# Gas Prices



## sosmarine (Sep 28, 2007)

What happened overnight that drove the price of gas up 15 cent a gallon?


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

Cone head in Venezuela threatened to stop exporting oil to us.


----------



## JollyGreen (Jan 28, 2008)

Some body needs to take thatgrease ballout. I'm sure there's a sniper round with his name on it. So what if he stops selling to the US. There's plenty more oil in other parts of the world.


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

yes there is but it interrupts the flow imported into the US and we would have to find another source to supply that need. Just another excuse for the oil companies to raise prices and gouge us some more.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *lobsterman (2/16/2008)*\ Just another excuse for the oil companies to raise prices and gouge us some more.



Amazing comment. While the government produces nothing, doesn't do the exploration, doesn't take any risk, but makes many times more profit off each gallon of gas than the oil companies, you attack the producer/employer for "gouging" when gas prices rise. 

Some people see their taxes go up by thousands and never say a word, but if a bank raises the ATM service charge a single dollar then they'll scream "rape!". 

P.T. Barnum once said, "Nobody ever got rich by overestimating the intelligence of the American public."


----------



## David Ridenour (Sep 28, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/16/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *lobsterman (2/16/2008)*\ Just another excuse for the oil companies to raise prices and gouge us some more.
> ...


Though we all tend to over simplify things here, ( it is a fishing forum after all) did the costs of research,drilling,refining,labor etc go up overnight for the oil companies due to thethreat made? That is the premise of your position correct? Don't get me wrong, I'm for anyone sellling their product for whatever they can get for it, but your argument in this case dosen't seem justified.


----------



## REEL STAMAS (Jan 27, 2008)

Is it just me or does it seem sort of ironic that G.M. lost $40 Billion last year & Exxon/Mobile made $40 Billion last quarter...Hey G.M....you should be selling the gas instead of the gas-burners I guess...Just a strange observation...Gas is predicted to peak at ~$3.40 this spring which puts it at $4.00 at the dock all summer:banghead...fishing will soon be a sport of the very rich...like horse-racing & polo


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

that is precisely correct. I don't believe it is justified. I think they are ripping us off just because they can.


----------



## David Ridenour (Sep 28, 2007)

> *lobsterman (2/16/2008)*that is precisely correct. I don't believe it is justified. I think they are ripping us off just because they can.


For the record, I'm not arguing whether the oil companies are justified in raising their prices.

My argument is that thepremise that the current threat by Venezuela to refuse to supply the US with oil is a justification for them to raise their prices. If someone can educate me how that threat effected their cost of doing business then I'll acquiesce.

Again if they want to charge $150 and the market will tolerate it then that's good for them. Just don't blame it on a convenient crisis if you want to stick it to your customers.


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

I agree with that 100%. I don't understand it either. Just like a few years ago when a hurricane hit the gulf they raised prices just because


----------



## fisheye48 (Sep 28, 2007)

it really doenst matter...oil companies and politicians are 2 in the same...they do what they want when they want and there isnt anything we can do about it...in the end we get screwed and they get rich! aint gonna do no good complaining about it...we are just gonna have to pay for it and bite the bullet:boo


----------



## Jig n Hawgs (Oct 3, 2007)

I was driving home today and seen a guy riding a horse down 90. I thought, you know, If we stopped driving and went back to horse and buggy. We could stop global warming, save tons of money, and laugh are azz's off at the oil producers. Then I had this thought, how to get boat the the dock. Oh well, it was a nice thought. :banghead


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

It might take quite a few horses to get the boat to the launch


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *David Ridenour (2/16/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

Oh trust me they are scumsuckin dogs also


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Jig n Hawgs (2/16/2008)*I was driving home today and seen a guy riding a horse down 90. I thought, you know, If we stopped driving and went back to horse and buggy. We could stop global warming,


It's probably a waste of my time to even approach this with a "believer," but would it surprise you to know that the total amount of temperature increase, worldwide, over the past 100 years is less than a single degree?\ 

It's a bit tough to read, but if you look at the graph above you'll see where we are in comparison to the temperatures of the past. Notice that the closer you get to the top of the chart the more current the date. The very top of the chart is this period. As you can see, all the hysteria about global temperature change invites some interesting questions. Note, too, that we have a lot of warming to do in order to simply reachglobal "mean" temperature.

If we're currently coming out of one of the longest and deepest cold periods in earth's history, but still way below the earth's average temperature going back billions of years, why is this somehow a crisis? Moreover, how can they assume that the activity of people has anything at all to do with the change? 

Obviously, those periods on the graph where the earth's temperature was much warmer than it is today there were no cars, no aerosol sprays, and no other activity of man that could have supposedly led to the warming. So why assume that we're the case of it today, especially when scientists have detected stronger radiation from the sun in recent years, and evidence of significant warming on neighboring planets...where the don't have cars either.


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

all i know is, i'm glad i got gas yesterday morning, 55 bucks worth, at $2.87/gallon

today i drove by, it was $3.06/gallon

so, if i would have bought gas today, i would have spent $3.64 cents more....

:banghead


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *lobsterman (2/16/2008)*I agree with that 100%. I don't understand it either. Just like a few years ago when a hurricane hit the gulf they raised prices just because


Oil companies DO NOT set the market price of crude oil, nor to they set the market price of refined gas. Both those commodities are traded on the commodities market, whichis and operates something like the stock market. The product is traded in lots much like stock is traded on Wall Street. 

Oil companies do no more to set the price of the oil or gas commodity than Yahoo does to set its stock price. The difference between the stock market and the commodities market is that "good news" typically drives a stock price upward, while what you would think of as "good news" would typically drive the commodity price for oil and/or gas down. 

News, like Chavez' chest-thumping, that investors believe will have a negative effect on the production and price of oil and gas sends traders to the market to try to make money by betting on the "up side" of the market. 

So, when the weather man says a hurricane is heading into the gulf all the little geeks who play the commodities market see an opportunity to try to get rich by "going long" in oil and or gas. They buy futures or options in gas and/or oil betting that there will be a shortage caused by the fact that drilling rigs and refineries will have to shut down due to the hurricane. 

The more powerful and destructive the hurricane is predicted to be the more the investors will assume the damage will be, and then they'll assume that it will take longer for oil and gas production to get back to "normal" levels. This drives the market price upward.


