LAT/AP: Gas Prices Move Past $3, Hit All-Time High

[DeepModem Mom]

Gas Prices Move Past $3, Hit All-Time High
July 23, 2006

CAMARILLO, Calif. -- Nationwide gas prices hit an all-time high in the last two weeks, rising nearly 2 cents to just over $3 per gallon, according to a survey released Sunday.

The national average for self-serve regular stood at $3.0150 a gallon Friday, up 1.98 cents in the last two weeks, according to the Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations across the country.

The price exceeds the previous high of $3.0117 set in September last year, analyst Trilby Lundberg said.

A gallon of mid-grade gasoline averaged around $3.12, and premium at nearly $3.22....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/ats-ap_top13jul23,1,1426076.story?coll=sns-ap-topnews

[BlueEyedSon]

1. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[Up2Late]

37. That was my first thought too.

Everything is going extremely well (if you are in the Big Oil Cabal).:banghead: :nuke:

[Broken_Hero]

2. man, oh man...

gas is abosolutely ridiculous. Yesterday, my wife, my friend tom, two of my brothers, and my sister, and one of my wife's cousins, went up to KC to see a Royals game...I filled up in SW Missouri for 2.79 a gal. It took just over 80 dollars to fill up the tank, just over 28 gallons of gas. It was a hit in the stomach bigtime...but I have been planning this trip, since last year, actually....

And to boot, we had to put in another 15 bucks, cause after the game, we sat in traffic, on I-70 south, cause of an accident, and burnt through a quarter tank of gas...what a waste. so, trip, 95 bucks for gas, for a roundtrip of approximately, 315 miles....:( Just two years ago, we filled up the same van for around 40 effing dollars...

on edit:spelling, spelled tank, thank...

[L. Coyote]

79. In Venezuela, about $0.12 a gallon

What's this tell you about the real cost of gasoline?

http://en.ce.cn/subject/EnergyCrisis/ECworld/200605/12/t20060512_6934874.shtml

Energy crisis? Venezuela gas is cheaper than water
Updated(Beijing Time):2006-05-12 09:19

Taxi driver Jaime Tinoco works the streets of Caracas in a 1976 Chevy Nova that guzzles 19 gallons (72 liters) of gas a day. But he doesn't worry about fuel efficiency -- filling his tank costs just $2.30.
While US consumers struggle with soaring energy prices, Venezuela's gas is now the world's cheapest at 12 cents a gallon and Washington's regional foe, President Hugo Chavez, vows to maintain subsidies that keep fuel dirt-cheap. ....

Meet me in Caracas with a super-tanker!

MORE:
CNN Global gas prices

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

[michaelpush]

96. We get a lot of oil from Venezeula

actually more than from Mideast...

[Joe Bacon]

3. They have been PAST $3.50 here in Los Angeles!

Some places are at the $3.98 mark for full service.

[antonialee839]

22. I can't remember the last time gas prices

were under $3.00 here in Philadelpia.

[Delphinus]

44. Geez!

I didn't read this thread until this morning, but twice during my dreamtime I had "nightmares" about the price at the pump. I recall, in my dream, seeing it at $4.37 and then, after almost having a panic attack at that, I looked again and it was $5.43! In real life, here in NE IN, it was $2.99 on Saturday.

[raccoon]

50. Here in SC 2.75 is the best I've seen. That was last night, anyway. nt

[HongKonger]

61. You think you pay a lot for gas?

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

That's why people drive cars like this in Europe.

[Cant_wait_for_2008]

62. Yes and most of that is taxes going for universal healthcare............

What are we getting for our gasoline money??

[silverojo]

74. You got that right!

I get so tired of "they pay more in Europe". Y'know what, if we could get decent jobs and free healthcare like they do, we could afford $6/gallon too.

Let's quit comparing apples to oranges, for a change.

[KittyWampus]

72. Yes, and they have decent mass transit.

[erknm]

81. Wondering if I fit in here

I realize the tendency to be considered some sort of a stooge or troll in this group, and I do not seek this label. However, I can only wonder how anyone would consider subsidizing gasoline to be a good idea, i.e. the Venezuelan example. Perhaps I misunderstood the post. However, with my strong environmental interests, I suggest the obvious, that we need gasoline to rest at a market price that takes into consideration the entirity of the social costs of the product, i.e. both the private production costs and the consumption and production externalities. I cannot honestly advocate subsidizing gasoline to get it to fall below the true social costs, only to watch consumption rise and our economy to fall further into the can. Likewise, I do not advocate using gasoline as a mechanism to deliver additional monies to government whores who will spend it on pet projects that are the concept du jour among the lobbyists. Thus the idea of taxing gasoline and raising the monthly operation costs for truck drivers, etc. does not appeal to me.
FH

[silverojo]

73. You still have full service?

I thought that went out with Bush 41 and his wife, the Silver Ox....

[LuckyLib]

93. Full service is the only service in Oregon. Imagine our surprise to

get out of our cars to pump gas and have a uniformed guy walk up. And they do windows, too. Just like the old days. Full employment for gas jockeys.

[bluestateguy]

4. Making it in George Bush's America

I have to drive a lot less now, and yes, it's inconvenient.

[Joanne98]

5. US GAS PRICES HIT ALL TIME HIGH!

CAMARILLO, Calif. Jul 23, 2006 (AP)— Nationwide gas prices hit an all-time high in the last two weeks, rising nearly 2 cents to just over $3 per gallon, according to a survey released Sunday.

