| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Bill McCarty" |
| Date: |
24 Sep 2005 07:06:28 AM |
| Object: |
Impertinent Question # 109 |
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
.
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 07:17:24 AM |
|
|
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question, isn't it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 08:43:31 AM |
|
|
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question, isn't it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 09:18:23 AM |
|
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WfadnV_ATNBkyqjenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons
want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question, isn't it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
.... and continue to speak in the form of asking stupid bewildered
"impertinent" questions about how we got here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fiend999" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 10:31:45 AM |
|
|
In article <VPCdnVqVeNaz_ajeRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WfadnV_ATNBkyqjenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons
want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question, isn't it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
... and continue to speak in the form of asking stupid bewildered
"impertinent" questions about how we got here.
So what has been done in reards to developing more efficient use of our
current fuel sources or encourage progress in the use of alternative
fuel sources? You can cry about not having enough refineries all you
want, but that won't change the fact that very little has been done to
deal with the bigger problem - oil is not infinite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 02:52:56 PM |
|
|
"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:240920051131451868%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
In article <VPCdnVqVeNaz_ajeRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WfadnV_ATNBkyqjenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government
imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons
want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question, isn't
it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
... and continue to speak in the form of asking stupid bewildered
"impertinent" questions about how we got here.
So what has been done in reards to developing more efficient use of
our
current fuel sources or encourage progress in the use of alternative
fuel sources? You can cry about not having enough refineries all you
want, but that won't change the fact that very little has been done to
deal with the bigger problem - oil is not infinite.
If we were restricted to solving one problem at a time, you might
possibly have a point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fiend999" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 08:41:40 PM |
|
|
In article <f_GdnX6Q0b4KM6jeRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:240920051131451868%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
In article <VPCdnVqVeNaz_ajeRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WfadnV_ATNBkyqjenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government
imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons
want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question, isn't
it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
... and continue to speak in the form of asking stupid bewildered
"impertinent" questions about how we got here.
So what has been done in reards to developing more efficient use of
our
current fuel sources or encourage progress in the use of alternative
fuel sources? You can cry about not having enough refineries all you
want, but that won't change the fact that very little has been done to
deal with the bigger problem - oil is not infinite.
If we were restricted to solving one problem at a time, you might
possibly have a point.
You would have a point if an effort had been made to solve ANY problem.
Even just one. Band-aids are not cures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
25 Sep 2005 07:55:53 AM |
|
|
"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:240920052141406405%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
In article <f_GdnX6Q0b4KM6jeRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:240920051131451868%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
In article <VPCdnVqVeNaz_ajeRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WfadnV_ATNBkyqjenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government
imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then
and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil
barons
want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to
get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question,
isn't
it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
... and continue to speak in the form of asking stupid bewildered
"impertinent" questions about how we got here.
So what has been done in reards to developing more efficient use of
our
current fuel sources or encourage progress in the use of
alternative
fuel sources? You can cry about not having enough refineries all
you
want, but that won't change the fact that very little has been done
to
deal with the bigger problem - oil is not infinite.
If we were restricted to solving one problem at a time, you might
possibly have a point.
You would have a point if an effort had been made to solve ANY
problem.
Even just one. Band-aids are not cures.
I share your sentiment wrt this president to a large extent, but the
inertia in dealing with a lack of refining capacity definitely comes
from the left, not the right. The notion that Bushboy or "the Texas oil
barons" would be opposed to more refineries is laughable, and certainly
qualifies for your "ANY problem" category. It's the left that looks at
refineries as unmitigated evil, and then sits around asking stupid
questions later about why gas and heating oil is so expensive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fiend999" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
25 Sep 2005 10:16:18 AM |
|
|
In article <sZOdnc9XBrTFA6veRVn-uA@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:240920052141406405%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
In article <f_GdnX6Q0b4KM6jeRVn-rw@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:240920051131451868%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
In article <VPCdnVqVeNaz_ajeRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Harvey
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WfadnV_ATNBkyqjenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hbadnd-GfNRJ3qjeRVn-jw@comcast.com...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government
imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then
and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil
barons
want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to
get ?
Of course building more refineries is out of the question,
isn't
it?
Mmmmmm... demand... supply... DUH.
NIMBYism got us where we are now. The stupid people have spoken.
... and continue to speak in the form of asking stupid bewildered
"impertinent" questions about how we got here.
So what has been done in reards to developing more efficient use of
our
current fuel sources or encourage progress in the use of
alternative
fuel sources? You can cry about not having enough refineries all
you
want, but that won't change the fact that very little has been done
to
deal with the bigger problem - oil is not infinite.
If we were restricted to solving one problem at a time, you might
possibly have a point.
You would have a point if an effort had been made to solve ANY
problem.
Even just one. Band-aids are not cures.
I share your sentiment wrt this president to a large extent, but the
inertia in dealing with a lack of refining capacity definitely comes
from the left, not the right.
Whgo is in power now? The "left"? I didn't think so. You have
bought the BS of the Republicans and the oil industry without
questioning it.
The notion that Bushboy or "the Texas oil
barons" would be opposed to more refineries is laughable, and certainly
qualifies for your "ANY problem" category.
So what have the republicans done about the problem? They do have
nearly complete control of the government now. The oil industry can
make more money by claiming "shortages" and jacking up the prices than
if they had to spend the money to build more refineries, or (gasp -
heavens NO!) make the refinery process more efficient.
It's the left that looks at
refineries as unmitigated evil, and then sits around asking stupid
questions later about why gas and heating oil is so expensive.