----------



## popfly (Oct 22, 2007)

Or it could be the greedy speculators drove the price up because of the pipeline that exploded yesterday. <DIV class=storyhdr>

Fri Feb 15, 3:26 PM ET <DIV class=spacer></DIV></DIV>

McCOOK, Texas - An oil pipeline exploded near the U.S.-Mexico border on Friday, sending flames nearly 400 feet into the air, authorities said. <NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>

Firefighters shut the flow of crude oil distillate about 10 miles down the pipeline and were waiting for the rest of the crude to burn off. Officials said it had nearly burned itself out three hours after it began.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

I Guess I'm not smart enuff to understand it all. If you have so many "widgits", and the world craves these "widgets" would you sell them for less than people are willing to pay????????

In my dumbass simplistic mind, I'm thinking if we want the price to come down, all we have to do is use (crave) less of it (supply/demand)! Sorry, I'm sure I'm missing something. :banghead


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *popfly (2/16/2008)*Or it could be the greedy speculators drove the price up because of the pipeline that exploded yesterday.


<DIV class=storyhdr>

Ifyou own stock, or you have money in a money market account, or even if you own a home and hope to someday sell it for a profit, you're a "greedy speculator," too. </DIV>


----------



## Hot Dog (Dec 14, 2007)

Venezuela can't quit selling us their oil because their crude is so heavy that no one can refine it but the US. It is just empty threats because he likes our money, it is just a way to raise the prices.:usaflag


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/16/2008)*I Guess I'm not smart enuff to understand it all. If you have so many "widgits", and the world craves these "widgets" would you sell them for less than people are willing to pay????????
> 
> In my dumbass simplistic mind, I'm thinking if we want the price to come down, all we have to do is use (crave) less of it (supply/demand)! Sorry, I'm sure I'm missing something. :banghead




Well, that's not the only way to drive down the price. If Congress jumped up and told the world that we were going to drill for oil in ANWR and expand drilling in the Gulf the price of oil would drop likea rock. You'd probably see a quarter or so at the pump at first, but when we actually started putting holes in the ground the effect on the market would be incredible. 

Just like speculators see a hurricane as having a short term affect on the supply of oil and gas and drive the price of oil and gas upward on speculation, any news of expanding US drilling and production would have the exact opposite effect. Speculators would start selling sort and pushing the price downward...fast.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/16/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Flounderpounder (2/16/2008)*I Guess I'm not smart enuff to understand it all. If you have so many "widgits", and the world craves these "widgets" would you sell them for less than people are willing to pay????????
> ...




I agree. But I also think it would be a short (speculative) term thing. I'm certainly no expert, but what <U>percentage</U> would ANWR and more drilling in the Gulf add to world supplies, short term or long term????? I'm guessing miniscule, *especially* long term. Don't get me wrong, I'll go along with both, but don't think it'll solve the problem.


----------



## welldoya (Oct 5, 2007)

Poor oil companies are barely making a living :

After all, Exxon/Mobile are the people that just recently retired their triple chinned CEO Lee Raymond with a retirement package that amounts to over FOUR HUNDRED MILLION dollars of the money we all have been putting into their corporations pockets, by buying their over priced refined swill. 


That's $400,000,000 folks. To one guy.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

> *welldoya (2/16/2008)*Poor oil companies are barely making a living :
> 
> After all, Exxon/Mobile are the people that just recently retired their triple chinned CEO Lee Raymond with a retirement package that amounts to over FOUR HUNDRED MILLION dollars of the money we all have been putting into their corporations pockets, by buying their over priced refined swill.
> 
> ...




Who gave E/M that 400 mill.? You and me! See where I'm going???


----------



## fisherman (Oct 1, 2007)

> *Jig n Hawgs (2/16/2008)*I was driving home today and seen a guy riding a horse down 90. I thought, you know, If we stopped driving and went back to horse and buggy. We could stop global warming, save tons of money, and laugh are azz's off at the oil producers. Then I had this thought, how to get boat the the dock. Oh well, it was a nice thought. :banghead


I saw the same guy today and the first thing that I thought of was not that it was a nice day to ride but dang gas prices must be getting high!


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/16/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/16/2008)*
> ...


----------



## SCUBA Junkie (Oct 2, 2007)

This entire issue is more complex for anyone to get a real handle on. Bottom line is just as stated above; supply and demand. As long as we demand the oil that comes from the desert, the Arabs will control the price. The way I see it; at some point in the not so distant future, the desert will run out of easily obtainable oil. When that happens, all the middle east oil producing countries will quickly become poor as they no longer have any resourses anyone wants. We then become the world leaders in oil production and can set our prices as the market allows. For the time being, I cannot afford to take my boat to the pump.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/16/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *welldoya (2/16/2008)*
> ...


I'm facinated by this notion that you "gave" them anything. E/M earned their profits because you willingly purchased their product. Nobody took money from you, and I doubt that you sent them any gifts. I suspect that when you receive your paycheck at the end of the month your boss doesn't bitch about what he "gave" you. 

Look, you need to do a bit of study about this if you really want to keep yourself from popping a vein. Exxon makes a majority of their profits from business they conduct outside the US market. Last year I think their total profits from US sales was less than 25 percent of total annual profits. Moreover, a huge portion of that package that you're upset about is in stock options, not cash layout taken from profits. The company is providing him with stock, which represents partial ownership of the company, that has the value you're referring to if he sells that stock to someone else. 

But beyond that, here's my question for you. When you see football players making $10Million a year, which comes down to something like $12,000 a play, do you bitch about what you contribute to that? Every product that's advertised on the game you watch on TV pays money to the TV corporation that broadcasts the same, which is a great deal of the money that goes to pay NFL salaries. So, the price of your beer, your internet service, your fast food, your credit card interest, your candy and soda, and other products you buy is driven up by the cost of advertising during the football games you watch, which helps to pay guys who make $12,000 for a six second football play. 

You see a tiny handful of energy executives making huge salaries for controlling some of the industry that is vital to the health of our economy, and that upsets you. But when your money goes to pay the outrageous salaries of thousands of professional athletes that contribute virtually nothing to society does thatupset you too? 