The national average for self-serve regular stood at $3.0150 a gallon Friday, up 1.98 cents in the last two weeks, according to the Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations across the country.

The price exceed the previous high of $3.0117 set in September last year, analyst Trilby Lundberg said.

A gallon of mid-grade gasoline averaged around $3.12, and premium at nearly $3.22.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2226852

[onehandle]

6. Thank God Clinton's Gone! Those $1.40 gas prices were Killing Us! nt

[Tempest]

10. It was $1.27 in my town when Clinton left office

Now it's $3.25 a gallon.

[Wednesdays]

17. In 1998 I filled up at 71 cents per gallon

here in Oklahoma City. It was rumored that you could find gas for 64 cents in some places between here and Joplin.

71 cents during the Clinton era...now it costs more than 4 times that much. :(

[SammyBlue]

20. 64 cents in 1998. Tucson, Arizona.

[barb162]

32. Its amazing that's such a short time ago

[True Bleu]

84. It's not so amazing when you consider that this was part of

Bush/Cheney plan from the beginning.
Very little press on this but, in 2000, after the prices shot up due to Florida hurricanes,
they SUDDENLY came down, just a couple of weeks before ol' chimpy took the throne for
another 4 gruelingly long years.

This is a pattern that seems to escape our hawk-like media.

Rest easy---come mid-October, the prices will come back down so red state morons will vote to
keep republicans in control. Just watch.

[TX-RAT]

59. There was cheap gas here, but nobody could afford it.

In TX alone there were several hundred thousand people, involved in different parts of the oil industry, got lay-ed off during that period. The oil fields around here went dead. We also had to shut down several of the smaller schools and bus those kids to larger ones, due to the lost tax revenues from production. Considering there are 39 oil producing states, that effected allot of people nation wide.

[michaelpush]

97. In 1969 gas was 5 gallons for

$1.00....OMG I filled up my 1957 cadillac for $5.00!

[Aviation Pro]

12. At the comparable period of the Clinton presidency....

The average price of a gallon of gas was $1.04.5 or about a 2.8% difference downward from when he took office.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1713522&mesg_id=1713522

[onehandle]

23. He was worse than I thought! That Monster!

Won't somebody think of the Oil Companies?

oh, wait...right.

[TheFarseer]

46. Thank God for our government's swift reaction to this crisis

oh, they're not doing anything? Nothing??? Well, they're busy dealing with Iraq and Lebanon. oh, they're not doing anything about that either? :(

[Tight_rope]

70. Hell...I remeber gas being $0.98 per gallon..I dream for those days again!

[frankly_fedup2]

86. I remember back when gas was 50 cents a gallon and a pack of

cigarettes were only 50 cents as well. I remember my parents gave me a dollar a day for lunch and if I wanted to get ice cream. Everyday, (almost) I would buy a pack of cigarettes daily (wish I never picked the evil things up), and about 3 times a week, would put gas in the car. Anyone that wanted to ride had to contribute to the petro fund. Really miss those days.

[sueragingroz]

7. I paid $5.53/gal today

I guess it's a good thing I only have a scooter!

[SupplyConcerns]

21. What? For gas?!

I mean, in a year it'll be that high, but not yet..

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. Bermuda nt

[sueragingroz]

40. Yes. Bermuda (nt)

[RufusEarl]

8. No vacation this year!

I happen to know allot of people who have decided they can't afford to take that vacation this year because of high gas prices, can't afford to drive to Colorado this summer.

I'm beginning to think it's a good way for our government to keep us down on the farm, keep us in one area and off the highways.

Let's face it, for the families that like to drive to their vacation destinations, they want be taking that trip this year, and probably not for the foreseeable future.

[NVMojo]

9. Puh-leeze! Can we crucify Dick Cheney and the Bush Family Robinson?

[cliss]

11. Whow.....

My brother took us out on a boating expedition last weekend. He has a nice boat...not huge. A truck to pull the boat.....guess how much the little Fill-up cost him???

$171.00 for both truck & boat.

The only good thing that will come of this....is Bush's numbers go down as the price of gas goes up....the ONLY good thing about this.

[NewJeffCT]

13. And, the RW already has their talking point in place on this

It's the environmental whackos who have, in their infinite power, forced oil companies to close their refineries and not allowed poor, destitute ExxonMobil to drill for oil in ANWR or build new refineries all around the Florida & California shorelines.

[ClintonTyree]

42. But bush has relaxed federal guidelines.........

for refineries, the clean air act has been abandoned. They no longer have to make the gasoline cleaner burning because of our oil "crisis". Didn't you notice the drop in prices at the pump? That's OK, neither did I. The oil companies no longer have to spend as much refining the crude and those savings are going directly into their pockets as well. They're surely not being passed along to the consumer. :grr:

All of this is because investors are "nervous". :eyes: There's no real shortage, yet. The only shortage is in our wallets paying for bush's pals screwing us into the ground. Again. :mad:

[catzies]

14. Just so happens I live in Camarillo, home of the Lundberg Survey and

gas was at $3.29 at the 4th of July and is now $3.21.

[NMMNG]

15. Gas in my area jumped 2 to 8 cents per gallon last week

It's getting scary. :scared:

[struggle4progress]

16. Cheney's "Energy Task Force" planning paid off handsomely.

[Barkley]

18. I'm just glad gays can't marry...nt

[SammyBlue]

19. So, now the poor have to choose between

Food, rent, utilities and gas to go to work to make minimum wage.

While these Republican pricks in Washington vote themselves a pay raise.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :grr: :grr: :grr: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Amonester]

24. "Just wait!" said the chimp_error...

