Gas Prices
- Thread starter Bladestunner316
- Start date
- Status
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Well at this rate, I'm back on my bike for good. (okay, during a blizzard in January, I won't be biking to work) Lately I've been driving when I haven't the time to walk, or the inclination. Can't afford to do that too often any more - those in town miles suck the gas something awful. At any rate, I'm glad for the prod to be walking/riding more - I can finally succeed in retaining my convictions that I should be doing so anyway.
It took me $33.00 to fill up today. I remember when I use to get gas at around $0.45 a gallon. Winter heating prices have gone up trememdously the last 5 or six years. Can spell inflation!
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
well then we better develop beeter methods to prevent birds from flying into windmills.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
$2.71
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
$2.75
Apologist4Him
Puritan Board Freshman
$2.59 a gallon at the lowest octane level. I remember when gasoline was around .75 cents a gallon. Gasoline has tripled in price in the past 15 years. I think it's robbery.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Apologist4Him]
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Originally posted by Apologist4Him
$2.59 a gallon at the lowest octane level. I remember when gasoline was around .75 cents a gallon. Gasoline has tripled in price in the past 15 years. I think it's robbery.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Apologist4Him]
It seems to me it's about doubled in the last TWO YEARS. ($1.30-ish in July of 2003 to $2.49 today here)
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Apologist4Him
Puritan Board Freshman
This calls for a group rant.
*picture the horse as symbolic for gasoline prices*
*picture the horse as symbolic for gasoline prices*
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
For we Americans on the board, I guess we should be glad we don't live in England where we would be paying upwards of $6.00 per gallon. Which begs the question, do we as Americans feel a certain entitlement to low gas prices?
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Well, in a sense, Rick, I think yes, we do have an entitlement to lower gas prices.
Why? Not because I think there is some inherent 'right to drive'.
My statement (which is only *mostly* serious) has to do with the reason why European gas prices are so high. Perhaps you don't know this, but the only real reason that European gas prices are as high as they are is because of the socialistic nature of those governments.
On average, the amount of tax paid on a gallon of gas in Europe is around 75%. Just like everything else, a large proportion of the price of anything in Europe is money used to fund the government entitlement programs. So, that $6.00 gallon of petrol in jolly old England is only costing about $1.50 for the fuel itself, and $4.50 goes to pay for extensive welfare, universal health care, public servants, etc.
In the US, the average of state + local taxes is something like 40 or 50 cents per gallon... so our "fuel cost" is more like about $2.00.
So the difference is essentially ALL in the amount of tax being paid to the state-messiah.
I don't think, therefore, to say that we deserve lower gas prices is all that far off base. Socialist governments are inherently evil - and insofaras the cost difference between European and US gasoline price is driven by the tax burden placed on Europeans by the socialistic regimes they're under.... well, yes - they deserve better.
Todd
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Couple of relevant sites:
http://www.gasbuddy.com
This site allows you to compare gas prices and allows you to check where the lowest price is in your area. Pretty nifty.
Site to track raw materials - coal, petroleum etc.
http://www.gasbuddy.com
This site allows you to compare gas prices and allows you to check where the lowest price is in your area. Pretty nifty.
Site to track raw materials - coal, petroleum etc.
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
I am having a nightmare trying to convert the NZ dollar to US dollars and litres to gallons. Once it is all worked out I am not sure how accurate it would be... I have lost the stats I need right now.
Needless to say we have to pay more per 'gallon' that you Americans have to.
Needless to say we have to pay more per 'gallon' that you Americans have to.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by toddpedlar
Well, in a sense, Rick, I think yes, we do have an entitlement to lower gas prices.
Why? Not because I think there is some inherent 'right to drive'.
My statement (which is only *mostly* serious) has to do with the reason why European gas prices are so high. Perhaps you don't know this, but the only real reason that European gas prices are as high as they are is because of the socialistic nature of those governments.
On average, the amount of tax paid on a gallon of gas in Europe is around 75%. Just like everything else, a large proportion of the price of anything in Europe is money used to fund the government entitlement programs. So, that $6.00 gallon of petrol in jolly old England is only costing about $1.50 for the fuel itself, and $4.50 goes to pay for extensive welfare, universal health care, public servants, etc.
In the US, the average of state + local taxes is something like 40 or 50 cents per gallon... so our "fuel cost" is more like about $2.00.
So the difference is essentially ALL in the amount of tax being paid to the state-messiah.