If you're a normal middle class American the biggest single expense in your life is taxes to the various government entities that have their hands in your pockets. Most of them do precious little to improve your life, but serve instead as middle men in a game of wealth redistribution, passing the money you earn to someone who doesn't earn it. Again, if you're the average middle class guy the amount of money that you pay government that's simply wasted in bureaucratic expenses could fund your life expenses for many years,. It amazes me that people seem to get their blood stirred by things that have very little impact on their lives, and stand completely silent while other factors have enormous negative impact on their quality of life.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *SCUBA Junkie (2/16/2008)*This entire issue is more complex for anyone to get a real handle on. Bottom line is just as stated above; supply and demand. As long as we demand the oil that comes from the desert, the Arabs will control the price. .


Actually, I think that the largest foreignsuppliers of oil to the US are Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure. 

We could have a lot more effect on the price than we do, but it seems as if we're going to need a serious national problem before Congress will allow drilling. Apparently Congress is very happy with what you're paying for gas, because they are the single biggest impediment to the fix.


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

> *Jig n Hawgs (2/16/2008)*I was driving home today and seen a guy riding a horse down 90. I thought, you know, If we stopped driving and went back to horse and buggy. We could stop global warming, save tons of money, and laugh are azz's off at the oil producers. Then I had this thought, how to get boat the the dock. Oh well, it was a nice thought. :banghead


NOPE...doesn't work either. According to the "greenies" the biggestcontributor to global warming is cow farts. Well, horses fart too so they would soon be outlawed as well.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Outawitz (2/16/2008)*"P.T. Barnum once said, "Nobody ever got rich by overestimating the intelligence of the American public."
> 
> First of all, I agree with you and understand where you're going with your argument. Secondly...You can lead a horse to water , but you can't make him THINK.


I agree. But for every handful ofpeoplewho will spend their lives puking up the mindless political dogma they were taught in a high school classroom I belive there is one or two people who actually want to know the truth. 

Call me an idealist, but if we can't have hope thata fewyoung adultswill break through the anti-capitalist indoctrination they received in government schools we might as well give up andstart investing inbrown shirts.

.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

Raven, 

I think you misunderstood my last post. I wasn't pissing at Exxon, rather I was replying to the complaint about the $400 mil. golden parachute. The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that the $$$ came from us. I guess "gave" was the wrong word: how about "a willing transaction"? If we weren't buying so much of their product, they wouldn't be making the profits they are making. I have no problems with them making money. I believe in my first post I mentioned something about supply and demand? Hell I make way more off my Exxon/Mobil stock than I spend on gas!

To truly bring down prices (significantly and long term), will require a TWO PRONGED approach: increase supply AND reduce demand (which is ever increasing world wide).


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/17/2008)*Raven,
> 
> To truly bring down prices (significantly and long term), will require a TWO PRONGED approach: increase supply AND reduce demand (which is ever increasing world wide).


I have no argument against voluntary reduction in energy use. However, I have a tremendous fear that any such effort will become a government program that will, in today's liberal fashion, also become a wealth redistribution program. 

I'm puzzled,however,byyour assertion that you have to effect both sides of the supply/demand curve in order to lower prices. I'm sure you understand that there's no logical reason for that point of view, as the supply/demand curve can be altered by changing either side of the equation.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/17/2008)*Raven,
> 
> To truly bring down prices (significantly and long term), will require a TWO PRONGED approach: increase supply AND reduce demand (which is ever increasing world wide).


We as a nation cannot control the demand side of the curve, because other countries buy oil on the same market we buy ours. Countries like China are increasing their use faster than we could possibly lower our own. We can bettercontrol the supply side because our oil production assets supply our own needs. 

Beyond that, in the state of US politics I believe that reducing demand is highly unlikely, and mathematically impossible without crippling our economy. Considering the presidential contenders t looks as if we're about to allow 20 million illegals to have US citizenship and stay in this country, rather than forcing them out. 

The impact that including those 20 million "new citizens" and the five children each of their families (on average) will have, will increase our consumption and more than offset anything private individuals could do to reduce it. If we allow them to stay as citizens, and their offspring to stay, too, US population will be about 400,000,000 by 2050...or about 33% larger than today. 

These new 100,000,000 "citizens" will purchase oil/gas in from the same internal US production system that's already sort of capacityto produce what we currently need, and a great deal of the cause of the prices we currently complain about. 

Inasmuch, by cutting our use of energy we're simply risking our own economic health while nations like China and other developing nations will take advantage of the our reduced consumption to purchase oil/gas at lower costs and expand their production capacity to better position themselvesas an economic competitor.


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

The below is a response I got from Sen Bill Nelson a while ago.

Dear Mr. Summers:

Thank you for contacting me about the price of gas. We have to act now to reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil and switch to alternative fuels. 

Thirty years ago, in the wake of gas shortages and long lines at the pump, the President declared the need for the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> to become energy independent. Unfortunately, little has been done since then to break our addiction to foreign oil. Having nearly tripled our imports since 1983, today <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">America</st1lace></st1:country-region> is more reliant on imported oil than ever before; it accounts for almost 60 percent of our current consumption.

First, we must confront the oil companies by investigating record profits, eliminating billion-dollar subsidies, and putting a stop to price gouging. I have introduced my own legislation, S. 1520, and I am an original cosponsor of S. 1263. Both these bills would prohibit price gouging on gasoline during national emergencies and natural disasters.

We also need to raise fuel-efficiency standards for all vehicles and stimulate the production and purchase of hybrid cars. Finally, the country needs to make significant investments in alternative fuels that can be made from corn, sugar, switchgrass, and coal. I am an original cosponsor of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which would increase fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon in ten years. I have also joined a group of twenty-four Senators to introduce the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act. The DRIVE Act would dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels by increasing the availability of alternative transportation fuels, providing incentives for the purchase of hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles, and spurring development for next-generation fuels and hybrid cars. 

