The real reason for the high cost of fuel.

[Godvek]

It is intereting to note, that engines used for commercial transportation, ie tankers, semi trucks, airplanes etc. has seen a vast improvement in fuel mileage, while large non comercial vehicles are lagging far behind. Perhaps we could require trucks over a certain size to be diesels or that GM, Ford etc. produce a certain amount of diesel trucks.

As DMS pointed out, and I did read that in other places, is that we could consider raising taxes on gasoline. Yes, I know, such gall, but it would probably cause an increase in fuel efficient vehicles. Now, I hate to use Europe as an example, since they do a lot of strange things over there, however, the average fuel mileage is so much higher.

According to this, the average car in the US is 30-40 percent less efficient than a european car:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/average_fuel_co.html

Engines have improved a lot in cars and trucks, but the industry has used these advancements to make heavier cars, thus not improving mileage a whole lot.

 

[Biatch5]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that fuel is where it is today because of the Bush administration? All of his closest associates are ex-oil guys. Even he is an ex-oil guy. It seems to me that A LOT of people are probably making A LOT of money on these prices, and most of them are probably friends and associates of Bush.

I'm sorry but I have to state the OBVIOUS!!!!!!

Which is......

If any of you did not, I repeat DID NOT invest in any oil stocks since Bush 1st got elected to Pres in 2000......... YOU ARE A MORON!! Ok now that I said that


I didn't even bother reading the 4 or 5 pages but its obvious why:

1. War in Iraq, just heard on Oreilly Factor tonight 8/23/05, that FINALLY, the oil pipeline is secure and about 97% of the oil flowing is going back into the U.S. and he goes on to say that of course the mainstream media isn't picking this up OF COURSE NOT BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS LEFT (majority is and of course we all know that) and they dont report that................. I got this from Fox News so THIS HAS TO BE CORRECT?? (sarcasm)

2. China & India's growing economy and those countries using more and more energy



That's it people! I think he has done a darn good job turning this country around from a recession when he 1st took office and then 9/11 happening. Iraq has to get "under control" or he will not be recognized as a Ronald Reagan

 

[135fr8r]

The high cost of fuel does not help the economy, why would ANY administration help in raising fuel prices? If you want one good reason why prices are so high look at all the refineries that are sitting idle or shut down. I'm not sure, but I believe that some of that is due to the EPA. Another reason is the different fuel grades that are made for different areas as mandated by the EPA. Not to mention all the existing oil wells that aren't being utilized due to "envorimental concerns", or the fields that aren't being drilled for the same reason.

911 damn sure didn't help the economy, but the blatant signs were visible to the government, and were ignored.

 

[Cobra]

1. War in Iraq, just heard on Oreilly Factor tonight 8/23/05, that FINALLY, the oil pipeline is secure and about 97% of the oil flowing is going back into the U.S. and he goes on to say that of course the mainstream media isn't picking this up OF COURSE NOT BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS LEFT (majority is and of course we all know that) and they dont report that................. I got this from Fox News so THIS HAS TO BE CORRECT?? (sarcasm)

I am not in a position to watch (read as: be entertained by) Fox news. Did Bill really say this? The Minister of Propoganda Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.

G

 

[Godvek]

I am not in a position to watch (read as: be entertained by) Fox news. Did Bill really say this? The Minister of Propoganda Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.

G

Too bad we don't get any oil from Iraq.

 

[jarhead]

That's it people! I think he has done a darn good job turning this country around from a recession when he 1st took office and then 9/11 happening. Iraq has to get "under control" or he will not be recognized as a Ronald Reagan

You must enjoy making this stuff up. George W. Bush did NOT inherit a recession.

The US had economic growth from a breakneck pace of 4.1% annually in the years 1998-2000 to a negative 1.1% in the third quarter of 2001. I’m not saying it was Bush’s “fault” that the U.S. went into negative economic growth in Q3 of 2001, but Bush was the President then, and not Bill Clinton.

As far has Bush worrying about his legacy measuring up to Ronald Reagan, I’d say he may very well reach that goal, but I sure hope he does not develop Alzheimer’s disease along the way. I believe Reagan was in the initial grips of that illness while he was in his second term. In Bush’s case though, I think his mental limits are simply an accident of birth. He’s not a very bright person, and that’s a shame.

 

[Godvek]

In Bush’s case though, I think his mental limits are simply an accident of birth. He’s not a very bright person, and that’s a shame.

The question is: is George Bush stupid or ignorant? One could argue with his Ivy League schooling he is surely not ignorant.

 

[jarhead]

The question is: is George Bush stupid or ignorant? One could argue with his Ivy League schooling he is surely not ignorant.

That was the subject of debate Bill Maher's show on HBO last night. Did you pick up on that from that show?

 

[LoneStarFlyer]

My $.02

Normally, I just sit back and read these posts and enjoy the debate but I had to jump in with my $.02 on this one. Where to begin? Well, since this post started with Bush and how he affects the price of oil, let’s start there. Do I think that he can raise and lower prices at will? No, as has already been posted , that is a matter of supply and demand. But could he position us to be less reliant on oil through the development and use of alternative sources of energy? Yes (even O‘Reilly says this), but why should he when he, his family and a ton of his friends (who contribute HEAVILY to his campaign funds) make a LOT of money when we buy more gas. If given the choice between looking out for the faceless general public and looking out for yourself, your family and your friends, who are you most likely to take care of? Most people would do the same if put in this situation. It’s human nature, you will take care of those closest to you, that’s why in my opinion, there is a conflict of interest in his presidency.