If the neocons everywhere "decide" to bomb Iran (illegally) and Tehran retaliates by blowing up all tankers' ports in the Gulf, plus the Saudis' oil rigs, there will be no limits to where those gas prices won't go.

Then, the only good thing about it will be the sinking Reptiles numbers.
All the rest, like the worldwide economic system, will just collapse......

But ExxonMobil will still report another all-time high net profits record!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Yavin4]

25. Gays Still Can't Get Married Legally

So, what's everyone complaining about. Wasn't that why Bush was elected? To stop two boys from getting married to each other?

:sarcasm:

[saigon68]

67. And those Tramps are finding abortions harder to get

[Tight_rope]

75. Yeah...those Trampers will have to use coat hangers!

:banghead:

[saigon68]

90. yikes

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. I hope they hit $5. Or more.

That would be nice.

[Stonemason35]

29. $5 would be great...

Five bucks a gallon would be about right. Think about it, the CO2 levels would drop as less folks drove individual cars, public transportation would finally get the funding it needs, and the cities would be re-vitalized as more people moved back in to be closer to their jobs. Isn't this what progressives want? As more people went back to the cities, the poverty situation would be right there in their faces, needing to be dealt with. Global warming would all but end, and all those signs that have been gathering dust since the early seventies warning about global cooling could be recycled.

I find this entire discussion rather interesting, most of the posters here have been screaming for new sources of energy, clamoring for more people to car-pool, and harping on us 'big car' drivers; one would think these gas prices would make a liberal/progressive happy. Y'all might want to rethink your stance on all things political, you sound like republicans when you complain about the price of a commodity!

[Amonester]

36. Good points, except for everything else (including food)...

(and heating, next winter, and a couple more) will become more and more unafordable for everybody, and the poorest ones (does that include more and more people from the shrinking middle-class, thanks to BushCo?) will be the ones who will suffer the most from the CEO's already full pockets' retirement packages (but just like the neocons and their rubber-stamps, your post seems to suggest you don't care for them being able to buy some 'things' to eat and not freeze to death in the cold).

Those 'changes' won't happen that fast...

[Stonemason35]

38. Started well...then fizzled

It is correct that most goods and services will cost us more due to the increase in fuel prices, and that, in turn, will begin to drive inflation up, as it did in the late 70's. Hopefully, our government will once again see the need for us all to have more of our money in our pockets to counter this inflation.

What I don't understand here is the overabundance of postings that quickly degenerate into worthless name calling and insinuations of lack of compassion. The post I am replying to started with some salient points, then went right into the waste land of 'fat-cats, neo-cons, and Busco's. Then, to bolster that incredibly weak argument, the poster insinuated that I didn't care about poor folk.

I care as much as I can, raising three children of my own on a single income. I give of my time to the causes I find worthy, much the same as posters here at du, I just happen to support some different causes.

Your parents, and mine, all went through tough times, the prices for fuel we are seeing now are just beginning to approach the relative costs of the early eighties; each generation simply feels that it has it worst than the last...human nature.

[Amonester]

77. I wrote these words: "seems to suggest" (meaning it's not a...

..."formal" accusation). I never accuse without proof (or obvious intentions to disrupt), but it seems you did not get their true meaning and wrongly felt attacked right away by a few words you did not like (and why is this?).

Alright. Congratulations for the good actions you seem to be doing to others around you, and welcome to DU! :hi:

Read well and post what you think freely.


On edit: fixed bad HTML tag mistake.

[sueragingroz]

41. I pay 4x what you do for food etc

Anything bulky and plastic? Stupidly expensive (because it takes up space in a container and because it is a petroleum product).

My solution?

Live simply.

I have second-hand furniture and not a lot of toys... I have the luxury of hanging out on the beach for my recreation and I take advantage of every spare minute to do so.

I've never been happier!

[The Wizard]

48. Removing money from circulation is

not sound fiscal policy. We are on the precipice of a disaster. The economic fallout from the lack of money in circulation bodes ill for all but the extremely wealthy. But that's Bush's ultimate goal, elimination of the middle-class. The poor don't have any resources to fight injustice, nor participate in the political process. Killing grass roots and net roots political activity ensures the elites a permanent lock on absolute power. We fought wars to prevent this kind of thing, and now Bush & Co. piss on the graves of all who died defending democracy and free Enterprise.
Any system left unfettered becomes totalitarian

[raccoon]

53. I'm sure anyone making the minimum wage of 5.15 would

agree with you. :sarcasm:

One hour's work wouldn't even net enough to pay for one gallon.

[silverojo]

76. Talk about horseshit!

<<Five bucks a gallon would be about right.>>

Yeah, let's make DAMNED sure poor people can't drive to their jobs!

<<Think about it, the CO2 levels would drop as less folks drove individual cars>>

Maybe Bush thinks Co2 levels will drop if he kills off enough people worldwide, so they can't drive cars, either.

<<public transportation would finally get the funding it needs>>

Oh, yeah, public transportation is just spiffing. Nothing quite like waiting at a bus stop for a late bus when it's 118 degrees (or zero, depending where you live) outside. It's really amusing to see people getting hassled and beaten up while they wait for a bus at night in a bad area (because they can't afford to live anywhere better). And who gives a shit about those handicapped people who couldn't possibly wheel or hobble from their homes to the bus stops?

Oh, that's right...YOU are able-bodied, YOU don't live in a harsh climate, YOU can afford to live in a safe area, so that's all that matters. What a lovely Republican attitude you have toward others!