I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue, and I understand your concerns. I will continue to support measures that provide our nation with real alternatives to our dependence on oil. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

My response to his response:<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I have an idea, instead of ?supporting measures? to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. You are a Senator, how about kicking the rest of the Senate in gear and get this taken care of. As I stated before ?Enough is Enough? Unless you have not heard, the word on the street is that ?not many people have faith in the Government anymore?. It seems as though only rich people are in government and we ?working class/middle class are super important until after the elections.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I look forward to action.<o></o><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thanks in advance,<o></o><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jim Summers<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">My original email message sent to the FL Gov and Lt. Gov (Never did get any response.) this was a while ago..........<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Gov. Christ,<o></o><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I am a retired Navy Chief here in <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Pensacola</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">FL.</st1:State></st1lace> Just came home from work and the price for a gallon of gas is $2.949. Two days ago it was $2.779.<o></o><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o></o><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I would like to know what (if anything) our elected officials are doing about this whole mess.<o></o><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o></o><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If we have the technology to construct and operate satellites, Organ transplants, GPS, Cell phones. How in theworld can the United States NOT have a way to make an automobile run on something other than GAS?<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Go ahead and Flame away, tell me I don't understand the process and all than. This outta be good.<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">We are in TROUBLE! later, <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jim


----------



## Halfmoon (Oct 3, 2007)

Good work Jim!!! Thats what needs to be done. Is letter campaigning to all the elected officials. 

When they get a flood of e-mails calls and letters to their Offices. They start to listen. But it has to been done on a wide scale. They will start hearing you.

Talking about it in public and to others does'nt get the job done. You as a voter, have the responsibility to make sure these ASSHOLES do what the people voted them in for and what they promised us.

Once again good work Jim.:clap


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*The below is a response I got from Sen Bill Nelson a while ago.
> 
> <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">


Well, when you ask a stupid liberal for help, you're going to get a stupid liberal response. 

Let's take a look at Senator Nelson's response:<SPAN id=_ctl1_ctlTopic_ctlPanelBar_ctlTopicsRepeater__ctl8_lblFullMessage>








> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*
> Thirty years ago, in the wake of gas shortages and long lines at the pump, the President declared the need for the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">U.S.</st1lace></st1:country-region> to become energy independent. Unfortunately, little has been done since then to break our addiction to foreign oil. Having nearly tripled our imports since 1983, today <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">America</st1lace></st1:country-region> is more reliant on imported oil than ever before; it accounts for almost 60 percent of our current consumption.


Our dependency on foreign oil increased more under Bill Clinton than any president in US history. What Mr. Nelson doesn't say is that the tiny percentage of increase in foreign dependency during the past eight years leaves us at almost the same point of imports as a percentage of use as eight years ago. Hey's playing politics with this issue, not honestly addressing the consumption/supply equation.




> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*
> First, we must confront the oil companies by investigating record profits, eliminating billion-dollar subsidies, and putting a stop to price gouging. I have introduced my own legislation, S. 1520, and I am an original cosponsor of S. 1263. Both these bills would prohibit price gouging on gasoline during national emergencies and natural disasters.


Of course, attack the private industry for "price gouging," something that's been investigated by congress almost annually for the past eight years, from which they found nothing. And, true to form, the"senator" says nothing of the fact that government takes about five times as much profit from a gallon of gas than US oil companies do. When private companies who produce the product makea profit, that's evil. But when government makes four to five times as much profit, that's not even to me discussed.


Moreover, are we in a "national emergency"? What the hell is this idiot writing about? We haven't had a national emergency that affected oil or gas prices for months. Obviously, whatever staff member wrote this was assuming the person who was going to be reading it was an idiot.



> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*
> We also need to raise fuel-efficiency standards for all vehicles and stimulate the production and purchase of hybrid cars.


Yes, and one of the ways that the Left is proposing to impact efficiency standards is by eliminating the different categories between cars and trucks, which may make large pickup trucks a thing of the past. (I wonder what will happen to the fishing and boating people...)



> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*
> 
> Finally, the country needs to make significant investments in alternative fuels that can be made from corn, sugar, switchgrass, and coal. I am an original cosponsor of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which would increase fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon in ten years. I have also joined a group of twenty-four Senators to introduce the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act. The DRIVE Act would dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels by increasing the availability of alternative transportation fuels, providing incentives for the purchase of hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles, and spurring development for next-generation fuels and hybrid cars.


Senator Nelson and his Democratcomrades are in favor of granting citizenship to over 20 Million illegals, who along with their offspring, will consume far moreenergy during this period of time than any such increase in CAFE standards will do to increase demand. With the limitations the Left has already caused in our production that impact on demand will make this situation far worse than it currently is.


Sorry, I know this probably sounds like a "flame," but Senator Nelson and his ilk are the least prepared and the least qualified to "fix" this problem. The involvement of guys like this is far more likely to make the situation worse than better.


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

Raven, what a post!

oke



Raven,

i have NO IDEA of who you are, Since you seem to pretty well versed in the ways of the world, how about you let me know how I should be writing to. If not OUR Senator, then who do you suppose we should direct our discust towards? I mean heck, someone voted for this guy or he would not be a Senator, right?


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*Raven, what a post!
> 
> oke


Yeah, I know...

Sorry, but I hate the price of gas as much as anyone. I'm tired of listening/reading the idiotic cliches condeming those who actually do the heavy lifting of making our economy function. Guys like Senator Nelson have created this problem by strangling our nation's abilty to produce and refine oil. The last thing that clown is going to do is approach this problem honestly.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Realtor (2/17/2008)*Raven, what a post!
> 
> oke
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm not castigating you for writing to Nelson. I'm just saying that when you do you should expect thevapid, self-servingresponse you got. 

Writing Nelson to ask him for help on the energy "crisis" is like writing O.J. Simpson to ask him for his ideas onreducing domestic violence.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Realtor (2/17/2008)*Raven, what a post!
> ...


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Realtor (2/17/2008)*Raven, what a post!
> ...


I'd suggest the better question for Senator Nelson would be to ask him that with the energy problems we're currently confronting, and the outrageous price we're paying for gas, why is the Congress standing by and allowing the oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico to be tapped by Cuba/China instead of producing that oil for ourselves? If the Democrats' concern is protecting the Gulf from an ecological disaster does he truthfully believe that Chinese and Cuban companiesare less likely to have a serious spill than our own US corporations?


----------



## welldoya (Oct 5, 2007)

Gasoline is a necessity, just like electricity is a necessity. How is it that electricity is regulated and gasoline is not ?And don't say "Oh, but there's only one electric company and many oil companies." Bull. Do you think they all have the exact same expenses ? That's what it would take for them to be within a cent of each other on their prices and still just make a reasonable profit. If you see a busy intersection and there are gas stations on three corners, every one of them will be within a cent of each other in their price. How is that ? 

