Rising gas prices are a good thing.

[Phillycat]

I mean on a larger level, for America. The interim is going to be a very scary time for a lot of people, particularly people who are on the cusp of the poverty line already. My heart breaks to think of those who will have to choose between filling up their cars to get to work or feeding their families.

But on a socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental level, forcing Americans to get out of their cars, and the resultant new economies that will ensue (think private mass transit companies, etc) will completely revolutionize the way America functions. And it will be a cleaner, (environmentally), cheaper (economically), and safer (world-politically) way to live.

[Ilsa]

1. I agree with your premise, but it is soooo harmful to so many

people who don't have access to mass transit. I think alot of people have been victimized by this when their choices were limited to able to live where there is mass transit, to need vehicles that can haul, etc.

[Phillycat]

7. See my post below re: mass transit.

Yes, it's going to be awful for a long time. I think we'll see starvation, foreclosures (more of them), and food shortages before this all is done. But in the end, we will end up in a better place than we were. Demand will increase supply when it comes to mass transit, and things will have to change.

America was built on cheap gas. We need to find a new way to run this country. It's been a long time coming.

[OwnedByFerrets]

14. I have a huge problem with the

"we" part. That segment completely removes the "them" who feel the starvation, foreclosures and food shortages (your words, not mine). How will it be a better place when "them" must suffer to achieve an end for the "we"?
If President Carter had not had his election stolen from him (yes, it was stolen) we would probably be in this condition.

[Phillycat]

16. Hopefully we are going to elect a president who will put social programs

in place to protect the most desperate segment of the population. At least, that's what Obama says he'll do.

There is no "we" and "them" in my theory. We put out our hands, don't we? There's a guy in the lounge right now who posted about how he can't pay his electric bill. At least 4 DUers offered assistance if he needed it. That is how we'll get through. It will not be an easy transition, it will not go smoothly, there will be casualties. But America was built on cheap gas, and it's no longer viable. It needs to change, and it'll be a violent change.

[Andrea]

148. Ignorance is bliss

Do you have any idea how desperately poor a person has to be before social programs kick in? I cannot currently keep my utility bills paid. Natural gas prices are predicted to rise by 30% this winter. I would have to cut my income by about 60% before I would be eligible for any social programs. How is someone with 41% of my income supposed to survive? Don't say a word about cutting back. I've cut to the bone already. I keep my heat at 62 degrees.

[redwitch]

146. Will you be starving or foreclosed on?

?

[JFN1]

96. Rural and small towns especially have it rough

since there is no existing mass transit system in most small town and rural areas. But I do agree with you - ultimately, while change is hard and hurts many, it will lead to a better America. Just sucks so many must be harmed while so pitifully few reap all of the benefits of high gas prices.

[wtmusic]

2. The reasons for it are not.

If you take the same monopolistic entities and move them into mass transit or hydrogen, we will have the same problem in 15 years.

Time to enforce antitrust.

[Phillycat]

34. Well, now, that's true.

But that has to be done in conjunction with developing mass transit and alternative fuel, not instead of it.

[liberal N proud]

3. Very scary time for a lot of people?

People are at this point making decisions, put gas in the tank or food on the table.

Gas in the tank means they can go to work to pay for the gas in the tank.

Putting food on the table is getting too costly either way because of the gas prices.

So just screw the poor some more. Don't bitch when the welfare numbers increase.

I must add, that the reason the prices are high is so the rich speculators can make even more on their little shell game they play with facts to drive up the price.

[Phillycat]

5. The OP was looking at the situation in the long view.

In the short view, yes it's scary and horrible.

However, in the long view, providing mass transit to areas of the country that don't currently have it will be ultimately very good for the poor; in fact, better for the poor than any other group.

And it will be provided, sooner or later. Probably not by the government - probably by private companies who recognize the demand and the potential for profit. Cheap, efficient people-moving enterprises will start to spring up.

The trains in my area are already so overcrowded, I could make a fortune operating a bus service along the same route. I would probably need a permit to do it - most likely, local governments will get into the business of licensing people to operate mass transit companies - which would provide revenue.

Yes, it's going to suck in the meantime, and yes, the poor will be the hardest-hit, as they always are, but ultimately it WILL be movement in a good direction.

[liberal N proud]

22. Completely breaking the poor and creating more poor isn't going to do anything

It will simply drive the economy further toward a depression.

Everyone talks big about this will force change without considering the true consequences. People will be starving soon if they are not already.

So far I am lucky, My wife and I have good paying jobs for now. We could just suck it up and pay the higher cost. But that has to come from somewhere even in our budget. So we don't eat out as much and the restaurant doesn't need so many waiters and cooks, they lay those people off and the trickle down is double on those already suffering the most because of inflation.

Total collapse is the only place this will lead. I see no good.

[Phillycat]

24. What I'm talking about is a fundamental change in the way this country runs.

Literally the way it RUNS, the way it transports humans, goods, and everything else from place to place. This country was built on artificially cheap gas, and it's been overdue for a change for a long time. It's no longer viable.

Of course I consider the true consequences. As I said below, I grew up with a single mother below the poverty line. I know exactly what this will look like for the most vulnerable segment of society. But I'm also able to look at the bigger picture and recognize that this change is necessary and ultimately good.

[MrCoffee]

42. You want to create a MASSIVE demand for labor (skilled and unskilled) in this country?

Dedicate ourselves to building the infrastructure to support a new energy source. Build new "gas" stations for cars to provide the new fuel. Convert and clean the old ones. Build new storage and transmission systems for the new fuel. Build new factories to build the engines that are going to burn the new fuel.

The unemployment rate would plummet.

[liberal N proud]

46. True

But when is that going to happen?

At this point, there is very little if any investment on a large scale taking place in this country for new energy sources.

[Phillycat]

47. What do you think will happen when people start starving because

we've run out of, say, wheat, because farmers can't put fuel in their machines?

I'm guessing we'll get on that alternative energy thing with a quickness.

Unfortunately, there IS a gap between theory and reality and into that gap will fall the poor, just as they always do for ANY major social or economic change in a nation's history. Pointing that out does NOT make me heartless.

[Two Americas]

130. the obvious answer

Without a tractor a farmer can feed 12. With tractors, a farmer can feed 1200. This has allowed an extraordinary percentage of the population, for the first time in human existence, to take their food supply for granted, move away from the source and live wasteful modern lifestyles. Oil is subsidizing suburbia, it is not subsidizing farming. Farmers can move away from oil and nothing will change. It is the need to support suburbia and get the food to suburbia that requires oil. Crops do not need oil.

What happens when the farmer can no longer feed 1200? There will be no change in farming. However, many will need to give up their lives of office work, trading and wheeling and dealing and move back to the farm and do real work.

Do not ask farmers, rural people, and poor people to make sacrifices, suffer and change for the purpose of supporting the most wasteful, exploitative and destructive community model ever in history. It is those theorizing about "peak oil" and "green alternatives" and such, and fantasizing about how to change society who must change and who must start making sacrifices and feeling the pain, not those whom they always want to slate for paying the price - working people, blue collar people, farmers and others who do not fit into the suburban corporate white collar dream world.

Concern for the poor starts and ends with talking about class, with the haves and the have-nots, with the destructive and unsustainable idea we have about "success," with the behavior of the "winners," regardless of oil or green alternatives or any of the rest of the nonsense that upscale liberals love to chatter about.