Let’s talk about the war in Iraq. Before anyone accuses me of being some left wing, softy, peace freak, I did my 9 years in the Army so I’m all about a strong defense and well trained and equipped troops. This is the part that blows me away… Who hit us on September 11, 2001? Osama bin Laden. Where is he? It’s generally accepted that he’s in Afghanistan or Pakistan. So how in the he11 did the majority of our force end up in Iraq? With our military strength, we could have encircled Afghanistan two time over and closed in until we had that SOB bin Laden and most if not all of his cronies. So why did we shift our focus to Iraq? Was Saddam a good guy? No one would argue that one, but was he a real threat to us? Everyone gets all bent about how Slick Willy lied to us about getting a bl0wj*b from an intern but nobody seems to care that Bush used flawed intelligence to take us to war on a lie about WMD. Now we have no choice but to finish what we started, if we leave now, Iraq will be much worse than when we got there (and before anyone accuses me of not supporting the troops, I support our troops more than most, some of my best friends are there right now). But why did we go in the first place? Before anyone pipes up with we’re better off without Saddam, I would argue that if we hit every evil and corrupt government that we’d be better off without, we’d be fighting half the world right now. (Or we could just go with Pat Robertson’s idea and snipe those we didn’t like, sarcasm included.)

Bush has cut taxes and increased spending at breakneck speeds as well as weakened our environmental protections, and I’m not a fan of taxes or a tree hugger but bring those two main points up because I feel that it’s incredibly short sighted. While those things may allow for a stronger economy in the short run, what are we leaving for our children? Huge deficits and a polluted land, but hey, I got mine so why should I care, right?

I consider myself an independent, I’m not a big Bush fan but I sure as he11 won’t vote for Hillary. The thing that cracks me up is how those who disagree with Bush are immediately labeled left-wing, liberal nut jobs. It’s not “cool” to disagree right now and that’s truly scary thing.

 

[Godvek]

Normally, I just sit back and read these posts and enjoy the debate but I had to jump in with my $.02 on this one. Where to begin? Well, since this post started with Bush and how he affects the price of oil, let’s start there. Do I think that he can raise and lower prices at will? No, as has already been posted , that is a matter of supply and demand. But could he position us to be less reliant on oil through the development and use of alternative sources of energy? Yes (even O‘Reilly says this), but why should he when he, his family and a ton of his friends (who contribute HEAVILY to his campaign funds) make a LOT of money when we buy more gas. If given the choice between looking out for the faceless general public and looking out for yourself, your family and your friends, who are you most likely to take care of? Most people would do the same if put in this situation. It’s human nature, you will take care of those closest to you, that’s why in my opinion, there is a conflict of interest in his presidency.

Let’s talk about the war in Iraq. Before anyone accuses me of being some left wing, softy, peace freak, I did my 9 years in the Army so I’m all about a strong defense and well trained and equipped troops. This is the part that blows me away… Who hit us on September 11, 2001? Osama bin Laden. Where is he? It’s generally accepted that he’s in Afghanistan or Pakistan. So how in the he11 did the majority of our force end up in Iraq? With our military strength, we could have encircled Afghanistan two time over and closed in until we had that SOB bin Laden and most if not all of his cronies. So why did we shift our focus to Iraq? Was Saddam a good guy? No one would argue that one, but was he a real threat to us? Everyone gets all bent about how Slick Willy lied to us about getting a bl0wj*b from an intern but nobody seems to care that Bush used flawed intelligence to take us to war on a lie about WMD. Now we have no choice but to finish what we started, if we leave now, Iraq will be much worse than when we got there (and before anyone accuses me of not supporting the troops, I support our troops more than most, some of my best friends are there right now). But why did we go in the first place? Before anyone pipes up with we’re better off without Saddam, I would argue that if we hit every evil and corrupt government that we’d be better off without, we’d be fighting half the world right now. (Or we could just go with Pat Robertson’s idea and snipe those we didn’t like, sarcasm included.)

Bush has cut taxes and increased spending at breakneck speeds as well as weakened our environmental protections, and I’m not a fan of taxes or a tree hugger but bring those two main points up because I feel that it’s incredibly short sighted. While those things may allow for a stronger economy in the short run, what are we leaving for our children? Huge deficits and a polluted land, but hey, I got mine so why should I care, right?

I consider myself an independent, I’m not a big Bush fan but I sure as he11 won’t vote for Hillary. The thing that cracks me up is how those who disagree with Bush are immediately labeled left-wing, liberal nut jobs. It’s not “cool” to disagree right now and that’s truly scary thing.

Nice post, thanks. I agree with you in that almost everything Bush does (excluding the Iraq war policy) is short-term. What is going to happen to our economy as interest rates continue to rise and real estate starts blowing out some hot air? I see these 2 things as the main reason our economy is doing ok right now. One could make an analogy to a candy store halving a half-off sale for years. Sure, sales will be up, but how does one stay in business when they are hardly making a profit? Now if the proprietor then raises the prices above what they originally where, how are sales going to be? I already feel terribly sorry for the Republican or Democrat that is going to take over Bush's mess in 2008! Jarhead, I did see that show on HBO.