daddy i got him"..and now his *** is gettin rich off the oil industry. Which his family has a strong arm in. If i was a texan, i would be running for my huntin rifle and campin out infront of his house. Why do people still like this guy? And yes we all knew saddam had weapons because guess what? we sold saddam those weapons..but i am sure he was smart enough to sell them to iran in the 3 months we were saying we are gunna attack if you dont surrender..i mean what world leader would surrender if you approached him like that? None, especially in the middle east where your word is all you have and honnor and allah are what govern your life. That was totally stupid..and just him trying to show off. I know if i was president i would set this **** right...why cant people just make good choices for the public? instead of trying to squeeze what they can and for there special interest crowds.
anyone remember the good days? when premium was 1.12 pre 911 of course in 01!! WTF, and now people are saying it will take 10 years to alleviate that!! Hell, i am this close to moveing to texas and buyin a rice rocket. OR if worse comes to worse move to FL and buy a metro. This **** needs to end, and the sad part is neither candidate seems to care, except for well, the green party good ol nader, but he doesnt stand a chance for winning. I HATE bush, he is a crooked man, and we all know why he chose iraq as his next target. Saddam was a threat but not an immediate one, he just wanted to horse f@ck saddam before he left office to simply say "see daddy i got him"..and now his *** is gettin rich off the oil industry. Which his family has a strong arm in. If i was a texan, i would be running for my huntin rifle and campin out infront of his house. Why do people still like this guy? And yes we all knew saddam had weapons because guess what? we sold saddam those weapons..but i am sure he was smart enough to sell them to iran in the 3 months we were saying we are gunna attack if you dont surrender..i mean what world leader would surrender if you approached him like that? None, especially in the middle east where your word is all you have and honnor and allah are what govern your life. That was totally stupid..and just him trying to show off. I know if i was president i would set this **** right...why cant people just make good choices for the public? instead of trying to squeeze what they can and for there special interest crowds.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
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.
But on the subject of Kerry and energy policy - he could benefit from a little more honesty on his Ethanol-fuel positions:
On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)
Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry also used his massive personal fortune in his 1996 Senate race:
In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. “In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6m and Kerry $6.3m. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500K in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.” (Glen Johnson, “In Kerry’s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)
Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)
Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)
Now THERE'S a Saint to idolize.
I'm proud of Rush. I'm proud of our President and I am also proud of the stand we have taken against the horrible scourge of terrorism, in Iraq! If that's what it means to show my 'true colors', then I wear them with defiant exuburance!
Thanks Chris 96 WS6 for your insights on the historical perspective of fuel prices:
"If gas prices were as high today as they were in the late 1970s, we would now be paying about $6 a gallon for gas. Today’s price at the pump is higher than it was as recently as 1985.
The same is true, by the way, for the cost of oil. Adjusted for wage growth, oil is slightly cheaper today than it was 20, 30, and 50 years ago, and five-times cheaper than 100 years ago. How can gas and oil be cheaper since we’ve used so much of it over time? Well, thanks to human innovation, we are always finding new sources of oil, while at the same time technology makes it cheaper to drill for it. "
The same is true, by the way, for the cost of oil. Adjusted for wage growth, oil is slightly cheaper today than it was 20, 30, and 50 years ago, and five-times cheaper than 100 years ago. How can gas and oil be cheaper since we’ve used so much of it over time? Well, thanks to human innovation, we are always finding new sources of oil, while at the same time technology makes it cheaper to drill for it. "
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Originally posted by ProudPony
I must say, I have a MUCH clearer picture of these two guys in my head now. Stereotypical.
Nice job of copy/pasting the limbaugh garbage into this thread too BTW.
I must say, I have a MUCH clearer picture of these two guys in my head now. Stereotypical.
Nice job of copy/pasting the limbaugh garbage into this thread too BTW.
Originally posted by ProudPony
Not only do I give to charity, I give to any organization or person I can help. That means money, blood, clothes, bicycles, toys, furniture... whatever. Yes, I do enjoy giving, and I think that you get back what you give ten-fold.
Not only do I give to charity, I give to any organization or person I can help. That means money, blood, clothes, bicycles, toys, furniture... whatever. Yes, I do enjoy giving, and I think that you get back what you give ten-fold.
Psst... the whole point of giving is NOT EXPECTING PRAISE FOR IT. Otherwise, it's just business.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by guionM
Sure we do:
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.
Sure we do:
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.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Wow - a political debate on the 5th Gen and Future Vehicle Discussion Forum. Who'd of thunk it? Where's the Ford vs Chevy flame war?
FYI....I have 3 kids in school, now in the 6th, 8th, and 9th grades. Please don't preach to me (a self-described Conservative, but not a Republican) about what is needed in the education system for my kids. I am fully aware of the goods and bads of our current system, and don't need one person's opinions of his/hers own problems in order to make my decisions.
Also, I am an active-duty, 20 year USN veteran and take offense to anyone that chooses to downgrade the Guard and Reserves. Go look up how many Guardsmen and Reservists lost their lives in Vietnam and in the current conflict. Sad and self-serving arguements.
Back to the topic at hand...
1) Nobody really knows. I was in San Diego, CA last week, and gas was 2.30-2.50 per gallon for regular, depending upon how close to the airport you were (very high). We are averaging about 1.95 for regular here in Va Beach, down a couple of pennies from a week ago. My uneducated guess is we'll see it slowly rise through the summer, perhaps up another 25 cents or so. This fall, as is the norm for most years, it will come down. Of course, that is all predicated on the idea that nothing really bad happens to the Middle East.
2) Ya, performance cars will take a hit, but I think SUVs and Trucks will take a much bigger hit, and perhaps even get hit by Congress and the CAFE ratings. However, much like gas prices, nobody really knows for sure.
PS. Yes, I'm voting for GWB - John Kerry makes me want to puke. And No, I don't care what you label me.
FYI....I have 3 kids in school, now in the 6th, 8th, and 9th grades. Please don't preach to me (a self-described Conservative, but not a Republican) about what is needed in the education system for my kids. I am fully aware of the goods and bads of our current system, and don't need one person's opinions of his/hers own problems in order to make my decisions.
Also, I am an active-duty, 20 year USN veteran and take offense to anyone that chooses to downgrade the Guard and Reserves. Go look up how many Guardsmen and Reservists lost their lives in Vietnam and in the current conflict. Sad and self-serving arguements.
Back to the topic at hand...
1) Nobody really knows. I was in San Diego, CA last week, and gas was 2.30-2.50 per gallon for regular, depending upon how close to the airport you were (very high). We are averaging about 1.95 for regular here in Va Beach, down a couple of pennies from a week ago. My uneducated guess is we'll see it slowly rise through the summer, perhaps up another 25 cents or so. This fall, as is the norm for most years, it will come down. Of course, that is all predicated on the idea that nothing really bad happens to the Middle East.
2) Ya, performance cars will take a hit, but I think SUVs and Trucks will take a much bigger hit, and perhaps even get hit by Congress and the CAFE ratings. However, much like gas prices, nobody really knows for sure.
PS. Yes, I'm voting for GWB - John Kerry makes me want to puke. And No, I don't care what you label me.