It's because they are going to get every cent out of us that they can. I don't think we know or will ever know how deep the collusion goes and how crooked and greedythat industry is.

They are postingRECORD profits. That's revenues less expenses. In other words, they have no expenses to justify those revenues. It's all profit.

$400 million my butt.


----------



## David Ridenour (Sep 28, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/16/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *David Ridenour (2/16/2008)*
> ...


----------



## Shakedown (Oct 7, 2007)

> Beyond that, in the state of US politics I believe that reducing demand is highly unlikely, and mathematically impossible without crippling our economy. Considering the presidential contenders t looks as if we're about to allow 20 million illegals to have US citizenship and stay in this country, rather than forcing them out.
> 
> The impact that including those 20 million "new citizens" and the five children each of their families (on average) will have, will increase our consumption and more than offset anything private individuals could do to reduce it. If we allow them to stay as citizens, and their offspring to stay, too, US population will be about 400,000,000 by 2050...or about 33% larger than today.
> 
> ...


You assume that each illegal admitted into this country (and his family) will be directly responsible for increasing our consumption without performing any act that would indirectly increase our consumption or directly decrease our consumption. What is this act that indirectly increases this country?s consumption? It is their willingness to work for next to nothing. Because cheap labor is such a hot commodity, business and industry (who would be directly responsible in this case)seek to hire these individuals which in turn leads to cheaper operating costs and increased production. As a result of this increased production, we will have an increase in demand. You act as though forcing illegals out would not cripple the economy; however, it could have the opposite effect. Thus, this is the question and why each side takes a different position on this issue. You seem to place a lot of blame on liberals for wanting to legalize aliens, yet the current president and republican front runner don?t seem to take to much of an anti-illegal stance (although in your opinion you might consider them liberal). Maybe this is because who generally supports them, e.g. those same businesses and industries who make use of cheap labor, or maybe it's because they too realize what might happen to the economy by forcing them out?


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *David Ridenour (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/16/2008)*
> ...


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *welldoya (2/17/2008)*
> 
> It's because they are going to get every cent out of us that they can. I don't think we know or will ever know how deep the collusion goes and how crooked and greedythat industry is.
> 
> ...


It would be easier to be sympathetic to your argument if the situation were different. State to state across the US government takes about 55 cents in profit, on average,out of every gallon of gas you buy. Oil companies made about 12 to 14 cents a gallon last year, depending on which company you look at. 

Why is it the oil company profits that piss you off so when your government is driving up the price of gas to a far greaterextent than Exxon could ever do?


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *David Ridenour (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/16/2008)*
> ...


----------



## welldoya (Oct 5, 2007)

It would be easier to be sympathetic to your argument if the situation were different. State to state across the US government takes about 55 cents in profit, on average,out of every gallon of gas you buy. Oil companies made about 12 to 14 cents a gallon last year, depending on which company you look at. 

Why is it the oil company profits that piss you off so when your government is driving up the price of gas to a far greaterextent than Exxon could ever do?[/quote]



You must be right. It's the government's fault that oil prices are so high. BUT WAIT , the oil companies are posting record profits (revenues less expenses) and taxes are included in those expenses. Just look at the equation. PROFIT = REVENUES LESS EXPENSES !!! That means that they could charge less but then they wouldn't be posting record profits and be able to pay fat cats $400 million retirement packages would they ?

The government could cut the gas tax but they are going to get it one way or the other. I'm not a big fan of the government OR theoil companies.


----------



## David Ridenour (Sep 28, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *David Ridenour (2/17/2008)*
> ...


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *David Ridenour (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > I asked a simple question based on a premise you set forth. All this economic and market theory is interesting but the question remains. Did Hugo Chavez's statement in any way increase the cost of the oil and gas already in the system. The simple answer is no.
> ...


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *welldoya (2/17/2008)*
> 
> You must be right. It's the government's fault that oil prices are so high. BUT WAIT , the oil companies are posting record profits (revenues less expenses) and taxes are included in those expenses. Just look at the equation. PROFIT = REVENUES LESS EXPENSES !!! That means that they could charge less but then they wouldn't be posting record profits and be able to pay fat cats $400 million retirement packages would they ?
> 
> The government could cut the gas tax but they are going to get it one way or the other. I'm not a big fan of the government OR theoil companies.


I'm amazed. What is it about you that makes you assume that every penny of profit a company like Exxon makes comes from what you pay at the pump? 

Are you simply unable to understand that they have other enterprizes and businesses in other countries from which they make a profit? 

Some of these companies are the biggest and most diverse corporations on earth. They have leases they sell, property they market, equipment and technology they sell to other counties to help them produce and explore for oil. They do a great number of things that generate profit that have absolutely nothing to do with the price of your gas. 

It would be nice if the world were as simple as you see it. I guess when you're looking for a "boogie man" its most simple to point the finger at the person closest to what you perceive to be the problem.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Flounderpounder (2/17/2008)*Raven,
> ...




Actually even a 2 pronged approach won't bring down the price appreciably, if at all especially long term. The REAL illogical statement is YOURS thinking we can drill our way out of this problem. World demand is steadily rising (about 2%/yr), peak production in the U.S. occurred about 1971, and will soon (estimates vary. but it WILL happen!) world wide. Add to that the REALITY that oil companies will not greatly expand production (costing billions MORE than the billions they are already spending) to increase production to the point of reducing profits, only to use up reserves faster. I submit YOUR point of view is MUCH more illogical than mine! I do agree that $5.00/gal is not out of the question. But to suggest we can merely drill our way out of this is, well.....simplistic at best. I'm sure you will reply :angel

How about using some facts and #'s to support your claims for a change?


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *David Ridenour (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> ...


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 1, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Realtor (2/17/2008)*Raven, what a post!
> ...




Explain to me how we are going to materially change the price of gas by pumping ANWAR and the Gulf? It is my understanding that this oil would be exported and that is a very small proportion of what we use.