There is nothing wrong with the poor and disadvantaged, and there is nothing wrong with the farmers. It only seems that there is when we take modern suburbia as the standard and as the given, and hold the 99% of the population that cannot or will not conform to the suburban lifestyle in contempt.

[MrCoffee]

49. My whole point is that the sooner it happens, the better.

Wouldn't it be great if President Obama stood up at his inauguration and said "In ten years this country will have a new energy standard and the means to provide it to a majority of Americans"?

It worked for Kennedy and the moon shot. What we sorely need is strong national policy dedicating ourselves to weaning from oil and on to something new. We need to decide what that something new is going to be (the best available technology to replace oil), and focus energy research on making it functional in the real-world. The high cost of gas (whatever the cause) can be the catalyst to that change.

[Andrea]

150. I think it will happen when we enact and enforce laws

that take away the unconscionable profits associated with the current energy structure.

[bobbolink]

75. Thank you for "getting it"--especially since it isn't affecting *you* now.

I'm so very tired of all this, and it does help to hear at least one "progressive" speaking up for the rest of us.

This kind of elitism is what is damaging the Dem party!!

[liberal N proud]

108. Being a tight wad, I hate paying the high prices

While realizing that I am lucky. I still remember the Raygun years, when I wasn't doing so well.

[Andrea]

149. Positive change can be brought about in better ways

than on the back of the poor.

[jojo54]

4. You are absolutely right.

Just the other day, I saw this article in the PA. Inquirer about Vespa sales sky rocketing.... http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/19710994.html.

Maybe soon, people will wake up to the fact that we have been lazy, spoiled and selfish in this country.

[Phillycat]

6. Well, I don't want to overstate that.

I disagree that all Americans have been lazy, spoiled, and selfish - although it's hard to argue that with the suburban dweller driving a Hummer. (Did you see they're going to stop making them? They can't sell them anymore. Hallelujah!)

But there are people, as mentioned above, who live in rural areas, who must haul equipment for their jobs, who aren't on mass transit routes...who are going to suffer even though they HAVEN'T been lazy, spoiled, and selfish. My premise is that although it's horrible that those people will suffer in the interim, even they will ultimately be better off.

[weezy2736]

8. In some of the more ruraly areas, the situation is becoming a little more dire.

Some of my friends, who have to travel a good little ways to get to a population center for work would actually be losing money if they were making minimum wage. Luckily, most of them don't have to feed a family, but after accounting for gas, some of them have to live off of the dollar menu.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. That is what those

who hold oil stocks say too!

Americans are fat too, so what do you think, would a famine be a good thing too?

[Phillycat]

12. You're being ridiculous.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Er, actually I was being nice.

This thinking is repellent. The part that makes me sick is the 'them' and 'they' not 'us' and 'we'. In the long run, Iraq may be a real good thing too! In fact, the best thing that could happen would be a huge population drop, perhaps we should pray for a plauge to strike 'them'? In the long run, it would be so good for us. So forget them. What about us?
I get what you are trying to say, but the lexicon and emotional distance gives me the chills.

[Phillycat]

19. You are projecting the emotional distance, because I don't feel it.

And I never used the terminology "us" and "them". This thinking is not repellent, it's just not pleasant to consider what the interim will look like.

Read my posts above. I am no elitist, I grew up with a single mother on food stamps. I know exactly who this will hit the hardest. But I'm able to be objective and say that in the end, the changes this will foment will benefit the poor, possibly more than any other group.

[Bluenorthwest]

135. And so...

Look I'll just add this much later. There was no reason to say that you are above it all. That is where you become naff in the first order. Perhaps you really are untouchably rich, like Bush or something, but if you are under the impression that a million or two in the bank makes you above the fray, I say wake up and smell the coffee.
It is just classless to take the time to point out that while others will suffer it won't be you, but you think it is a good thing. Bluntly, you should then use every iota of your wealth to mitigate the suffering of others, as that suffering will be buying for you what money could not. Your statement, although you are far from being able to comprehend it, is exploitative. You are saying you will benefit, without any harm to you, from the suffering of others, and you celebrate that as a good thing. Medidtate on that for a while. You intend to reap the benefits of the suffering of others.

I do know what you want to say. If you said it without the praise for yourself and the dancing over the suffering of others, it would come off as far less Babs Bush like. " It's really good for them, and it won't hurt me!"
Listen to yourself. I stand by my every word to you. Do yourself a favor and listen to yourself.

[OwnedByFerrets]

54. You are exactly correct....

it would be GREAT for there to be a massive reduction in human life on this floating ball. Mankind needs to reduce itself by at least 4 billion ppl. But, it would be irresponsible to wish for that reduction just for the betterment of those who were left behind. And, I too, get what she is trying to say, but there are better ways of achieving the goal.

[kentuck]

10. It's devastating for the majority of people...

at least, in the short run. However, people don't eat every year, they eat every day. It is an elitist view to not see how much pain this is causing normal working people.

[Phillycat]

13. No, I do, I surely do see that pain.

I believe that before real shifts start to occur, we're going to see starvation in this country, more than we already do, and more foreclosures, food shortages, you name it. The interim is going to be awful for the poor and working class. I'm no elitist, I grew up on food stamps. But I'm looking at the longer view. An America that's built on cheap gas, as this country was, will always put the poor at a disadvantage. The way America runs needs to change, has needed to change for a long time. It's scary, yes. But it will ultimately be a good thing.

[dysfunctional press]

118. i have to disagree with that.

"devastating" is a pretty strong word, especially if you want to apply it to the majority of the population.

while it probably has been "devastating" for some, even many, for the majority it's mostly been a major inconvenience.

[Radical Activist]

124. And it will keep causing pain if we don't change our current transportation system.

No, its not elitist to recognize that working people will benefit if this force politicians to stop listening to oil companies and start acting.

[Carnea]

11. Overall it's a good thing I just wish gas taxes were higher. nt

[JANdad]

57. Wow...400 posts in 7 day...

Good on ya!








btw...do you work or are you paid to post here?

[Carnea]

61. So you don't like mass transit funding through gasoline taxes ..ok

As for your other question

I am the sales manger for Chrysler Jeep Hummer land of Deland Florida home of the patriotic gator.

"Our Hummers will make you smile"

















Okay I'll confess I have once of these new fangled computers that has multiple windows that lets me do two things at once.

Right now I'm scanning a photo for work keeping an eye on my Euro shorts on the Forex exchange. Seeing that my UPS store has a package for me and typing to you.

[LostinVA]

129. He uses the popular technique of massive amounts of lounge posts to gain "cred"

Definitely a poster to keep an eye on.

I'm amazed it's still here.

[flvegan]

15. Not so simple.

Economically harming folks for 10 years while areas try to figure out how to provide mass transit, while doing so on an even more thinly-stretched budget. Budgets that are also hurt by the price of gas.

In addition, the cost of electricity is going up. Most folks don't have the $30k to put solar panels up. I pity folks in the north this coming winter. How many hundreds of extra dollars will it cost to heat homes?

I agree that a "scare" is good to get folks thinking and behaving a little differently, but a permanent hike is going to be a pain that doesn't go away.

[Phillycat]

17. I don't think there's any other way to fundamentally change the way

this country moves around than to have it be shitty for a really long time. Gradual change won't work, we've seen it not working for the past 30 years, since the original gas shortage in the 70's. We've learned nothing. Nothing has changed. The way we've run the country is no longer viable. I do believe a decade-long recession is about what we're in for. I'm just saying I think it will ultimately result in good change.