<<and the cities would be re-vitalized as more people moved back in to be closer to their jobs.>>

Ah, yes, let's push out all those poor people living in hovels, so that we can build lots of condos they can't afford...just so suburbanites can move back to the cities. Where, pray tell, are all these poor people going to live? Oh, I forgot--you don't give a damn.

<<Isn't this what progressives want?>>

No, we don't want to spit on the poor and handicapped, thank you.

<<I find this entire discussion rather interesting, most of the posters here have been screaming for new sources of energy, clamoring for more people to car-pool, and harping on us 'big car' drivers>>

A-ha, "US big-car drivers". That means you're driving a car, not even a small car, yet you're telling everyone else to give up their wheels. "Do as I say, not as I do"...charming.

<<Y'all might want to rethink your stance on all things political, you sound like republicans when you complain about the price of a commodity!>>

The only one who sounds like a Republican is you. They're the ones who ignore the poor, aged, and handicapped, and love seeing Big Oil get richer with higher gas prices.

[Stonemason35]

88. Y'all fell right in...

<<Isn't this what progressives want?>>

No, we don't want to spit on the poor and handicapped, thank you.


If I am not mistaken, it was Al Gore who was calling for a tax on gasoline a few years back, a prohibitive tax, much like that on cigarettes, that would help slow usage, and fix the global warming problem. Mr. Gores target number: $5.00 per gallon in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. Let us not forget that that would be in 1992 dollars...

Thanks for playing!

[erknm]

82. Not trying to flame, but , , , ,

As a relative newbie and infrequent poster here, I have tried to be well behaved. If I disagree I have tried to make my argument and not just insult the position of others.

However, I cannot believe what I am reading. Likely the single reason I am involved in politics is the environment and what I see us doing to the planet. I travel around the world lecturing on environmental issues and volunteering my services to various environmental causes. I am fortunate to be in a position to do this, it is my pleasure to be able to promote issues I find so important.

I am a lawyer and economist and often am accused by my brethren on the left of being a right wing idiot because I recognize markets and the larger interdepent nature of our world. I get accused by those to my right of being a tree-hugger who does not care about working people.

What kind of right wing B.S. rhetoric am I reading here? $5 would be about right? Why not $10 or $20? Are you kidding? How much profit do you want the energy companies to make? Alternatively, if you are looking at taxes, how much money do you want lobbyist driven political whores to waste?

Do you have any idea how much pain will be inflicted on people as a result? And for what? Take a look around you and find one of the MANY well conceived studies that indicate what influence a cut of 50% miles driven would do for the environment, then compare what kind of pain would be caused as a result. The wealthy of our society will be unaffected. The middle class will be forced into mass transit at growing rates, but the cars will still exist. Similarly, they would see a reduction in their ability to sustain their standard of living. Worse yet, the poor will see increases in the cost of living that would be intolerable.

But people will move closer to their work place? Do a little research. There is a movement to work closer to home, but this is due to the time costs of transit, not the energy cost elements. Those who were concerned about the energy costs were already into mass transit. Those who are interested in saving time have spent the money to live closer to their jobs. Too bad, we should tell the poor to just suffer, but in time and congestion as well as higher gas prices. The poor have less mobility, fewer opportunities to seek out employment close to home and fewer choices regarding their work-life balance. Changes such as those you sight will adversely impact first the poor, then the working class (i.e. union type labor), and then move to the middle.

There has to be a balance. In another post on this thread, someone was speaking positively about Venezuela and their subsidized gas prices. Still others look to Clinton and lower prices as evidence of his superiority, somewhat like lemmings waiting to be lead to the promised land by some political hack. I suggest that we not wait to be lead to the promised land by someone who is willing to tell us what we want to hear. What are you doing for the environment? Likely very, very little. Did you turn off your AC today so that your energy company did not have to run its most dirty peak load generating units? Do you combine trips, carpool, use the rail or bus system? Did you stop buying dry clean only clothes? There is alot you can do that will not impose a penalty on the poorer elements of our society. Why advocate a path to environmental success that travels on the back of our poorest members?

It just seems this is an area where the left is not of one voice. The humanists are in conflict with the environmentalists. Well, speaking as someone who has been accused of being both, I have to say I would sooner cut down a tree than a person. Having said this, perhaps with a little imagination and careful thinking, we can conceive of a way to allow both the people and the planet to thrive. Do not ask that someone else be forced to do something until you have voluntarily done all you can.

FH

[phylny]

28. No movement by the IRS to change the mileage rate for business.

Last year, since gas prices topped $3/gallon "because of Hurricane Katrina" the IRS raised the reimbursement rate to 48.5 cents/mile, but dropped it down to 44.5 cents/mile for 2006.

[Zambero]

30. Ching! Ching!

That's the sound made by those Bush family owned oil wells located in the Mideast.

[TedsGarage]

31. We should be so lucky

Here in Chicago, it's $3.39 for low-grade, $3.59 for premium. The L is my new best friend.

[The Anti-Neo Con]

33. What about the morans with W'04 stickers at the pump?

Has anyone heard them at the pump saying "These gas prices are great! Everything is so much better since Clinton! Thanks W!"

I bet not.

[Stonemason35]

34. What about the morans (sic) with W'04 stickers at the pump?

One would think that the rich republicans would be loving this. This forces those that have little money back to the cities from whence they came, leaving the suburbs and the actual rural living to those that understand that where one lives is a CHOICE. We all have the freedom to use or not use the fuel that powers our lives, and there are many options. I know of a small enclave in the middle of the Maine woods that rely mainly on solar power, another enclave in Lancaster, Pa, that only uses electricity for the barns and another group down in Tennessee that forgoes power at all.