Earlier, you pointed out the flaw in the logic of saying that we have to both decrease demand and increase supply to effect prices. And while they're obviously not necessary, a combination would be more effective than one without the other. So, why not legislate increased efficiency from vehicles? Why not include items such as solar hot water in FL building codes? Pumping 3% of our daily needs from ANWAR and the GOM would logically lead to a decrease of about 9c per gallon. Increasing the mandated efficiency of automobiles 10% would have a much larger effect.


----------



## welldoya (Oct 5, 2007)

Raven, two things are obvious. 

1. You are somehow connected to the oil industry.

2. You know it all.

So, I'm done. Now you can continue to amaze everyone with your vast knowledge.


----------



## rednex*toyz (Oct 7, 2007)

Want to know the easiest way to decrease gas prices 7-9c/gallon? Not using a Credit Card!


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> ...


I never said we could drill our way out of the problem.In fact, I clearly stated that our problem was going to becomplicated by the illegal aliens and their offspring that will play a sigificant factor in the huge population increase we're expected to see by 2050. I said I have no problem with voluntary reductions in personal use, but that I fear government requirements for same that would likely turn out to be a new form of welfare.

But if fabricating my argument helps you bolster your own, have fun.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Shakedown (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > You assume that each illegal admitted into this country (and his family) will be directly responsible for increasing our consumption without performing any act that would indirectly increase our consumption or directly decrease our consumption. What is this act that indirectly increases this country?s consumption?
> ...


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Xanadu (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> ...


Where did you get such a ridiculous understanding? It's not only wrong, it's illogical. Why would oil companies that so many on this thread seem to think are only interested in raping the consumer and maximizing their profit want to set up the most expensive oil rig of any on dry land to pump what you're trying to say is nearly a dry hole? Why did they lobby Congress for years to allow them to drill there if there was as "little" oil to be recovered as you think? 

<U>http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=705</U>http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

According the the federal government, daily production at ANWR would be greater than all the well heads on Texas and Lousiana combined.

But oil isn't all they're expecting to recover...

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=705

_"A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the central part of the Alaska North Slope and the adjacent state offshore area finds that there is a significant amount of oil and a large amount of gas that remains to be discovered. The assessment estimates that there are 4.0 billion barrels of oil (BBO), 37.5 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas, and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids that are undiscovered and technically recoverable. Technically recoverable resources are the amount of petroleum that may be recovered using current technology."_


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *welldoya (2/17/2008)*Raven, two things are obvious.
> 
> 1. You are somehow connected to the oil industry.
> 
> ...




I, like many around here, am a retired militaryofficer. I've never worked for or, in, or withthe energy industry in my life. 

My only connection to the energy industryis that I use their products.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

I never said we could drill our way out of the problem.

Butif fabricating my argument helps you bolster your own, have fun.[/quote] (Raven)



Raven: Wasn't the followingfrom your post on page 1??? By the way I agree with you on immigration, butIMO you are dead wrong on drilling being THE solution (even though you now deny that stance). Fabrication????? Guess I'm just not being logical again! oke 

Pounder





"If Congress jumped up and told the world that we were going to drill for oil in ANWR and expand drilling in the Gulf the price of oil would drop likea rock. You'd probably see a quarter or so at the pump at first, but when we actually started putting holes in the ground the effect on the market would be incredible."


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Flounderpounder (2/17/2008)*How about using some facts and #'s to support your claims for a change?


I never said we could drill our way out of the problem.In fact, I clearly stated that our problem was going to becomplicated by the illegal aliens and their offspring that will play a significant factor in the huge population increase we're expected to see by 2050. I said I have no problem with voluntary reductions in personal use, but that I fear government requirements for same that would likely turn out to be a new form of welfare. 

But if fabricating my argument helps you bolster your own, have fun.[/quote] 



Wasn't this from your post on page 1??? By the way I agree with you on immigration, butIMO you are dead wrong on drilling being THE solution (even though you now deny that stance). Fabrication????? Guess I'm just not being logical again! oke 



.[/quote] 

The question was related to short term price issues. If we want prices of the oil commodity to drop, yes, we can impact that significantly by simply announcing drilling in ANWR and the Gulf. That answers the price per gallon issue that this thread was started to discuss. We could, in fact, forcea significant but temporary drop in the price of oil by opening ANWR and the Gulf to drilling. However, we don't have the production capacity to refine much more oil than what we have, so the market effect of our increased production would eventually wither under the increasing demand of our growing population. 

So "yes," was saying we can, in fact, drill ourselves out of the short term problem of the current price of gas. And that answer could last for a while, but not forever. But "no," I'm not saying we can "drill ourselves out" of the long-term problem. I apologize for not making that more clear, but I thought the discussion was about today's gas prices.

From the standpoint of our longterm national survival we have no choice but to deal with the supply/demand equation from both ends. The reason I stomped hard on our growing population is that we're going to have to be honest with ourselves over what's coming. Illegal aliens are having a dramatic affect on medical care, energy prices, education, public safety, crime, and a host of other issues. 

The 20 Million of them currently here are reproducing at a rate that will grow their numbers exponentially over the next two generations. If we're going to be honest with ourselves about what's coming we need to prepare to see a population of illegals and their offspring that will numberabout110 million,increasing US population to over 400 millionby2050. It's going to have a huge effect on the lives of everyone in this country. 

Our current production capability is already stressed. Imagine where we'll be with a population that's 30 percent larger if we don't do something significant. 

I have no problem with voluntary, market-driven approaches to conservation. 

Private manufacturers developing four-stroke boat engines andbetter hull designsis great. But I don't want the government telling me that I can't have a gas tank of a certain size, or that I can't I can't drive my boat more than a certain number of miles per month. I absolutely disagree with any government mandate that would reduce the quality of life for American citizens. Unfortunately, I fear that and worse iswhatwe're going to get.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Shakedown (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > Beyond that, in the state of US politics I believe that reducing demand is highly unlikely, and mathematically impossible without crippling our economy. Considering the presidential contenders t looks as if we're about to allow 20 million illegals to have US citizenship and stay in this country, rather than forcing them out.
> ...