[OwnedByFerrets]

56. Its not worked for 30 yrs because

of the idiocy of Raygun and his ideology. As I said before, if Carter had won the election, things would be much different now. We would probably be almost oil independent. Its crucial for the US to have a Manhattan Project concerning energy. It can be done with the right leadership.

[sammythecat]

73. That is the first time I've ever seen that phrase here.

Manhattan Project.

I've been wondering for years why we don't do that. The government is making a concerted effort, spending billions of dollars and using the best scientific minds to figure out how to put a man on mars for crying out loud, but I see no similar effort to find an alternative to fossil fuels.

In WWII we were in a race to develop a nuclear bomb before the Germans got one. It became a first priority. The Manhattan Project was formed and we did whatever it took to get one first, and we did. Right now we're facing a different, but no less frightening, prospect of national and global depression that will make the previous one seem like a party. It seems like all we're doing about it is keeping our fingers crossed that somebody, somewhere, at sometime, will come up with a solution. I think our situation is far to desperate to take such a passive approach.

Get the best minds, give them whatever the hell they need, and give them the task of coming up with a cheap and plentiful source of energy. A Manhattan Project. The answer exists, it's out there. We just haven't found it yet and we simply can't wait decades for it to gradually evolve. We need it NOW. This should be the nation's #1 priority until we come up with a solution. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the stakes are at least as high as they were in WWII.

I'm glad you brought this up, and I just don't understand why this isn't already in progress. I hear no one talking about it (except you). It's no fantasy to imagine an apocalyptic future coming upon us in the very near future if we don't come up with a solution like real quick. We are in a desperate situation. Health care, tax cuts, global warming, social issues, Britney Spears, you name it, all these things will become almost irrelevant when fuel is 20, 40, 80 dollars a gallon. And once it starts increasing like that, it ain't never coming down.

[Two Americas]

137. let's look at cause and effect

The people have been forced to rely on automobiles.

Public transportation and small stable communities worked for the people - the 99% of us who have to work for a paycheck or starve. It did not work for the big money people - the 1% that controls most of the wealth in the country, with another 10% - far too many of them "liberals" and "Democrats" - who defend and promote the interests of the wealthy few. What works for them is malls, freeways, private automobiles, non-unionized trucking as opposed to unionized railroads, sprawling suburbs, and everyone turned into mindless, isolated and uprooted consuming units, with our very lives thrown on the "free market" so that we can be exploited and manipulated for the purpose of massive profits and power of the few.

Gradual change hasn't worked, because "gradual change" for the activist community really meant "do not take strong stands and fight back, do not take risks or make sacrifices, just focus on your own lifestyle and choices, and then waste time trying to convert people to liberalism as though it were a religion or spiritual movement, and do little things like write checks and volunteer for good causes."

Hoping to hurt the people enough to force them to adopt modern liberalism and do what we want them to do is yet another variant on the escapism and cowardice and denial that now permeates liberalism and the party.

Blaming the people for social problems is as right wing as we can get.

Hoping to change society by influencing people's personal choices is unalloyed libertarianism.

I am speaking as a Democrat, with the assumption that I am talking to fellow Democrats with this post.

[kentuck]

23. Especially when there is no proof that it is necessary..

Some experts are saying that as much as 60% of the present price is due to speculation by traders, not by supply and demand. Why should anyone have to suffer for these manipulations?

[MrCoffee]

29. So you'd be fine with cutting the price of gas 60%

and continuing on the petroleum economy as though that were just fine?


We have to get off of oil.

[kentuck]

33. It's an artificial price, driven up by the oil traders...

People should not have to suffer unnecessarily. It has nothing to do with us getting off the petroleum economy. There is a flaw in your comments.

[MrCoffee]

40. But people will suffer more and more

as oil becomes more and more scarce. Oil will not be with us forever. People are suffering now, but how much worse will it be if we're un/underprepared for when the wells dry up?

I really think this could be a watershed moment in getting the US off of the oil economy completely, which is something that is going to have to happen eventually.

[kentuck]

50. Why is it necessary for people to suffer??

In order to get off the oil economy? There is no proof that there are any shortages. How many gas lines have you seen lately? Or do you think we cannot wean ourselves unless we experience the pain?

[MrCoffee]

51. Shortages? We have to wait for shortages to start???

If we wait until there are gas shortages to start figuring out what we're going to do without oil, we're completely screwed.

[kentuck]

59. Simple question:

Do you think these high prices are manipulated or not?

[MrCoffee]

60. I don't know, but I'm saying it doesn't matter one bit

Whether the prices are or are not being manipulated is completely irrelevant to whether or not the US should start actively pursuing policies to get the country off of oil.

If they are being manipulated, going after the oil companies for profiteering doesn't do a thing to fundamentally alter the energy platform. If they are not being manipulated, and it's simply supply and demand that are driving up the cost of oil, then we are already woefully behind in changing the energy dynamic in this country.

[KamaAina]

93. Simple answer: Yes.

Proof: Honolulu is now around the middle of the pack in terms of gas prices. At least twenty mainland cities pay more, and they're not all in CA, either.

There is nothing, nothing that costs less here than on the mainland, except possibly pineapple juice and Kona coffee.

So explain to me how, all of a sudden, gas costs more in Bridgeport, CT than it does here?

[bobbolink]

98. A lot of "progressives" don't care about suffering.. as long as their pet attitudes continue.

"Let 'em eat cake....."

:grr:

[Two Americas]

138. amen

Thanks, kentuck.

What the Hell are Democrats doing talking supply-side economics around here, and praising and defending Wall Street, and promoting the libertarian "personal choice" bullshit?

The average Republican voting blue-collar person is far, far to the left - on issues of power and economics, which is what politics is about -from many of the comments we read here.

The speculators, the manipulators, the investors - that is who is ascendant, and the producers and the citizens are getting screwed in the process.

That is why as Democrats we have historically sided with labor over capital, and called for tight regulation and oversight on the world of finance and trading.

WTF? What has happened to the party? If I wanted to hold the people in contempt, praise the free market, blame the people for the social problems we face, and hold capital and the prerogatives and privileges of the wealthy few as sacrosanct, advocate the punishment model and the personal choice model for making social change, the I would join the f-ing Republican party.

In fact, of in the areas of economics and power we are going to agree with the Republicans, would it not make more sense to become Republicans and work within THAT party to lobby for our pet cultural causes? Seems to me that would be a lot easier, if the pet social causes are all there is going to be to modern liberalism. It would be easier to kick the religious right out of the Republican party then it has been to kick the old school FDR New Deal Dems out of the Democratic party, and easier to convert Republicans to "green" and "organic" and New Age spiritual ideas, and tolerance - many of them are already there - then it would be to turn some of us Dems into libertarians.

[kentuck]

139. And they're not even skeptical... ?

They believe the oil companies and the propagandists.

[Two Americas]

142. amazing isn't it

The free market is our god, our one and only master. It cannot be questioned, challenged, or offended. All must bow down and obey the dictates of the great and all powerful market.

[Andrea]

151. There's no reason we can't do both.

It's not an either/or proposition. The firs tstep is to stop letting the energy moguls call all the shots and behave like con men and bullies with impunity.

[mdmc]

20. r

[Auggie]

21. If people take a greater interest in politics it's a good thing. I want them mad as hell and

enrolled.