Live your life the way you want, don't hurt your neighbor, and allow me my choices; classical liberalism at its finest.

[Delphinus]

43. Not many options for those without money, friend.

We all have the freedom to use or not use the fuel that powers our lives, and there are many options.

I wish we all had the options you talk about - I'd love to have solar panels and geothermal heating - but no funds to do such things.

I live simply and very frugally but that doesn't help in having the funds to use alternative fuel supplies.

[Stonemason35]

35. an aside...

Just a little advice...if you're going to label an entire class of American people (which is rather bigoted) as 'morons', you might want to lean how to spell the word; or at least use the spell check provided by du.

[Binka]

39. A Bit Of Advice Stone Moran Is A Well Known Joke On DU

If you stick around long enough we might let you in on it.:silly:

[RebelOne]

45. Don't keep him in suspense. Post the photo of our favorite moran.

[Binka]

47. I don't have the Moran picture but someone does. It will be posted soon!

It is HUGH! I'm series1111111

[The Wizard]

49. Google "Get a brain Morans"

It will show up

[yorkiemommie1]

80. somebody even posted a picture of the Moran family!

it was hysterical.

When I first came aboard, I, too, wondered about 'moran' but realized that there had to be some inside joke and that if I waited long enough, I'd find out what it was. Ding, ding! As soon as I saw our little mascot, I caught on!

[Stonemason35]

92. Thank you

I will refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future...give me a week or three, you'll find that I am not a troll, but, rather a fun opposing viewpoint.

I worked hard on Ed Rendell's campaign for governor here in PA, based on many reasons, even though I had to switch parties to do it. I have since switched back, I find too many of the ideas on the left lacking.

That being said, I find many ideas on the right lacking as well, but can't really get my head around the anarchy that would result from a libertarian regime.

I mentioned 'classical liberalism' which should give a hint at some of my reading material, but it is the first 'group' that seems to fit. Reality has a way of derailing many well intentioned ideas, so maybe we should deal in reality.

I would, however, counsel y'all to read the posts closely as well. So many on the left rail against 'mean-spirited' republicans, but the overall majority of posts here contain one or more 'mean-spirited' slurs. Y'all may find them to be 'funny', but those on the receiving end most likely would not. Consider how many slurs started as humour...

I am trying very hard not to be banned, as most right thinking folks are here, I did read the rules: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office." Doesn't this statement limit the discourse? Then there is: "Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements." I have read here for months before posting, and that 'rule' seems only to apply if the poster is a republican, as once again, most posts here break that rule with bigoted slurs against those that break rule number one.

Give me chance, ya might change my mind on some things, and I might change yours...

[Binka]

55. Freeper Protester

[dmoded]

89. heh thx for the lol.. definitely yer typical freeper :))

[Amonester]

56. The Link to DU's Research Forum's Glossary Here:

DU Glossary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x190

Since I have no idea yet if I can "safely" welcome you to DU (because the DU message boards have been pretty much constantly attacked by cowardish right-wing trolls ever since day one - even PAID trolls, can you believe it?) I won't welcome you to DU (yet). On the other hand, DUers generally agree to disagree on about almost anything (and everything), but if you are sincere, you'll have to do your own research and mostly, grow yourself a 'thick' skin (as in 'not to take every "unexpected" - or "kind-of-strange-looking" reply for a personal attack') 'cuz if you don't, you may not enjoy your stay as much as you would have otherwise.

And yes: if you're sincere AND if you work in order to find the truth that's been willfully hidden by the neocons and their Repugnant rubber-stamps (which is routinely easy for us to detect by now), we will gladly do justice to DU's Tradition and post 'Welcome to DU' en masse.

Sorry if we're not quite there yet. We've been 'tested' before (u no wadda mean?).


On edit: Forgot two closing )s, one (and everything), and one in order to.

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. While we're at it, we should probably let you know that...

'huge' has an alternative spelling as well. A Freeper proudly proclaimed something was "HUGH!" So tread lightly when correcting someone on that "misspelling." ;)

[Robb]

66. Nope, not everyone

...But someone who believes where one lives is a choice for everyone probably has it coming.

Sort of reminds me of "Homeless? Well, go home!"/"Let them eat cake" philosophy.

[pooja]

51. And GoodMorning DU'rs.... Thank God I read the top 10 first.

The truth is that everything has increased. Homes, gas, insurance, food, etc. It is much harder to stretch a dollar these days. I think that we are going to begin seeing a real change because people are waking up. The best thing really would be $7.00 to $10.00 a gallon... then employers would have to figure out how they will support employees getting to work. There will be a demand by corporate America for public transportation and alternative programs. When people can't get to work, we will figure this out. Or the Chineese will.

[4dsc]

52. Can you say "peak oil" yet??

I heard on the TV tube last night the news lady explain that the sheeple are "praying" for lower gas prices!! I had to laugh.. Irresponsible journalism on the local level will not INFORM the sheeple of why gas prices are so high and why the era of cheap oil is OVER!! I wonder when the sheeple will wake up??

[Cant_wait_for_2008]

63. They wont. Still buying those huge dinosuars at the car lots....

and driving 80 MPH.

Good news is it wont last long when gas hits 4 to 5 per gallon.

[Alcibiades]

71. SUV sales are down 10%

For the first half of this year compared to last year.

People are beginning to respond. Once they figure out that high prices are here to stay, they will replace their old vehicles with smaller vehicles. Except for the rich, that is, for whom $3, $4 or even $10 a gallon is no big whup.