I don't think, therefore, to say that we deserve lower gas prices is all that far off base. Socialist governments are inherently evil - and insofaras the cost difference between European and US gasoline price is driven by the tax burden placed on Europeans by the socialistic regimes they're under.... well, yes - they deserve better.
Todd
I think you're right there, Todd.
Apologist4Him
Puritan Board Freshman
The point is, do we have a choice? It's not like the U.S. gas "market" is free. People have to put gasonline in their automobiles to get to work, like water and food, it's not an option. Can somebody please explain how a capitalist free market economic system operates?
Aside from that, the ethic of the logic of what you're suggesting is, if people are tortured by their government for entertainment purposes 5 times a week in England, what right do we have to complain for being tortured by the government for science experimentation 2 times a week? Because people in Europe are being raped on gasoline prices, it's ok if we're raped on gasoline prices too?
Yes, I'm glad we're not being for to pay $6 per gallon, but such is that would be a perfect way to ruin a good and thriving economy. Do gasoline companies owe anything to the American public? No, of course not. But using the same logic, if you bring a puppy home, and do not give him food or water because he's not entitled to it, don't expect him to live either.
[Edited on 8-20-2005 by Apologist4Him]
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
Very funny, but it would have been more credulous if Pamela Anderson was the distraction instead of Jay.[Edited on 8-22-2005 by Slippery]
[Edited on 8-22-2005 by Slippery]
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
xperts Say Rising Gas Prices Spur Thefts
By SAMIRA JAFARI, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 23, 5:22 AM ET
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The case of an Alabama gas station owner run down and killed by a driver who police believe was escaping with $52 worth of fuel comes as no shock to industry experts.
ADVERTISEMENT
"As the price of gas climbs, people's values decline," said Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores.
Lenard said the death of Husain "Tony" Caddi, 54, has captured national media attention for two reasons: It shows that soaring gas prices make people angry enough to steal, and gas retailers are tired of putting up with it.
Caddi, owner of the Fort Payne Texaco, died Friday after he grabbed onto the vehicle and the driver dragged him across the parking lot and onto a highway, police said. Caddi fell from the vehicle and was run over by the vehicle's rear wheel. A search for the driver and a gold or tan Jeep-style SUV continued Monday.
The Petroleum & Convenience Marketers of Alabama tells gas retailers to "never try to take action themselves" during robberies and drive-offs, said Arleen Alexander, the group's executive director.
"But I can understand why someone would want to fight for their property," Alexander said. "Fifty-two dollars doesn't sound like that much, but with the little they're making these days that's a lot."
Gasoline theft cost retailers nationwide $237 million in 2004 "” more than twice the $112 million loss in 2003, according to NACS.
On average, one in every 1,100 fill-ups was a gas theft last year, the group said. With about a penny per gallon as profit, a retailer would have to sell an extra 3,000 gallons to offset each $30 stolen, Lenard said.
Theft combined with gas prices that have jumped this summer by as much as 18 cents to an average of $2.55 a gallon nationally, and both retailers and consumers are beginning to lash out, experts warned.
"It's a very difficult situation and you're never sure how people are going to react," said Sam Turner, president of Calfee Co. of Dalton, Ga., which operates 114 Favorite Markets convenience stores in the South.
"It's something on everybody's mind right now because it's a commodity that virtually everybody uses. You're talking about a heck of an impact to their billfold," he said.
Lenard and Turner said safety and theft concerns have pushed most gas stations in the region to shift to a prepay policy, but even that is not a perfect solution. A prepay policy cuts down on browsing and buying in gas station stores "” a big chunk of owners' profits.
"We're in uncharted territory. We're seeing more people going to prepay than ever before," Lenard said. "I think we'll look back on 2005 and say 'Remember when we used to be trusted to pay for our gas?'"
By SAMIRA JAFARI, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 23, 5:22 AM ET
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The case of an Alabama gas station owner run down and killed by a driver who police believe was escaping with $52 worth of fuel comes as no shock to industry experts.
ADVERTISEMENT
"As the price of gas climbs, people's values decline," said Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores.
Lenard said the death of Husain "Tony" Caddi, 54, has captured national media attention for two reasons: It shows that soaring gas prices make people angry enough to steal, and gas retailers are tired of putting up with it.
Caddi, owner of the Fort Payne Texaco, died Friday after he grabbed onto the vehicle and the driver dragged him across the parking lot and onto a highway, police said. Caddi fell from the vehicle and was run over by the vehicle's rear wheel. A search for the driver and a gold or tan Jeep-style SUV continued Monday.