[Phillycat]

37. Well, that's a nice side bonus.

:D

[Two Americas]

125. they are intensely interested in politics

What they are not interested in is what ever it is that we are doing that we call "politics." This thread is a perfect example of the problem.

Poor people, blue collar people, rural people, minority people talk politics all of the time to me. They think that we, the liberals and activists and intellectuals, do not have a clue, and I think they are right. They also think that what passes for politics today only addresses the needs of the better-off few, and I think they are right about that, as well. If we are waiting for them to become enlightened beings and "like minded" we have a long wait, and that has nothing to do with being interested in politics.

[MrCoffee]

25. I agree

Yes, it's going to be incredibly painful, but it is also incredibly inevitable that we cannot continue to operate economies based on petroleum. There just isn't enough petroleum on the planet to continue indefinately.

Yes, people will suffer, but they're suffering now and the longer we wait to transition off petroleum and onto a new, more sustainable energy source the longer we prolong suffering. That's why we must make the decision now as to what the new energy source will be and how we will implement it. It is critical to have strong policy decisions in place to focus energy research on the best available technology (whatever it is) and begin maximizing that technology to serve as many needs as possible.

It's going to be hard. It's going to hurt countless people. But it's going to have to be done whether we are prepared for it or not, so we might as well be prepared.

[Phillycat]

31. Ha.

You double-dog dared me to post this thread just so you could post your thoughtful reply and look smart. I'm on to you. :hairyeyeball:

[MrCoffee]

32. Whatever you freeper Big Oil profiteer

I wanted you to post this thread because you're the only one in here talking sense about the issue, and naturally I wanted you to feel the love.

[tjwash]

26. Same ol' same ol'

[Phillycat]

38. Brilliant.

Thanks for posting this.

[tjwash]

27. I have my new alternate form of transportation ready as we speak...

[EstimatedProphet]

28. Jane, I've always respected your posts.

You're one of the voices of reason on this board. One of very few, in fact. But I can't agree with what you're saying this time.

What it seems to me is that you are arguing that 1) things will get better, so 2) people may suffer now, but we'll all be in a better place because of it later. But, here's the thing: does it really have to be done this way for us to get to that better place? Our situation is dire right now. The effect of having gas at $2 per gallon would have the same impact as $4 is. Also, the extra money is going directly to pay CEOs who are keeping the better world from coming about, as they always have been. In my opinion, the suffering is all the more tragic for the poor because in too many cases all their alternatives have been taken away from them.

[Phillycat]

30. We have to get alternative fuel sources somehow, and mass transit.

We have to. We can't keep running it the way it is; it's nonviable.

The gradual approach doesn't work with Americans - see the This Modern World cartoon someone posted above. We've been not changing for 30 years, since the first fuel crisis. The difference now is, we're running out of time. It has to change. And I do believe that ultimately, it will be better for the most desperate members of our society when it does change. There will be a much more level playing field, we'll have a safer place on the world's stage, but mostly the poor won't be able to be manipulated by those CEO's whims that you speak of.

It fucking sucks in the meantime, yes it does. But Americans have ingenuity and they WILL find solutions to this problem. They just haven't had to before.

Thanks for the compliments about my posts, and the civil disagreement. :hi:

[EstimatedProphet]

36. Anytime

Civility has fallen by the wayside here, unfortunately.

[Two Americas]

141. ok

If "we" - whoever that is - "have to" do these things, then why are we so unwilling to muster up the political courage and make the sacrifices that are needed? Why are we not strongly advocating and organizing for a political solution? Why are we taking the cowardly way out, and blaming the poor people, and calling for hurting and punishing them - using them as proxies, forcing them to do our dirty work for us, and hoping for a solution that will be relatively painless for us, while crushingly painful for the less fortunate? What sort of Democratic party view is that?

What sort of liberal activism is it that does not take the needs of the poor and struggling into account, and sees them as merely unfortunate collateral damage - expendable in the glorious feel-good quest for actualization and realization of our dry academic fantasies about what people should do and how the world should be?

How are we different or better than the Republicans if we see the people as merely pawns in our power struggle and as interfering with our spiritual pursuits? What you are espousing, and what is far to prevalent in modern liberalism, seems to me to be a doppelganger to the Republican party and the religious right. If we place our spiritual "values" and our preferences and our wants and desires above the desperate needs of the people, while promoting the "free market" as a social tool, and speaking out for "personal choice" libertarianism, then we really are not very different from the Republican party and the religious right.

[area51]

35. Great post.

Every day there's at least 1 elitist post that says "so what if people die, there's a rainbow at the end of the thunderstorm." So nice of the OP to willingly sacrifice others, including the poor, disabled and elderly. But who cares, right, OP? I mean, we're on that greased track to the mythological better world, right? :eyes:

[EstimatedProphet]

39. Thanks, but I don't think that is what she meant

However, I have seen some posts recently that did. I agree with you there - that attitude is repulsive.

[Phillycat]

41. Do you think you can discuss this civilly, or are you going to continue

to post emotionally-driven overreaction?

I invite you to read the entire thread and see for yourself if you truly believe my intention is to fuck over the poor to improve my own situation. Especially since I have BEEN the poor for the majority of my life.

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. !

:thumbsup: These posts are getting annoying, no? :shrug: I wonder if the ones starting these posts consider themselves immune from the horrors they speak of in terms of higher fuel prices affecting some of the unlucky ones? Are they all mega-millionaires? :silly:

[Phillycat]

44. Yes, I think I'm immune.

:eyes:

Here's a concept I know will fly right over your head: I'M ON YOUR SIDE. Damn!

[MrCoffee]

45. Why do you want to prolong the suffering of the "unlucky ones"?

Do you think oil is going to get magically cheaper in a year? Do you think the demand for oil will somehow decrease all of a sudden?

People are suffering and will continue to do so because of oil prices. I can't help that. What I can do is encourage people to start thinking about long-term energy policy and what can be done to move the country away from oil and onto something better, rather than just wring my hands and sob about the evil bastards running Big Oil.

I can't affect the price of a barrel of oil any more than you can.

[Phillycat]

48. Have you noticed...gas prices never go down anymore?

They used to go up and down, and it would gradually add up to an "up" trend, but they fluctuated. Now, and for a while now, they just go up. There is no down. Do people not notice this? Do they not realize what that means? Yeah, it's artificially driven, but it DOESN'T MATTER. This is the end of the line, people. Get off the bus, it's not running anymore.

[MrCoffee]

52. I don't get the 'head in the sand' attitude toward energy policy.

Are there really people who think we can keep running this country on oil indefinately? That oil's going to be with us forever and ever and ever?

[Javaman]

53. The greatest changes in any society always come via the most extreme measures.

We aren't just experiencing an energy issue, we are now also being forced to look upon ourselves and our very wasteful ways.

This nation, for lack of a better description, never reflects. We just take take take, use use use, consume consume consume. But rarely if ever do we ask the question of why? And is it necessary?

We are now being forced to ask those two questions.

And sadly, for the majority of America, we don't like it one bit.

[varelse]

55. Scary?

it's going to be deadly this summer, and again in the winter, when people can't afford to cool or heat their homes to keep them within survivable temperature ranges.