Here is one of the first, if not the first statement I made on that subject in thisthread: "Considering the presidential contenders t looks as if we're about to allow 20 million illegals to have US citizenship and stay in this country, rather than forcing them out. "

Clearly, I understand that McCain is onboard with that position. Which is why I won't vote for the man even though I'm a registered Republican.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Shakedown (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > Beyond that, in the state of US politics I believe that reducing demand is highly unlikely, and mathematically impossible without crippling our economy. Considering the presidential contenders t looks as if we're about to allow 20 million illegals to have US citizenship and stay in this country, rather than forcing them out.
> ...


' 

No, I'm quite sure that forcing all the illegals out would not cripple our economy. We were the most powerful economy before they came here, and we'll be the most powerful if we force them out. They may supply business with cheap labor, but overall they're a huge economic drain. 

You think they're working for cheap labor. But the taxpayers are being saddled with the cost of educating their kids, birthing their babies, caring for their sick, and fundinga host of other taxpayer-funded support structures that they access. The end cost of that "cheap labor" is outrageous. The cost may seem cheap to the emplyer, but the taxpayers are being raped!

We could replace many of them very quickly by allowing hundreds of thousands of legal citizens who are waiting for permission to enter the country legally. And, unlike the illegals that currently infest the nation, the legal aliens who would come are largely educated, less likely to depend on government handouts for survival, and less prone to criminal activity. 

That cheap labor you think we're gettingisgoing toeconomically destroyus.


----------



## P-cola_Native (Feb 5, 2008)

Raven,

I support many of your claims on this thread, which I have been following since it started. But I do not understand how you diverge from the capitalist view point on immigration.Your stated reason for disliking illegal aliens is that they would drive up consumption. Yes, they will drive up consumption of gas, along withmost other products. Arguing against letting this happen would be anti-capitalist. Please enlighten me on your logic.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *P-cola_Native (2/17/2008)*Raven,
> 
> I support many of your claims on this thread, which I have been following since it started. But I do not understand how you diverge from the capitalist view point on immigration.Your stated reason for disliking illegal aliens is that they would drive up consumption. Yes, they will drive up consumption of gas, along withmost other products. Arguing against letting this happen would be anti-capitalist. Please enlighten me on your logic.


Please...don't assume so much. I simply said that they contribute to the problem. I didn't say that their contribution to that problem was my only problem with illegal aliens. It's not.

As a conservative, I object to a single illegal alien being in this country simply on the basis of respect for our laws. There is nothing "pro-capitalist" about crime. 

Some in government would have us think that illegal aliens are "cheap labor" because they demand a lower wage for their effort. But, when that illegal can't pay for his medical care who do you think is funding that cost? When he can't pay to educate his children who do you think picks up the cost? 

Do I need to discuss their impact on crime, disease,and other factors? I'll bet you already know... 

If you'd like some links that show the actual economic costs of illegal immigration, please ask.

Here's a good one for starters... http://www.cis.org/topics/costs.html


----------



## P-cola_Native (Feb 5, 2008)

How do they present a greater drain on the system than a legal resident of the same income level?

Present one avenue of tax payer exploitation that an illegal takes greater advantage of than a legal American of the same income level.


----------



## Halfmoon (Oct 3, 2007)

=


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 1, 2007)

> *
> 
> It would be easier to be sympathetic to your argument if the situation were different. State to state across the US government takes about 55 cents in profit, on average,out of every gallon of gas you buy. Oil companies made about 12 to 14 cents a gallon last year, depending on which company you look at.
> 
> Why is it the oil company profits that piss you off so when your government is driving up the price of gas to a far greaterextent than Exxon could ever do?*


*



I think your math is off. For them to be making a net of 10% based on a gallon of gas at $3, they'd be netting 30c. Their actual gross margin would, of course, be higher. Also, gas taxes haven't increased to keep pace with the increase in price.

And, one more thing. Gas companies were allegedly making the same percentage returns when gas was $1.50 and the govt was still taking $.55 per gallon. How is it that they've managed to increase their expenditures so drastically as to sell their product that costs them the same to pump out of the ground at twice the price and make the same return?*


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 1, 2007)

> [In fact, I clearly stated that our problem was going to becomplicated by the illegal aliens and their offspring that will play a sigificant factor in the huge population increase we're expected to see by 2050. .


You act as if these people wouldn't be demanding more fuel if they had been legal or elsewhere. Hell, they're here now. It's not like they are refusing to use fuel until 2050


----------



## P-cola_Native (Feb 5, 2008)

My point exactly.

He says we should get rid of illegals because they consume more gas, but then says we should replace them with highly educated immigrants. Uhh, I believe they would also consume gas.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *P-cola_Native (2/17/2008)*How do they present a greater drain on the system than a legal resident of the same income level?
> 
> Present one avenue of tax payer exploitation that an illegal takes greater advantage of than a legal American of the same income level.


Why does the income level matter? If an illegal alien is accessing government services they're taking money from US taxpayers that was paid under the auspices of caring for US citizens, not supplement the patheticwages that illegal alien labor pimps give to these criminals doing construction. 

They're here illegally, stealing the identities of US citizens and causinga lot of loss to the general public. They consume far more valuein government services then most of them will ever pay into the system. They are a huge drain on the economy. 

Just because a few greedy local bastards are making a fortune by using illegals to undercut construction labor costs doesn't mean it's "good for the economy." It's good for the economy of the construction company, but not for the US population as a whole. 

As bad as it is that US citizens also rape taxpayers for all manner of social services there isa huge difference...they're here legally! They're US citizens who have a right to be here. Illegals do not. 

I resent paying to fund social services to supplement the lifestyles of lazy bastards who could earn a living for themselves, but not nearly as much as I resent paying to supplement the wages that construction companies pay illegals so they can cheat US citizens out of jobs that would pay one hell of a lot better wage if the illegals weren't here driving labor rates into the sewer. 

Many locals...some on this forum...would havea far easier time finding a good paying job, would have better lives, and be able to afford to take bettercare of their familiesif the illegals weren't here driving labor wages down. 

There are members on this forum who, in the past few weeks, have posted inquires about job openings. At the same time ICE is busting local businesses employing illegal aliens as labor. I wonder how many of locals, were it ever completely explained to them, would berioting in the streetsif they knew the extent of the actual economicdamage that illegal aliens are having on their own lives. 