The Petroleum & Convenience Marketers of Alabama tells gas retailers to "never try to take action themselves" during robberies and drive-offs, said Arleen Alexander, the group's executive director.
"But I can understand why someone would want to fight for their property," Alexander said. "Fifty-two dollars doesn't sound like that much, but with the little they're making these days that's a lot."
Gasoline theft cost retailers nationwide $237 million in 2004 "” more than twice the $112 million loss in 2003, according to NACS.
On average, one in every 1,100 fill-ups was a gas theft last year, the group said. With about a penny per gallon as profit, a retailer would have to sell an extra 3,000 gallons to offset each $30 stolen, Lenard said.
Theft combined with gas prices that have jumped this summer by as much as 18 cents to an average of $2.55 a gallon nationally, and both retailers and consumers are beginning to lash out, experts warned.
"It's a very difficult situation and you're never sure how people are going to react," said Sam Turner, president of Calfee Co. of Dalton, Ga., which operates 114 Favorite Markets convenience stores in the South.
"It's something on everybody's mind right now because it's a commodity that virtually everybody uses. You're talking about a heck of an impact to their billfold," he said.
Lenard and Turner said safety and theft concerns have pushed most gas stations in the region to shift to a prepay policy, but even that is not a perfect solution. A prepay policy cuts down on browsing and buying in gas station stores "” a big chunk of owners' profits.
"We're in uncharted territory. We're seeing more people going to prepay than ever before," Lenard said. "I think we'll look back on 2005 and say 'Remember when we used to be trusted to pay for our gas?'"
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
It looks like because of the storm hitting an oil port crude went up by about 5 dollars a barrel from 66 to 70 dollars a barrel. Prompting fears gas may hike up to at least 13 to 20 cents a gallon come labour day.
Gas up now while its cheap.
Blade
Gas up now while its cheap.
Blade
I've found it very interesting to hear many liberals complaining about the cost of gas and condemning Bush for it when only a few years ago they wanted it deliberately taxed higher and higher to keep people off the roads. When I was in the Army stationed in Eurpope I ran into that attitude on the BBC for the first time. Some English guy wanted taxes so high even the BBC news fellow seemed a little set back. Shouldn't they be applauding this situation? We paid $2.49 on our last fill here in Beaverton, Oregon. I'm filling up first thing tomorrow with the problems in New Orleans...
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
we need to invest in alternative sources of energy. I'm sure with the right incentives, companies can turn alcohol into gas, as well as efficiently use solar energy.
Texas Aggie
Puritan Board Freshman
Gas in the United States is relatively cheap these days in comparison to everything else we relish (remember we have inflation).
Alternative measures would be nice. Remember when Clinton axed the supercolider in Texas? The dems have no ambition for alternative measures either. Otherwise we would be knee-deep in fusion research and technology.
Right now, oil works for everyone and there is plenty of it in the United States. Get out there and drive your Lincoln Navigators, have fun and enjoy our wonderful exploitation policies. Like the idea of having reserves for war-time need. Better to buy off other nations' oil and hog our own.
Oil for blood is appropriate (providing you like to use this argument). Oil is in fact a national security issue of the highest degree. Free flow of foreign oil is the idea for multiple reasons. It keeps our reserves full (stored for those special times). It promotes U.S. corporations overseas and provides a means to conduct gov surveilence in a variety of lovely countries. It places U.S. interests in parts of the world where China, Russia and North Korea have the same vested ambitions. It places a check & balances system amongst the "haves" and the "have nots," who would like very much to control the bulk of foreign oil.
Oil is the blood of this wonderful, capitalist, industrial nation. Without it, we could be crippled. We need to continue to buy out the world's oil, keep other countries at bay and store up all our national oil as much as possible.
Take your family on a trip, fly the friendly skies and help burn 30,000 pounds of jet fuel per flight. Go out and buy that urban assault vehicle you always wanted for your family... after all, they are safe for the kids and it's most patriotic.
Alternative measures would be nice. Remember when Clinton axed the supercolider in Texas? The dems have no ambition for alternative measures either. Otherwise we would be knee-deep in fusion research and technology.
Right now, oil works for everyone and there is plenty of it in the United States. Get out there and drive your Lincoln Navigators, have fun and enjoy our wonderful exploitation policies. Like the idea of having reserves for war-time need. Better to buy off other nations' oil and hog our own.