Rising gas prices are being used, directly or indirectly, as an argument to open up previously protected areas for oil drilling, use federal funds to subsidize new nuclear and coal plants, and to become even more aggressive in the Middle East. Not such a great thing for Americans or for the world, IMO. For once, I'd like to see us act progressively and thoughtfully as a nation before we are prodded with a manufactured crisis :(

[kentuck]

58. Just like the war in Iraq..?

Some people seem to not care if it's manufactured or not, people have to suffer so we can get off this "oil economy". Yes, we need more energy sources but why shouldn't we do without making freeze to death or give up eating just for the greedy oil companies? Oh, they are not greedy - it's all supply and demand. Yah, sure!

[MrCoffee]

70. One way or another, we will be forced to get off the oil economy

Either by choice or by necessity. Which will be worse, choosing to get off the oil economy incrementally, with time (and oil reserves necessary to make the infrastructure changes needed), or to be forced to get off the oil economy when the reserves run dry?

You think it's bad now? You ain't seen nothing yet. But that's ok, we don't have to do anything yet, we've got all the time in the world to fix it.

[Two Americas]

140. war

Hate to be a pain in the ass, kentuck. There is no "war." That is right wing framing - "we are a country at war blah blah" - used as justification for the escalating tyranny of the police state and the expansion of corporate interests and influence.

The government illegally invaded a country and continues to occupy that country. There is no "war." The country is not at war.

There is no war to be against. Calling it a war is to accept and promote 99% of the rationale that is being used to justify what the government is doing.

Republicans are cynically using "pro-war" to deceive the public and advance their agenda. They want to be "pro-war" even if there is no war, because that holds the public in thrall and in support of the administration. We are doing the same thing when we say we are "against the war," because we want to be "against war," because that advances a political agenda, even if there is no war. In both cases, it is deceptive, and for the current policy to remain in place both deceptions are needed. Why would we play our role and do our part to promote and defend the current policy, by dignifying it and glamorizing it with the label "war?"

[uppityperson]

62. Enough people have to suffer, to hurt, to REALLY suffer for there to be enough impetus for change.

The bad part is people will suffer, be sick, die. And I project myself as one of those if it gets bad enough because my life is reliant on a medicine without which I give myself 2 months, tops.

So, until enough people suffer, and that includes heartbreaking suffering, change will be minimal. This is not to advocate that we let people suffer, since they will be those without much cushion, but just saying this is what will happen.

The only good thing about people having hard times, starving, is the hope that Humankind can get it's act together to learn and change. But I am a cynic.

[Phillycat]

63. You are correct.

We're in agreement. Unfortunately.

[uppityperson]

110. And this is NOT to say I advocate the killing of those least able to handle this.

of course. It sucks.

[fishwax]

64. I'd say that's far from a sure thing

It will certainly change the landscape, but I think it's a little overly-optimistic to simply assume that the change will be for the better. Every crisis is both an opportunity and a danger, and rising gas prices are no different.

It could, in the long run, result in positive change, but there's simply no reason to assume that it will--whether or not it does depends on the choices we make as a society, the leaders we elect, etc. All the more reason this election is so important.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. Your Deluded. This Is A Travesty And Will Continue To Be. We Need The Prices To Drop ASAP.

Nice idealistic view ya got there, but it ain't even close to being reality. Relief needs to come asap and there's not a DAMN thing good about it.

[Phillycat]

66. You might want to read the entire thread and educate yourself.

Or, you know, keep throwing insults around. Up to you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. The Premise Is Idealistic And Dumb. It's Not Reality Nor Will It Be.

People are suffering, prices of goods are skyrocketing, and it's causing huge pains on many. That is not something that's only short term. Open your fuckin eyes. Reality doesn't work off of idealistic malarkey.

[Phillycat]

69. So, just insults, then.

Got it. Carry on.

(The whole premise of the thread is that it's not short-term. But you can't be bothered to read.)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. It's Called Blunt Reality. Open Your Eyes.

And you need to learn how to read as well. I explicitly stated that if you think those pains are only short term you're nuts. As long as the prices stay high, people will suffer. We're not going to wake up to some mass transit utopia where all is well. That's delusional in its idealistic foolishness. As long as oil stays where it is, the price of food and goods will go up and families will continue to suffer. This is NOT short term. It's for as long as the prices are spiked. Your predicted future is silly, short sighted, borderline delusional, ridiculously idealistic, and just flat out NOT gonna happen. And to say for a second that the high gas prices are good, in ANY context, talking short OR long term, is just plain dumb. There's not a good thing about it. Nothing good will come from it. Short term or long term, people are gonna suffer and some suffering significantly. Wake the fuck up.

[RadiationTherapy]

86. You are wrong and I will not explain to you why.

Because you wouldn't care.

[uppityperson]

111. Not advocating, but explaining.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3442680&mesg_id=3444813
Only good is perhaps it will force change, but I am a cynic.
Mad Max, anyone?

[BlooInBloo]

72. It's just OMC being OMC. :)

[MrCoffee]

67. What kind of relief would you propose?

Is there some relief that would increse the total oil reserves on the planet? What relief would change the basic fact that we simply cannot rely on oil to provide the energy we need forever?

[Andrea]

152. Why is it so obvious to me, but it never occurs to you?

If you remove the bizarre over-incentivizing in the oil industry, the drive to find other energy will follow naturally. The finite oil reserves alone would motivate industrialists to seek other resources if their profits in oil weren't artificially maintained at unconscionably high levels. If you don't want someone to do something, quit giving them enormous rewards for doing it. Don't blame the individual consumer. The fault lies with the industry.

[sammythecat]

76. I made a reply to an idea

brought up by ownedbyferrets up the thread a ways.

A Manhattan Project to develop a cheap and plentiful source of energy. That's what we should have started years ago, and every day now, it becomes more and more imperative that we get fucking serious about what we're facing here.

We need to bring together the best minds in the country, give them whatever they need, and give them the task of saving our asses. The answer is out there.

The Manhattan Project made sense in WWII and it makes sense now. The stakes are just as high, the situation just as desperate.

[MrCoffee]

77. This is exactly what we need

and it's exactly what janesez and I are arguing for. The high cost of oil makes it all the more politically feasible now.

[sammythecat]

88. Really, this should have been started 30 years ago.

We always seem to have such a hard time with priorities. I mean, al-Qaeda is a nasty threat that needs to be dealt with, but our problem with al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda's problem with us isn't going to seem so important to either side when fuel starts being sold by the pint.

[MrCoffee]

90. 30 years ago we convinced ourselves that fuel-efficiency was the solution

Now we're facing the consequences of our utter failure to address the underlying problem.


But hey, hybrids will save us! We can keep burning that gas for another 20 years if we all get hybrids!

[Andrea]

153. I think the best minds are already working on this.

What we need to do now is give them whatever they need - materially and legally.

[bobbolink]

74. When the hell are "progressives" going to stop with this conservative meme???

And then you will cry and scream when poor people either don't vote at all, out of disgust for this kind of shit, or vote for the other side, which at least promises some avenue to criticize others.

You rail against being called "elitists", and then turn around and spout elitist garbage.

LISTEN TO YOURSELVES!!!!!!!

:grr:

[MrCoffee]

79. What is conservative and elitist about calling for a fundamental shift in energy policy?

I don't understand your anger. As far as I know, not one person in this thread has said "High energy costs are good for me."

Why can't we accept the basic fact that, at some point, we are going to run out of oil? The question is, when do we accept that fact? Before we run out, or after? Which will be worse for the poor?

[bobbolink]

85. Because you don't give one damn more about poor people than conservatives do!

It's all about you... never considering the consequences.