[4dsc]

91. 10% is not much

when you consider they sold over a million SUV's??

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/21/bloomberg/bxford.php

Ford Motor's goal of returning to profit in North America by 2008 is at risk because of declining sales of sport-utility vehicles, according to officials at the automaker.

The officials, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak for Ford, said a jump in gasoline prices was hurting demand for SUVs, a problem that was also plaguing rival automakers. In addition, competition from General Motors and Toyota Motor also may erode sales of Ford's pickup trucks, the officials said.

Ford generated about $8,000 in pretax profit on each mid-size SUV and $11,000 on large models as recently as 2004, David Healy, a Burnham Securities analyst, said. Ford has sold 136,545 SUVs this year, 11 percent of its total U.S. sales, as the average price of a gallon of gas rose to $2.87.

[Rambis]

54. 1.88$... unacceptable price for a gallon of gas George Bush 1999

I would open the reserves and jaw bone OPEC into producing more oil.
I don't think it is * fault but he used it against Gore so he owns this one!

[Alcibiades]

64. It is absolutely Bush's fault

Yes, it's normally true he president has little control over gas prices--he cannot do what FDR did, after all, and institute rationing and price controls. In this case, however, Bush is absolutely at fault: by invading Iraq, he destabilized the region, so we have lost millions of barrels in production to sabotage. More recently, the decision to take a hard line with Iran over the issue of atomic weapons has led Iran to unleash Hezbollah in Lebanon upon Israel, leading Israel to invade Lebanon, leading to fears in the energy markets that a broader regional war will develop, leading to a speculation-fueled price increase.

The irony is that everyone thought that the Iraq war was an imperialistic effort to seize their oil reserves. It turns out that that is true, but the purpose was not to increase production, but to decrease it so that the profits of big oil would surge on a per-unit basis! It's not "No blood for oil" but rather "blood for no oil."

[Rambis]

68. You are correct

point taken I am a moran;)

[Yavin4]

69. You Are 100% Correct. Iraq Gives Bush His Two Greatest Pleasures

Killing people and high gas prices.

[erknm]

83. There are good reasons to hate W, but, , , ,

Sorry for the flame, but you are dead wrong on this one. However, I am not interested in just making some sort of accusation to make myself feel better and then hitting post, so I have offered the accurate data, culled from two sources, the US DOE Energy Information Agency and MEES (Middle East Economic Survey). Frankly, I got similar data directly from the OPEC site, but figured you may not trust that source. There is no evidence that the level of production has fallen due to sabotage. Frankly, I suggest you do a bit more research on this topic, unfounded accusations do the cause no good whatsoever. I don't know where you think you are getting your information, but OPEC based oil production is up since 2002 and has risen consistently each year since then. It took me all of 20 minutes to get the accurate data. How long did it take you to write something that helps the right wingers dismiss environmental and humanist ideas? In other words, when people here at DU or other progressive blogs publish outright mistakes, based perhaps on what they want to be true, it hurts the cause. I encourage people to do the research, there are enough factual reasons to get rid of W, like the larger deficit, political polarization at home, a perverted social discussion on human behavior, etc. However, OPEC has kept their supply stable throughout the Iraq war, they are not the reason for the nominal oil and gas price increases.

In any event, facts are stubborn things, and to the extent that you, or any other readers are interested in facts, I offer the following data:

The member nations are

Venezuela
UAE
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
Nigeria
Libya
Algeria
Indonesia
Iran
Kuwait
Iraq

there are two sets of relevant data, oil production with Iraq and without it. Both sets of data demonstrate that oil production is up since 2001. The metric is thousands of barrels per day average production. For 2006 the metric is thousands of barrels per day average up to June of 2006.

Without Iraq

2001 24,876
2002 23,394
2003 25,807
2004 27,126
2005 28,000
2006 29,205

With Iraq

2001 27,188
2002 25,409
2003 27,095
2004 29,129
2005 29,900
2006 31,405


So, we can see that the problem is not supply. While it is convenient to blame someone else, in the case of high oil prices, supply of oil is not the problem. We all need to change our behavior. The really frustrating element of this entire debate for an accused tree-hugger like me, is that if we individually decide that we will change our behavior, the price of oil will fall, benfiting us all, and the environment will benefit, both at the same time.

What a revelation!

FH

[Alcibiades]

94. Chill

"There is no evidence that the level of production has fallen due to sabotage. Frankly, I suggest you do a bit more research on this topic, unfounded accusations do the cause no good whatsoever."

That's an awful lot of unction to level at me for no particularly good reason.

I made no claims that sabotage was lowering the level of oil production, either in OPEC or worldwide. I was only referring to Iraq, something I had thought a reasonably intelligent reader (such as yourself) would have gotten from context.

Yes, I suppose you could think I was referring to sabotage in the region as a whole from my comment that:

"by invading Iraq, he destabilized the region, so we have lost millions of barrels in production to sabotage."

I had thought it obvious that I was referring to sabotage in iraq, but I can see where you might think I was writing about the region as a whole. Honestly, it had not occurred to me that someone might make the leap to mean that this means that worldwide production has declined. I never made that claim.