If we wiped the land of illegals tomorrow, employers would be confronted with the fact that to get good employees they're going to have to increase wages. Local adults and kids who are looking for entry level employment would benefit quickly and greatly. Those in trade jobs would see employers competing for labor, rather than employees competing for jobs.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Xanadu (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


* 

1. Show me where I said "10% net". 

2. Who said gas companies were making the same percentage returns when gas was $1.50? But if they are...and it's certainly possible...we're back to that important fact that so many seem unable to comprehend. Oil companies make a lot of their profits in overseas markets and indistries that aren't directly involved with their production or sales of gas. So, excepting those few on this thread who seem to be unable to understand that oft-repeated fact, I hope that you will someday understand that the "math" you're trying to use to make a point above is completely irrelevant. Their margins on the sale of gas is only one factor in their business profit. If I need to "hammer" this point home another way, let me try to use a different business to clarify the point. 

The question you pose above would be akin to arguing the profit margins of you local bar, and trying to make an argument to the owner about his profit margins based only on the historical price of peanuts. 

How did gas companies increase expenditures? They buy imported oil...have you looked at the price lately?








*


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *Xanadu (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > [In fact, I clearly stated that our problem was going to becomplicated by the illegal aliens and their offspring that will play a sigificant factor in the huge population increase we're expected to see by 2050. .
> ...


Obviously, this concept is difficult for you. But gas production and consumption in the US is one market. Gas production/consumption in other countries is a different market(s). Our US gas production capacity is maxed out, andimpacted by the population buying and using gas HERE!

This concept isn't something I would have expected to have to explain...


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

> *P-cola_Native (2/17/2008)*My point exactly.
> 
> He says we should get rid of illegals because they consume more gas, but then says we should replace them with highly educated immigrants. Uhh, I believe they would also consume gas.


 

I'm not suggesting we should replace illegals, one for one, with legals. But the labor that we 'NEED' can be replaced by literate, educated, trained legal aliens who will live with their own identities and take responsibility for their own needs, rather than sucking the taxpayer dry by accessing social service nets at every turn. Believe it or not, there used to be a time in the US when even legal aliens were not allowed to access social service "safety nets." 

Moreover, there are a wealth of reasons,many already explained in previous posts, to get rid of illegals aside from their impact on gas consumption. 

And again, I gave a number of reasons why illegals shouldn't be here, the least of which is their gas consumption. 

The point is that they do, in fact, consume gas. And if we're going to discuss the supply/demand issue related to our current gas prices they do, in fact, have and impact on that, and a great number of other factorsrelatingtoourquality of life...although I'm sure the cheap labor pimps in the local area would prefer we not discuss it.


----------



## David Ridenour (Sep 28, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/17/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *David Ridenour (2/17/2008)*
> ...


----------



## Mike aka FishWerks (Oct 22, 2007)

My eyes hurt...:toast





:usaflag


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 1, 2007)

> *The Raven (2/18/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Xanadu (2/17/2008)*
> ...




Alright, asshole. First, there isn't a topic or concept that you could even imagine that I can't understand. Second, idiot fuck hole, the fact that illegals are here or there doesn't effect the demand they pose for fuel consumption. Its as if you're too stupid to understand that those people are going to breed here or there. There, they're still sucking fuel that contributes to global demand. Here, same thing. And, as you so eloquently posted above, the price of oil on the speculative market is global. Further, the price of gas is at least regional and whether Pablo and his 14 kids are in Guadalajara or Pensacola, they're still sucking gas and increasing demand.


----------



## stringle (Oct 3, 2007)

Yes, It was two different arguments...funny how they meld together. All the fancy facts and figures it boils down to this: Gas prices fluctuate not by the gas in the underground storage tank, but what it will cost to REFILL the tank. That's why the price goes up when a hurricane is approaching or a pipeline ruptures. They need to base prices on what it costs for the NEXT load, not what they currently have (only if they want to refill their tanks). Everything the Raven has been stating about oil profits (more goes to taxes) is elementary after one figures out actual "oil man profits" versus TAXES. So, it's really a drop in the bucket compared to the tax dollars that are turned around and wasted on all those that would rather spend their earnings on clothes and such rather that pay for stupid stuff like MEDICAL INSURANCE. And ya know what? Folks don't need to waste the earnings on stupid stuff like medical, housing, food, etc. because all of us dumbasses are paying for them. I guess it's easier to bitch about the incompetent redistribution of our taxes every day when we see the gas price, rather than once a year when we get hammered on our taxes. That's the ******* version and explains why I get so pissed off about saving money and getting hammered for it. How 'bout this: if you can't afford it, WAIT UNTIL YOU CAN (house, children, jewelry,etc). Those are not RIGHTS!sorry, guess that's my sensitivity; paying for others that don"t want to pay for themselves (don't tell me they can't...they don't HAVE to).


----------



## David Ridenour (Sep 28, 2007)

Hal, I knew condescending tone and the caveman photo would take you over the edge.


----------



## foxbo (Oct 4, 2007)

Hold on to your wallets. Explosion in a Texas refinery and the futures markets went crazy today. Oil closed at $100.01 and futures gas $2.60+. Now what I don't understand is that the article stated this was happening at a time when supplies are at a two year high. We have more gas and oil on hand now then we had two years ago. They also state that due to the economy gas demand has dropped. If we follow the supply and demand theory then gas should be falling instead of going higher. I have read with interest what has been written here, but I still believe it is the speculators driving the market right now. Chavez rattles his saber oil goes up, possible unrest in Africa oil goes up, a nat farts in the gulf and oil goes up. Does anyone but me see a trend here? I personally think the oil companies are setting back and riding along as the speculators keep the price high which equals high profits for them. Thats capitalism and that is what has driven this country since day one.


----------



## t-bone (Nov 1, 2007)

I came to this forum because like most of us I got a taste of the love of a sport that I believe, brings out the best in us in many ways. I often shut down my motors to sit with company to soak in the deep sense of peace and solitude the open water offers. I have found comrads in this feeling on this board. Lately I have logged on and gone straight to the chat threads. Why. Because, as tonight, I have found wisdom from a fellow fisherman that just floors me. Raven has so plainly explained the gas prices that I ask, how much clearer can it be. Raven for president. Its the economy stupid.


----------



## The Raven (Oct 8, 2007)

<P style="BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #1f5080; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">


> *Xanadu (2/18/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *The Raven (2/18/2008)*
> ...


----------