Yet, you'll scream and yell this fall when poor people don't come out in droves and vote the way you think they should.

LOOK AT YOURSELF, and your lack of compassion and understanding, and then maybe you'll begin to understand our anger.

And don't fool yourself... there is LOTS of anger... I'm just one of a crowd.

Interesting that I post lots of stuff about poor people, and it gets little response. But I get angry at ignorance, and it immediately gets someone riled.

maybe you need to look at that.

[MrCoffee]

89. It's all about me?

Wow, are you reading a lot into my posts. What are the consequences to the country (rich, poor, white, black, male, female) if we don't address our dependency on petroleum?

Do you know how bad it's going to be when oil reaches $200/bbl? Would then be a good time to talk about energy policy? Should we wait for $300/bbl, or are you looking forward to food riots and famine?

I refuse to ignore the basic reality, which is that there are finite oil reserves on this planet. If talking about the need to get off oil completely makes me elitist, so be it. If you refuse to talk about it, and would rather just spout angry platitudes and insults, so be it. I feel just fine about my position, thank you.

[bobbolink]

92. I'm sure you feel just fine. How many deaths are OK with you?

Will you celebrate the deaths of poor people, or just ignore it?

What's your style?

[MrCoffee]

95. None. How much famine is enough to say that oil has to go?

How many food riots? How many more wars for oil?

[bobbolink]

97. You're all heart, aren't you.

I'll say it again.... poor people see these elitist attitudes, and and turn their backs on the Dem party. They see the writing on the wall.... Dems and "progressives" don't give a shit about their lives..... or deaths.

You are clearly very pleased with yourself.

There is nothing left to say to those with no compassion.

I'm sure you'll want to have the last, cruel word, so have at it.

Good bye....

[Phillycat]

99. Please calm down and try to listen.

This change is going to come whether I post a thread about it or not. THE WORLD IS GOING TO RUN OUT OF OIL. Would you rather have the US make a cultural change now, as a result of astronomical gas prices, or when we run out of oil and people start robbing other people at gunpoint for a pint of gas? Poor people are going to suffer either way - but they're going to suffer WORSE if we don't stop NOW and make the change. America was built on cheap gas - but it won't work anymore. It's NONVIABLE.

I have compassion. I was raised by a single mother on foodstamps. I know exactly who this will hit the hardest. I still contend that in the end it will make a better world for poor people, along with everyone else.

I think you are taking this so personally because you think my pointing it out means I don't care. I do care, but I also see reality. We must have alternative energy and mass transit. RIGHT NOW. We're out of options. And gas prices that people can't afford will force those options onto the table.

[bobbolink]

120. A question for you...

When authoritarian people tell you to "calm down", do you immediately feel a lot calmer?

I didn't think so.

You don't understand the basic issue here so there's no further need to discuss the matter.

I would refer you to some good reading on poverty, but I sincerely doubt you are interested.

Being the proper authoritarian, I'm sure you will want to have the last word. I won't be reading it, as you clearly can't grasp what you are saying about poor people, but, have at it.

Your pulpit.

Bye now... and forever....I don't deal with people who have no consideration for poor folk. Little red "x", here I come...

[Two Americas]

128. condescending and demeaning and cruel

Millions are suffering. Telling people who speak out for them to "calm down and listen" is condescending and demeaning.

We could be advocating for public transportation, but calling for increased suffering by those who are already struggling as a way to cheaply and effortlessly effect social change that you happen to desire is cruel and inhumane.

What this is about is forcing poor people and rural people to suffer so they will cut back so that suburbia and the gentrified aristocracy will not have to feel any pain or make any changes in the perverted and destructive "winners" paradigm in our culture that supports them and affords them privilege and comfort. It is highly immoral to advocate this or call for it or see it as a good thing.

[Two Americas]

127. nonsense and stuff

Famine and food shortages are being caused by speculation and manipulation of the market driven by the "free market" and libertarian ideas.

Farming is not dependent on oil - that is a myth, and the usual distraction to divert attention away from the real problems.

Without a tractor a farmer can feed 12 people. With a tractor he or she can feed 1200 people. What that has done is allowed 1188 of those people to move away from the farm in unprecedented numbers to suburbia, get white collar jobs, and theorize about peak oil and muse over how much suffering the poor should endure so that "we" can have a nice suburban lifestyle. If we have no oil, you and millions of other useless mouths who are now enjoying privilege and ease will need to move back to the farm and do farm work, that is all. Desperate attempts at rationalizing and justifying a gentrified suburban existence on the backs of the poor and the left behind and forgotten, as well as those producing real value for society, just puts off the day of reckoning. There won't be famine, there will be a shortage of cushy paper-pushing white collar jobs and successful upwardly mobile suburban lifestyles and careers.

Farming is not dependent upon oil, the existence of suburbia is however. But for some reason we are to take suburbia as the given, and the needs of the few, the "winners," and force the rest of the planet to be oriented around and serve that - the most wasteful and destructive lifestyle of any on the planet.

[Two Americas]

123. one thing for certain

We may or may not be about to run out of oil, but we certainly ran out of compassion at some point. Of the two, running out of oil is not the biggest worry.

[Two Americas]

126. you don't understand?

You don't understand why people are angry?

Easy to "accept this fact" when it is others who have to pay the price and who will be at risk.

[cynatnite]

78. So, while we wait for this utopia...

my husband will lose his livelihood since fuel prices are so expensive. High gas prices puts him and other trucking companies, which supply food and other necessities to the public, at risk.

More people will suffer as you talk up at how good of a thing this is. This will not put the need for better transportation and more energy efficient vehicles out there for the general public faster. With prices so high...who can afford to invest?

Now, if this had been done ten or twenty years ago...well, thinking ahead has never been humanity's strong point.

[MrCoffee]

81. Don't cut of your nose to spite your face...

If we had done this ten or twenty years ago, your family wouldn't be in this trouble. Will it be easier for us to accept the fact when oil is $200/bbl? What about $500/bbl?

At what point to we say enough, the well has run dry?

[blindpig]

80. this is a market based solution

Sure, we need to change the way things are done, but why should the burden fall on those least able to bear it? See, that's how it always works in a capitalist society. Nothing about mandating the manufacture of efficient vehicles, ending sprawl, nationalizing big oil, or consideration of the Pentagon's share of US oil consumption, things that would be opposed by those with deep pockets. Rather than these nickle/dime approaches which do little good and weight heavily upon those of us least able to cope.

Just one more reason that we need socialism and need it now.

[MrCoffee]

83. The burden will be much, much bigger if we wait any longer

Socialism won't put more oil in the ground.

[blindpig]

91. but

The burden will be distribuited fairly.

Consider the military's 40% of US consumption, I'd reduce that by half, just for a start.

Because we've jerked around for decades it's gonna take some work to re-order our infrastructure and transportation, that is no good reason for people to go hungry, for people not to be able to get to work. There's other ways of doing this than taking it out of people's hides.

[MrCoffee]

94. How can you say the burden will be fair?

When oil reaches $200/bbl, how will that be fair to the poor?

I'm saying we must commit to a new energy standard, and to the necessary infrastructure. Want to create jobs? Declare that hydrogen is the new standard, and build an infrastructure to support it. Kennedy built an entire industry in one day (May 25, 1961) just to impress people.

[blindpig]

115. for the time being

it might be necessary to subsidize gasoline for those unable to bear the cost. Take the money from the Pentagon. Rationing might help.