Production in Iraq can go down while world production goes up. What my assertion that the lowered levels of production in Iraq has resulted in higher prices relies on a counterfactual, not any other assumptions about worldwide production--the counterfactual simply is "Given everything that's happened, would oil prices be higher or lower if Iraq was producing at capacity?" I still stand by the claim that sabotage (to which I should have added insecurity and lawlessness in general) has resulted in a lower level of production in Iraq than would have been the case otherwise. It can be true that Iraqi production can go down, that worldwide prices can go up, that worldwide production can go up, that some of the increase in prices are due to an increase in demand, and that some of the increase in prices are due to a decrease in supply from Iraq, all at the same time.

Do a multivariate analysis, have at it. I expect the "Iraq War" dummy variable will explain quite a bit of the variation in the dependent variable.

As for research, I can do that. Here's the kind of sabotage I'm writing about:

February 15, 2005 After extensive repair work on Iraq’s export pipeline from the Kirkuk oil fields, crude oil exports to the Turkish port of Ceyhan resume at a rate of 250,000 bbl/d. Plans are in place to increase the flows to 400,000 bbl/d by the end of the month, as long as further attacks do not continue. However, at the end of the month, after more sabotage to the pipeline, the Iraqi government shuts down the pipeline until further notice. (Bloomberg)

March 1, 2005 Iraq closes its northern crude oil export pipeline indefinitely due to sabotage concerns. The 600,000 bbl/d-pipeline, which runs from the city of Kirkuk to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan has been the target of over 15 attacks since January 2005. The closure of the pipeline will make it difficult for Iraq to meet its targeted crude oil export level of 2 million barrels per day. (WMRC)

April 26, 2005 Iraqi saboteurs attack the 50,000 bbl/d Bay Hassan oilfield west of the northern city of Kirkuk. An Iraqi oil official says that a “number” of oil wells are shut down in response to the bombings, but export capacity will not be affected once flows resume from the northern oil pipeline to Ceyhan. (Reuters)

June 16, 2005 Pirates attempt to raid an oil tanker anchored off Iraq’s Basra oil terminal. The armed group boards the ship, but the crew is able to repel the attackers. There are no reported casualties, but the pirates escape before authorities can arrive. The attack occurs outside a security cordon established by U.S. naval forces. The raid is the second such attack in the month; pirates earlier raided the Nord Millennium oil tanker. Basra terminal handles most of Iraq’s crude oil exports, especially because of problems of sabotage along its northern export pipelines. (Reuters)

August 30 , 2005 Pirates raid a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tanker near the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. The attack is the latest in a string of such incidents affecting oil and petroleum product tankers servicing the country. (Reuters)

Taken from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqchron.html

Pirates! No Captain Jack Swallow in the Gulf back in Saddam's time, that's for sure.

Relax a little. You go off flying pretty far afield here, making some assumptions that are a little unreasonable. You might try asking a question, such as "Do you mean to say that world production is down?" rather than just assuming that a poster (such as myself) has adopted such a silly position.

I could do the same thing--for example, you write "So, we can see that the problem is not supply. While it is convenient to blame someone else, in the case of high oil prices, supply of oil is not the problem." I could say "Ah ha! Gotcha. Don't you know that production could go down, or remain stable, and prices could drop anyway?" Of course, that would be silly, given that your next comment addresses the issue of demand, but I think it's no less silly than the position you attributed to me.

Obviously, yes, it would be nice (for oil prices, anyway) if China and India were not industrializing, if Detroit had not decided to focus on SUVs as the profit center for the last ten years, etc. All things being equal, however, I still think oil prices are much higher today with the occupation of Iraq than they had been before it, or would have been without it.

Peace.

[erknm]

95. Demand and supply can remain constant and we could

still see higher prices, due to speculation. Also, Detroit didn't decide to start making SUVs, people started buying SUVs. We have to stop trying to blame these events on others, often large firms. While they are easy targets, the fact is someday, someone needs to begin to take personal responsibility.

However, you said:

"he destabilized the region, so we have lost millions of barrels in production to sabotage"

so of course I will look at the region. What else would I look at given the specific language in your post?

But the real issue here is that OPEC all but guarantees that production will remain stable. Thus, the level of oil coming from the area is the same as it would have been without the war. To confirm this, go back to forcasts of current production made before 9/11, before our invasion, and you will see that we are within a few percent of where OPEC had forcast they would be.

In other words, if Iraq produces less, then other OPEC members produce more. This is the relative metric. Had Iraqi production ramped up, undoubtedly Saudi would curtail their output. This is the traditional role of Saudi Arabia, to provide the institutional supply discipline for the OPEC cartel. Saudi has done this time after time when other OPEC members have cheated. Thus the result is a stable oil supply, even in the time of war. Regardless of what people want to think, what their expectations are, what their priors are, facts remain.

Demand is higher, speculation is higher, but the quantity supplied has remained constant, actually has grown slightly from OPEC and dramatically from non-OPEC.

While I understand that a straightforward way to run the analysis is to fold in an Iraq war dummy, I suggest this would provide no meaningful results. You have to explain why there would be a link. It has to be expectations since actual supply has not changed. In other words, suppose we run an Iraq war dummy against gasoline prices and we get an R2 of .95. Why? How would you explain this? Could you look at supply? Since there is no reduction in supply, we actually see growth, then there has to be some other reason. However, include such factors as long vs short positions in oil markets, consumer expectations, perhaps even death counts per day and I suggest you might get more meaningful results. These results, which would still be very critical of W, would also be more accurate and could not be dismissed by the right nearly as quickly as your initial statement.
But you are probably right, I should let it go. We are on the same side here, at least fundamentally. However, too often the rhetoric from the left only serves to allow the right to dismiss us as would a parent dismissing a child's exaggeration.