Oil for blood is appropriate (providing you like to use this argument). Oil is in fact a national security issue of the highest degree. Free flow of foreign oil is the idea for multiple reasons. It keeps our reserves full (stored for those special times). It promotes U.S. corporations overseas and provides a means to conduct gov surveilence in a variety of lovely countries. It places U.S. interests in parts of the world where China, Russia and North Korea have the same vested ambitions. It places a check & balances system amongst the "haves" and the "have nots," who would like very much to control the bulk of foreign oil.
Oil is the blood of this wonderful, capitalist, industrial nation. Without it, we could be crippled. We need to continue to buy out the world's oil, keep other countries at bay and store up all our national oil as much as possible.
Take your family on a trip, fly the friendly skies and help burn 30,000 pounds of jet fuel per flight. Go out and buy that urban assault vehicle you always wanted for your family... after all, they are safe for the kids and it's most patriotic.
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
Fully agree, that Oil is a National security issue. But the fact is that moral conditioning is not conducive to such an argument, hence the administration had to lie albeit tell the untruth that Saddam Hussein had WMDS, as a means for justification for invasion.
If Bush had come out plainly and say, we need the oil, he would have justly been rebuffed and spurned as a greedy meglomaniac, since it is understood, that you don't steal or covet what belongs to others.
But interestingly enough when one compiles the statistics of China's economic growth, booming middle class, coupled with India, it does make sense for the U.S to secure some oil reserves of her own, but to invade another country that has the Oil reserves under a lying justification is just plain old wrong.
I heard that the newly constructed Iraqi constitution virtually guaranteed oil drilling to the U.S. Life is a farce. And Russia and France are looking on the outside and can't speak, because they were getting the oil goodies before the US invasion. Wickedness in high places.
But the politics of this world is not the politics of the spiritual realm.
Foreign Policy is Amoral.
[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Slippery]
Average Joey
Puritan Board Junior
While this could be true,I don`t buy it.I still stick to my theory of the USA (Bush Administration) going for the weak target,most hated(Saddam was hated by surrounding countries),and a country right in the middle of the middle east,Iraq to be the building of an ally to the United States from the ground up.A perfect place to wage war to the surrounding countries.Much like we have USA bases in Japan and South Korea.We would have them in Iraq.Of course the oil would be a benefit also.
Texas Aggie
Puritan Board Freshman
Personally I do not believe the White House had any clue as to whether or not Iraq had WMDs (Saddam played a pretty good tale and led U.S. intelligence down a nice tactical path. Kudos to Saddam). I would have taken the more conservative approach anyway in a post 9/11 world and proceed with the invasion.
I was happy to see some movement on our policy in Iraq. During the last administration, Clinton had to flex his muscle several times by sending B-52s to Diego Garcia to threaten Saddam (and get the inspectors back into Iraq).
In addition, I was getting sick and tired of Saddam shooting at our pilots (who were enforcing the no-fly zones) with no repercussion. We also now know that his nuclear research teams who were working in Libya were given over by Kadaffi himself (as well as shut down his own program and send his son on a massive U.S. PR tour). I think there were widespread benefits of having a right-wing nut job in office who was tired of "swatting flies."
To me, the security of my family, my state and my country is the highest priority in this day and age. Saddam needed to be taken out (he was a known product with an unknown agenda). I only wish Iraq would have been completely dissolved as a country. It should have been broken up and given to their respective neighbors (Kuwait, Iran & Turkey).
[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Texas Aggie]
I was happy to see some movement on our policy in Iraq. During the last administration, Clinton had to flex his muscle several times by sending B-52s to Diego Garcia to threaten Saddam (and get the inspectors back into Iraq).
In addition, I was getting sick and tired of Saddam shooting at our pilots (who were enforcing the no-fly zones) with no repercussion. We also now know that his nuclear research teams who were working in Libya were given over by Kadaffi himself (as well as shut down his own program and send his son on a massive U.S. PR tour). I think there were widespread benefits of having a right-wing nut job in office who was tired of "swatting flies."
To me, the security of my family, my state and my country is the highest priority in this day and age. Saddam needed to be taken out (he was a known product with an unknown agenda). I only wish Iraq would have been completely dissolved as a country. It should have been broken up and given to their respective neighbors (Kuwait, Iran & Turkey).
[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Texas Aggie]
- Status