Absolutely for sure, a major effort is required, getting our rail back, a rollback of sprawl, these are things that can be done without waiting on iffy technology. But nobody in politics has the guts to do that.

[blindpig]

82. dupe

ooops, ooops

[taterguy]

84. The problem is that most of the wasted gas in this country isn't influenced by price

The trips where people have a viable choice about what mode of transportation to use are the trips where walking or biking is viable, and those are short trips.

It's 2.5 miles to my office. If I ride a bike instead of drive I save about a buck.

If money was my only motivator I would need a much bigger bribe to change my behavior.

We need to change hearts and minds, not just force people to be responsible, which never works out in the long run anyway.

[MrCoffee]

100. "We need to change hearts and minds" - exactly

We've been petroleum-dependent for far too long, even knowing full well that it's a finite resource.

[varelse]

103. "We need to change hearts and minds, not just force people to be responsible"

This is the true long-term solution.

Peace

[RadiationTherapy]

87. I agree with you completely. I wish all those suffering the best.

I hope all are making the changes they can to adapt to a new world without cheap fuel.

[alarimer]

101. Fuck this shit

What are you going to do about all the suffering in the meantime? Fuck you heartless assholes.

Many people are going to lose their jobs. I will send them to your house and you can feed them.

[MrCoffee]

102. Ok then...

One more time...when would be a good time to recognize that there are limited oil reserves in the world and that one day they will be gone?

Tell me when that time would be. I'll be quiet until then. Is it $250/bbl? $500/bbl? The NEXT war for oil? When is a good time for action that should have been taken in the 1970's?

[Two Americas]

106. hear hear

It is stunning, isn't it? I have no idea how this distinctly anti-human strain of thinking has become so strong within the so-called political left, such as it is anymore. What was once the party of the common people has become merely one aristocratic faction fighting with another for political power and influence, and the people be damned.

"Let them eat cake" seems to be the new mantra of modern liberalism.

[Jack_DeLeon]

112. The writing has been on the wall for a while...

people have had time to prepare, its not our fault that so many have ignored it.

I wasnt even alive during the actual shortages caused by the embargos in the 70s, yet I started prepare a few years ago, but I'm still doing more to make sure my family survives this.

If you send people to my house I'll tell them to go home because they should have done more to prepare themselves. If they choose not to leave then things will get ugly quick, but I'm ready for that.

[redwitch]

147. Spoken like a true Democrat.

:puke:

[Initech]

134. I approve of this statement.

Look what's at stake here - for the first time ever, a gallon of gas is going to equal one hour of minimum wage. This fucking sucks. People will not stand for it. To quote Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski - "This aggression will not stand, man.".

[Individualist]

143. Ditto!

[KamaAina]

104. RAIL. Both passenger AND freight.

Trucks are way inefficient at moving goods over long distances. Trucking as we know it today was made possible only by a "Perfect Storm" convergence of cheap diesel, massively subsidized interstates, and deregulation.

[Two Americas]

107. of course

I can remember being so angry and disappointed with Carter when he failed to take the initiative on public transportation - or even mention it. Instead we got turn your thermostats down and wear sweaters. Much of our infrastructure was still in place then. It will be more difficult to rebuild today, but is absolutely essential. "We can't afford it" people say. Nonsense. We plow billions into highways and various subsidies for automobiles. "Public transportation won't work today because everything is to sprawled out." Again, nonsense. Turn that around - "sprawl won't work because we will, have public transportation." The very reason we have sprawl is because of the destruction of public transportation and the massive road-building projects. Those serve to enrich the few at the expense of the many, and at the expense of lost farmland and environmental destruction.

[Andrea]

155. Not to mention that suburbs are so

Incredibly ugly!

[OwnedByFerrets]

109. One problem with that is that many railways

were torn up because it was cheaper to go OTR.

[Two Americas]

131. easy to rebuild

It is more cost-effective and easier to rebuild public transportation than it is to continue to plow billions onto highway construction.

Not sure what you mean by "cheaper to go OTR."

[OwnedByFerrets]

132. Its been cheaper to haul stuff

over the road with trailer trucks. With the price of diesel, that has changed.

[Two Americas]

136. it is not though

It is much less expensive to ship by rail. The problem was that rairoad employees were unionized and voted Democratic, and also that people didn't need to buy cars and were resisisting becoming nothing but consumers. All of that stood in the way of amassing profits and exploiting the people to the maximum degree possible, so big money interests got the Republicans to dismantle and destroy public transportation.

[rucky]

117. Yep.

We have bits and pieces of the infrastructure left.

[Two Americas]

105. nonsense

It violates and contradicts every principle and ideal of the Democratic party to wish this sort of hardship on those who can least survive it. It is political suicide to blame the people for the predations by the few that only benefit the few.

"Forcing America to get out of their cars" is authoritarian and callous, and also is based on a false premise. We were forced into our cars, for the benefit of the few. That can be easily reversed. The lower on the economic ladder people are, the more they are already struggling, the more likely it is that they have no choice but to drive.

As Democrats, we should all be advocating public transportation, not calling for yet more suffering by those who are already suffering too much and who are not to blame for the social problems we face.

It is a libertarian viewpoint to hope that personal choices can drive social progress and take the place of political solutions to social problems, through public management and regulation.

It is authoritarian and anti-democratic to call for forcing people into political positions rather than rallying and persuading them.

It is right wing propaganda to see the solution to social problems only in terms of punishing people.

[Jack_DeLeon]

113. I disagree...

It violates and contradicts every principle and ideal of the Democratic party to wish this sort of hardship on those who can least survive it. It is political suicide to blame the people for the predations by the few that only benefit the few.

I'm not wishing hardship, but as bad as things are now to me it just shows that the free market is working. Increased prices will reduce demand one way or the other so that our finite supply of oil will last that much longer, which will hopefully give our entire civilization enough time to transition off of it and onto alternatives that will be more sustainable. Its better this way than say if prices stayed the same and everyone just went on with business as usual and then one day out of the blue we have actual shortages and a week later millions of people start starving because nobody is able to get food from the farms to the markets.

"Forcing America to get out of their cars" is authoritarian and callous, and also is based on a false premise. We were forced into our cars, for the benefit of the few. That can be easily reversed. The lower on the economic ladder people are, the more they are already struggling, the more likely it is that they have no choice but to drive.

No one is being forced to do anything. We all have free will and we all make our own choices. Some choices however make more economic sense than others. Some people will have some hard decisions to make about what is important to them and what they are going to do to survive this transition if they havent done any planning ahead of time, but those are their choices to make, no one is being forced to do anything, yet.

It is a libertarian viewpoint to hope that personal choices can drive social progress and take the place of political solutions to social problems, through public management and regulation.

I'm somewhat of a libertarian, I believe in personal freedom, we all make our own choices based on the information we have and our own thoughts. Relying on "political solutions" seems a bit authoritarian to me, that sounds like the government deciding for me rather than me deciding for myself.

It is authoritarian and anti-democratic to call for forcing people into political positions rather than rallying and persuading them.

No one is being forced, people make their own choices, sometimes the things they choose are things that the rest of us might disagree with but people are free to choose what they want. I have no problem with trying to persuade people into make better choices, but you know what they say about leading a horse to water.