FH

[Alcibiades]

99. A further clarification

I absolutely agree on your comment in re speculation in the oil markets. The invasion of Iraq destabilized the region, causing oil traders to bet that the price would go up. One cause, multiple mechanisms. This doesn't weaken my original contention one bit, and is more in the way of a supporting argument I didn't make but certainly had in mind.

As fat as Detroit goes, I think my original comment was accurate. Yes, Detroit was responding to a demand from consumers in building more SUVs, but they also helped generate more demand though promotional activity, and by not focusing on fuel efficient family cars as an alternative.

As far as the matter of personal versus corporate responsibility, I see that as a false dichotomy. It's not a question of either/or. The nation's political process has been taken over by a self-interested cabal of corporate executives and their agents. They have a lot to answer for. I have taken personal responsibility, and I do things to reduce my ecological footprint, and will continue to do more. Personal responsibility alone will not further the general welfare, however. That's what politics is for. We need to take action as consumers, yes, but more importantly as citizens. I am excited by what I see today in this regard. A sea change is beginning, as people are increasingly rejecting the excessively individualistic view of classical liberalism that depicts us as isolated, atomistic individuals and are beginning to realize that we are interconnected, interdependent beings, brought together by history to fulfill a great destiny. This is what the founders intended.

In re why you might think I was referring to Iraq and not the region as a whole is that I assume you've been reading the news. There has been sabotage in the region, in Iraq, which has been destabilized. This lack of law and order, the disintegration of the Iraqi state, has had some sort of spillover effect in the oil markets, an effect that could have readily been predicted. Maybe I should have used a semicolon in there somewhere, I don't know.


(While we're on the topic of semantics, we probably shouldn't call what's going on in Iraq a war. It's an occupation. The war was ended when the enemy Baathist regime was defeated. This brings up the question of what it is we are still doing there today.)

Whatever the causal mechanism, prices have gone up since the occupation of Iraq. Despite the fact that the Saudis have played the "stabilizing" role they have played in the past, prices have still gone up? What's different? Lots of things, for sure, but I suggest that the main difference has been the occupation of Iraq.

One of the variables you suggest, by the way, is one I'd like to see some work done on: Battle deaths in Iraq. The more our troops die, the higher the price of oil. Autocorrelation? Probably. Nonetheless, there is a relationship, and if one of the justifications for our being in Iraq is to keep oil cheap, then our mission has failed to accomplish that objective, in which case we should adopt another tactic.

I am not the only one who has suggested that the president could play a role in keeping oil prices low--you probably remember Bush's comment in the 2000 election debates, that he would "jawbone" the Saudis to ramp up production to keep prices low. If a right winger were to attempt to refute any of my contentions, that is where I would begin to construct a counterargument.I'm not terribly worried about the ability of right wingers to refute my arguments right now. The proof is in the pudding. The Clinton years were mainly characterized by peace, prosperity and balanced budgets. Six years of unified Republican rule has been a disaster. Anyway, I would craft my argument differently if I were writing for a mass audience, or for a peer-reviewed publication, rather than for fellow DUers. I do think, however, that one problem we have had is that we (Democrats) have been too cerebral, too evenhanded. We should stop worrying about anticipating every possible counterargument and stick to the facts. Our troops are dying, gasoline is more expensive than it has been, the debt is ballooning, the deficit is ballooning, the balance of trade is terrible and American jobs are being sent to China.

Peace

[lpbk2713]

57. That ought to help another Big Oil exec get another half billion dollar

retirement package.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

60. I paid $50 to fill up today

when just a few years ago it was about $25. Price of gas has at least double since * took over. Who says there is no inflation. Well, no more driving to the mall for shopping. Most shopping I do will be online. Price for premium was $3.25 in GA & it was a little over 15 gallons.

[Alcibiades]

65. Will somebody do us all a favor

and create a line graph showing the correlation between deaths in Iraq and the price of gasoline? I'd do it, but I have no time. I bet that the relationship is pretty strong. You could even use another y variable to show the direct benefit to the oil companies from all this, such as Exxon-Mobil share prices, profits or something.

Anyway, such a graphic would be a good tool in the upcoming election.

[osaMABUSh]

78. the PUMP is our master and pain

On The Daily Show JS talked about the what the War in the ME means - to Lebanon it means many deaths and total destruction to Israel a few deaths and a lot of not so deadly bombs to the US it means higher gasoline prices. We feel the pain when we near the PUMP. Oh the horror!

[dapper]

85. Maybe Bush can have his buddies turn on the spigot

Or... maybe not. Can someone post a video or sound clip of him saying that?

On my way to work this morning, gas was around $2.89. After work I figured it was a good time to fill up the tank and to get some gas for my tractor... When I went to the gas station, gas was $3.09!!

Maybe Condi-sleeza shouldn't go to Beirut anymore?

Dap

[wordpix2]

87. thank goodness, after the Israel/Hezbollah wars, something DU can agree on

$3.28 in CT

[unkachuck]

98. the bottom line....

....bushco could give a rats-ass if gas went to $50 a gallon and bread went to $40 a loaf....

....the only thing bushco worries about is, supply....they'll make sure you have plenty of gas available, to get your ass to work tomorrow....

[Posteritatis]

100. $3.93/gal here

Howls of outrage over three bucks amuse me. I kinda hope it hits six or seven and stays there long enough for people to realize they should look for solutions that actually work in the long term.

[Blue_Tires]

101. i guess at time like this i'm glad

i was never able to afford my exotic dreamcar, after all....the hundred grand plus a couple of fillups per week of 93 octane would leave me living in the car!