No, we ask why the problems of dwindling oil supply and lack of
efficient clean fuel have been ignored. Try to pay attention, rather
than building strawmen. Enough of the citizens of the US do not want
more filthy refineries in their back yards. That is not left or right,
but plain old American nature. Rather than building elsewhere or
coming up with cleaner, more efficeient ways to process the product
(like even the coal industry has done), the oil industry continues to
make huge profits based on the scarcity of the refined product.
When the people whose checks are paid by the oil industry try to blame
"libruls" for the oil industry's racketeering, you should try to
consider the source and not swallow it all hook, line and sinker.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Heard" |
|
| Title: Re: Beffudled Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 09:55:58 AM |
|
|
It was a bad idea then and now. Don't you liberals understand the concept
of supply and demand? If the price goes up, demand goes down. It is a
self-correcting system without the need for government interference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chance Hopkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Beffudled Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 11:57:54 AM |
|
|
"Joshua Heard" <jheard@nospammsn.com> wrote in message
news:2OdZe.28849$w46.17848@tornado.texas.rr.com...
It was a bad idea then and now. Don't you liberals understand the concept
of supply and demand? If the price goes up, demand goes down.
How does your black and white logic apply to food? Explain to me how the
demand goes down if the price goes up?
It is a self-correcting system without the need for government
interference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Heard" |
|
| Title: Re: Beffudled Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 05:44:28 PM |
|
|
"Food" is not a market commodity. There are many different sources for
food: grocery stores, restaurants, fast food outlets. Within each source
are separate submarkets, ie meat, dairy, vegetables, canned goods, processed
meals. The law of supply and demand only applies to a specific market
commodity, like gasoline.
When it comes to food, demand can shift. So, for instance if restaurants
become too expensive, consumers will buy food at the grocery store. If meat
becomes more expensive, people will buy more vegetables. If gas gets too
high, people will buy more efficient automobiles, take the bus, or work from
home.
So, while overall demand stays constant, ie people don't eat less, the
demand shifts to more appropriate market commodities. This shift however,
is based on consumer choice, not governmental decree.
http://economics.about.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
24 Sep 2005 06:40:32 PM |
|
|
The imposition of a federally mandated, nationwide speed limit back in the
mid seventies was totally political and founded on nothing resembling
scientific fact. The cars on the road at the time were designed to cruise
the highways of the U.S. at 70 miles per hour. This is the speed at which
they performed best.
Today, our vehicles are also designed to cruise at 70 miles per hour. My
2000 Chevrolet Cavalier gets 40 mpg on the highway at 70 miles per hour. It
does not get such mileage at lower speeds. A 55 mile per hour speed limit
didn't work in the seventies and it won't work 35 years later.
Our president can't do diddly to change that. In fact, our president has
shown that he can't do diddly, period.
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127563588.341314.101190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back when gasoline passed one dollar per gallon government imposed a
55 mph speed limit to curtail demand. It was a good idea then and
it's a better idea now. Why won't this President ACT ? Is it
because curtailing demand is the last thing the Texas oil barons want
to see ? And what they want to see is what they're going to get ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
26 Sep 2005 12:18:02 AM |
|
|
All my instincts plus a degree in Physics tells me you're wrong
Kevin. Saying your car does not get "such mileage at lower speed" is
ambiguous. Do you mean it gets better milage or worse at lower speed ?
Moving a mass X from point A to point B takes more horse power at
high speed than at low speed. And GM engineers can't change that. I
await your apology. Also, anything that the oil barons BELIEVE will
lower demand for their product works to bring prices down. Even a
THREAT to allow more oil exploration in Alaska will bring prices down,
if only as a means of discouraging such exploration.
Have a nice day. B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 109 |
27 Sep 2005 10:15:29 PM |
|
|
It gets lousy mileage in the lower gears, at lower speeds than in 5th gear
and cruising at 70 mph. Running around town in 3rd gear, at about 3000 to
3500 rpm, the little chevy gets much lower mileage than on the interstate in
high gear at about 3000 rpm and 70 mph. Now when you get up around 80 mph,
the mileage falls off again. It's sweet spot is definitely 70 mph.
As for oil and gas prices, it costs what it costs. Texaco says they want
$2.99 a gallon for gas today and they get it. If they want $3.10 a gallon
for it tomorrow, they get it. I think you can say goodbye to gasoline at
$1.50 a gallon. That aint gonna happen again. Back in the good old days, I
remember paying what was considered to be at the time, an outrageous sum of
$0.70 a gallon. For ten bucks you could fill up your car, buy a couple of
drinks and a copy of MAD Magazine and hit the road.
The 55 mile per hour speed limit of the seventies was political. My
brothers GTO ran like crap at 55. At about 90 to 110 mph, it ran clean and
cool, burning the fuel more efficiently. Of course, it was designed to
perform from a standing start to the end of a quarter mile and then shut
down.
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127711882.348396.123400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All my instincts plus a degree in Physics tells me you're wrong
Kevin. Saying your car does not get "such mileage at lower speed" is
ambiguous. Do you mean it gets better milage or worse at lower speed ?
Moving a mass X from point A to point B takes more horse power at
high speed than at low speed. And GM engineers can't change that. I
await your apology. Also, anything that the oil barons BELIEVE will
lower demand for their product works to bring prices down. Even a
THREAT to allow more oil exploration in Alaska will bring prices down,
if only as a means of discouraging such exploration.
Have a nice day. B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