[blindpig]

114. Bullshit

All of your suppositions are based on the premise of the market and capitalism. That's how we got in this mess to start with, why continue with a system which has caused us such harm? It's past time to start handling our economic relationships in a rational way instead of it being the domain and grab bag of the powerful few. It was irrational to dismantle the mass transit system, it was irrational to promote sprawl, yet it was done for the immense profit of a few industries. The sanctity of the market is one of the biggest lies going.

[Two Americas]

122. libertarianism

You are advocating libertarianism. Nothing wrong with that, but I am pointing out that it is diametrically opposed to the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party. But who knows? Maybe the Democratic party is becoming a variant of libertarianism - seems to me that it is - and what difference does it make what I think about that? If it is, so be it. But I am certainly going to continue to promote and advocate left wing political solutions to social problems. Feel free to disagree.

I believe that the "free market" philosophy you are espousing is what got us in the mess to begin with. That is because I am a traditional Democrat, and because I believe that the evidence is now overwhelming and unambiguous that free market libertarianism has not worked, if by "worked" we mean promote the welfare of the general public.

When working people must choose between gas, medical expenses, housing expenses and food and cannot afford all of those, then I say that they are in fact being "forced." You may see that as "choices" if you like. I will continue to disagree with you.

[rucky]

116. I'm tired of working people making the sacrifices for everything.

Roll back the Bush tax cuts and corporate welfare / loopholes. Quit bloating the defense budget, then get back to me on having our TAXPAYER money come up with these solutions BEFORE (too late) there's a crisis.

Open the reserves and issue gas cards that give discounts for people who can't afford to go to work. Tax the shit out of war profiteers and get the ball rolling on some solutions NOW.

It's never a "good thing" when you knew something was going to happen years before and you did nothing to prepare for it.

[cornermouse]

119. And those who can't keep their houses warm enough this winter?

Or who can't afford the increase in cost of food due to increase in price of transport? Is that also going to be a good thing? Shall we run right out and tell them?

[Two Americas]

145. ridiculous, isn't it?

Dear Working Class Person:

We liberals and Democrats - you know, the lucky ones who are doing pretty well, thanks, and have time to ponder these things and think very deep thoughts that you are incapable of thinking - have decided that some day we will run out of oil and you will be stranded and homeless and freeze to death. We have decided that it is your fault, because you are addicted to oil and therefore no better than a junky. You could have made the right choice and bought a bike! But, no, you wanted to get to work, you wanted to heat your house - you sick addicted mentally ill person, you. We must break you of this addiction, with a tough love approach. So to prevent you from freezing to death or not being able to get to work at some time in the future, we think those should be forced on you now. To break your addiction. This is for the good of all. Well, not so hot for you, but for me and my green friends it will be great - a big achievement. We will be saving the planet. Are you against us saving the planet? Is that the kind of person you are? Well, then I guess it will be your own fault when you freeze to death or lose your job and are homeless.

By the way, please vote Democratic - if you think you are intelligent enough to do that, which I doubt very much - so that my friends and I can gain power and do more things like this for you.

[blues90]

121. What are we talking here 50 years down the road ?

And all the while the energy companies are raping the people making billions.

These gas prices are not something that raised gradually , they are going up by the day. People can't over come this unless they are well off to begin with.

Instead we should have dropped the sick love for the auto years ago and perhaps now we would have the transport needed.

Do you think for one second that the energy companies are going to let the small business cash in on new energy or transit? They have all the money in the world to cash in on this and continue to rape the public.

To suggest higher prices are a good thing can only come from one who is not affected. It's the same as telling a drug addict to just get over it.

[JackBeck]

133. Wait..WHAT?

You want us to "think private mass transit companies...will completely revolutionize the way America functions"?

And that this privatization will lead to a cleaner, cheaper and safer way of life?

You do realize that liberals and progressives believe in government regulation of the corporate sector...don't you?

Deregulation of this country's corporate interests has brought us to the troubles we currently find ourselves. And now you want to privatize mass transit??? Haven't you learned anything about privatization over the last 15 years?

:patriot:

And you want to "force Americans to get out of their cars"? Are you against raising cafe standards, while we try to develop new sources? Or are you against developing different fuel sources for our auto industry altogether? Are you totally trying to bury the American automobile industry by encouraging everyone to give up their cars? You could have at least tried to throw a bone to environmentalists working to develop automobiles using other fuel sources, but you didn't.

[Zomby Woof]

144. Was pondering a silver lining yesterday morning

We were on the way back from a favorite diner of ours where we enjoy breakfast on Saturdays. It's in a working-class neighborood where no doubt the gas prices are applying the most pressure on budgets. I noticed as of late many more people walking and riding bicycles than usual. I remarked, off-the-cuff, "I don't want to say there is anything good coming out of this crunch, but if gets more people walking and riding their bikes, the exercise will not only do them good, but it'll be good for the environment."

But I also had to ponder if this silver lining is worth the cost. I wish people would ride their bikes and walk more (myself included, as were driving, and not in a position to judge others out driving), without the disincentive of prohibitive gas prices. It has certainly helped with mass transit here (which I think is best in the hands of local government, but that's a smaller point of disagreement), with the buses, rail, and subways getting record numbers of users. Of course, when it comes to human habits, I can wish for a lot of things, and consistently be disappointed in the results, lol.

One concern of mine, which has a whiff of tinfoil (but as we have learned since 2001, there is no such thing as being too paranoid with this regime), is that the Republicans and oil companies are going to use the prices to justify a new push drilling in the arctic and offshore, mucking up the environment more. More shortsightedness, more of the same.

One of the things that fueled (sorry for the pun) this concern, is that oil prices are not driven by supply and demand these days, they are driven by speculation on the commodities market, and therefore, subject to manipulation more than anytime in our history.

In any event, I don't begrudge you for trying to see an upside to where there is so much that is down, whether I agree or disagree with some of your key points. Solutions to intractable problems require creativity, the ruffling of feathers, and daring to think what others may be too timid to venture otherwise.

[Bo]

154. Get a fucking grip on reality will ya.....a good thing....

Since when is spending a 3 of your paycheck on gas a good thing? Pass the crack pipe this way please....

[datasuspect]

156. maybe a good or bad thing:

suburbs, exurbs, and the peripheries of most american MSAs might become greyfields.

all the subdivisions, retail-scarred strips, and "cheap-fuel-predicated" development might become unsustainable.

in other words, the 50-100 mile round trip commute might become a thing of the past.

the bad part is that most of america is mired in some form of sprawl.

chicago practically goes all the way to wisconsin or iowa or michigan now.

houston is a monstrosity that stretches from the gulf of mexico to huntsville.

the L.A. metropolitan area (from what i can gather from maps, having never been there) seems to be entirely automobile dependent.

i have no idea about NYC. i'm sure it has its sprawl issues, but it has the nation's best public transportation infrastructure.

the US was once similar to this "utopia" you propose: regional transit facilities in the form of multiple bus companies that served areas not readily accessible to the interstate highway system; a realistic train system made up of multiple carriers that served most of the country; interurban transit systems; and even water travel in some places.

this wasn't sometime in the distant past either. you could get local service on greyhound or trailways as late as the late 90s. amtrak didn't form until the early 70s. there were still numerous station stops as late as the early 90s.

the move to the suburbs and car culture killed the soul of this country and made it damn near impossible to live in most areas if you do not have an automobile.

now many hands will be forced.

[HummanaHummana]

157. Blow me, asshole!

[Fire Walk With Me]

158. Yes, but it is imperative to not allow corporations to use the opportunity

for their own purposes. Imagine transportation/energy monopolies at that level.