Bubbling Crude, Black Gold, Texas Tea, Oil that is.
With oil prices knocking on $140 barrel, I don't care who you are you're being hit in the wallet. While we can set around and talk about how we need to get off oil, the reality is it will not happen over night and in the meantime we need to drill here and drill now.
We could have be drilling ANWR for 14 year now if it hadn't been vetoed in 1994 and blocked ever since, some say ANWR doesn't have that much oil, will recent reports say it has 30 years worth of Saudi imports. Frankly any oil that comes out of our ground is money kept not spent abroad. And it is insane to pay sky high prices for anything that you have in your own house? Would you pay $50 for a gallon of milk if there was a gallon in your refrigerator? NO! Why ... because it would be stupid and not to tap our own resources is just that.
We also need to drill off our own coast, China is drilling 60 miles off FL and they are drilling our oil from Cuban waters and we can't drill it because of the wacko environmentalist ... now I'm all for taking care of the environment but not the to point that you cut you nose spite your face and we do it so much we have no nose left to cut, it's just nuts.
Now some people running for president says we need to tax the oil companies for wind fall profits ... oil companies make about 8 cents a gallon of refined product, the US Federal government makes about 19 cents a gallon and states make as much as twice or more than that amount, what about their windfall profits i.e. taxes? Taxing the company is naive, they'll just pass the cost on to the consumer, cooperation DO NOT PAY TAXES, they pass it on to the consumer and you're taxes twice. You pay your taxes and theirs. Another one running for president says we don't need to drill for more oil ... are both of them completely clueless? We just need to cut consumption ... ok fine I think that is being done but you still have to get to work, go buy food and then what, we remain shut ins after that? Just crazy, neither canidate has a clue.
Now with respect to our European friends that are paying upward of $10 gallon for gas, as I've been told by folk I know in the EU/England and that think we should stop whining about $4-$5 gallon gas ... I'll say this much, when your country is 2000 miles wide come talk to me ... ok. It's scale ok, scale ... got to drive a lot further to get anywhere here. Not a choice, a geographical fact.
So until we as a nation and a planet can build more refineries, nuclear power, wind power and get off the crack oil we're either going to have to suck it up and pay high prices and watch the world dive into a global recession or we're going to have to drill for more to take the pinch off until other alternatives come line. America sent a man to the moon in less than 10 years, we need to dust off the drive, that determination that took and create affordable safe hydrogen power, nuclear power, wind and solar along with more hydro-electric power now. It has been done, it can be done, we just need to do it.
So how hard is the gas prices hitting you? Has it changes you driving and life style habits? What can be done to improve the problem? At what price do you say ... forget it I'm not driving anymore? I'm raising prices to offset the price of gas and in turn I get less work do to higher prices, so what to do? Sadly you can't get much lumber and building supplies in a Honda Hybrid, be nice if you could.
You just said everything I was thinking about saying, CHeeze!!!!
Congress can gripe about "Big Oil" all it wants, but the fact is that 75% of what we pay at the pumps is the direct result of the price of crude oil, and another 18% or more is what the government collects in the form of taxes and regulation.
I wish someone would slap these morons upside the head and say "Excuse me, but how will making the companies pay MORE to produce the product make the consumer pay LESS?"
As for me, I've cut back on unnecessary trips to town a little bit, and I try to find someone to split gas with on hobby related trips.
I don't eat out as much as I used to. For me it's just becomes dates and outings with others only. I don't go to the mall weekly as I used to be doing I only go if I need to get something that I need to use right away or need at the moment. I buy online for stuff that I don't need right aways (Books, games, etc).
My driving habits have changed too. Speed limit only, use cruise control as much as possible (Mainly on faster roads, and when I'm on regular roads and the person ahead of me is several car lengths ahead. I coast if possible to slow speeds down on streets (Not on the highway, not used to bring the car to a stop, usually only for when the street has multiple speed limits) or coast when going down slight inclines (There are a few minors ones near where I live where I give a little pressure to the gad pedal to get the car going then coast to gain the speed I need.)
My food habits also changed not just regarding the going out to eat. I usually try to find deals when ever I can for food. I usually look for foods that I like to eat that are either BOGO (Buy one, Get one) or usually good sales for multiple items. My mother has started calling me an old man because of doing this lol.
The thing I find congress does that I find laughable is the term "windfall profits". They say oil companies are seeing windfall profits, but they don't seem to know what the term means. They confuse windfall profit with just profit.
If you market a product (gas), you collect materials needed to make the product (crude oil) and you build, maintain and create the resource needed to make, market and distribute that product (all transportation and infrastructure) you kind if expect to reap a profit. You can not realize a windfall profit in something you expect to see a profit in anyway ... windfall is a UNEXPECTED profit.
George-Pacific and others saw a windfall profit after Katrina, the storm blew down 90,000 square miles of trees, the government paid them to clean it up, they took it, milled it and sold it at higher prices due do a perceived storage. So they profited in something they had no investment in and where actually paid to take it. Where was the out cry? Katrina blew down enough marketable timber to rebuild every home destroyed, twice. Yet, I saw my lumber prices double overnight despite there not being a REAL shortage. It was gouging and windfall profiting and nearly nothing was said or done. WHY? Most people do buy lumber everyday ... I do. I saw 2X4 go from $1.18 to nearly $4.50 in no time, there currently at $2.29 ... make a bit of a difference if you're buying just 10 or 10,000.
Speaking of gas ... wanna get annoyed read this bill ...
Warner-Lieberman bill
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/warner-lieberman-bill-could-raise-gas-prices-2008-05-19.html (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/warner-lieberman-bill-could-raise-gas-prices-2008-05-19.html)
I'm looking seriously at going from a 5 day/8 hour day work week to a 4 day/10 hour day work week. I'm actually a salaried and not hourly employee, so my time is a bit more flexable, anyway.
But for having to leave earlier and thus be right in the middle of morning rush hour traffic, I think I'll prefer the 4 day week schedule: especially if I can take Wednesdays off. :teddyr:
Quote from: Raffine on June 10, 2008, 04:17:28 PM
I'm looking seriously at going from a 5 day/8 hour day work week to a 4 day/10 hour day work week. I'm actually a salaried and not hourly employee, so my time is a bit more flexable, anyway.
But for having to leave earlier and thus be right in the middle of morning rush hour traffic, I think I'll prefer the 4 day week schedule: especially if I can take Wednesdays off. :teddyr:
I a lot of places are going to a 4 day work week, unfortunately I can't do that. I have to work when the weather is right and the sun is up. Some days I can't keep up other days I have time to catch up on paper work, invoices and paying bills. But I think a 4 day work week is a good idea, that's alone could cut a personal weekly work travel by 20%. I'd really like to save 20% a week on fuel.
Myself and 2 other co-workers who live near me have been car pooling whenever we can to work. We've been each working overtime on different functions so the car pooling hasn't been an everyday thing due to we're going to work sometimes at different times.
I'm trying to just limit my driving to and from work. I drive about 22 1/2 miles round trip to work which isn't that bad compared to what some other I know have to drive each day.
I'm cutting out buying as much frivolous stuff as I can lately. If gas goes up to 6 bucks a gallon by this winter as some idiots are predicting, than I'm just going to ride a bike to work.
What makes my blood boil is all of this price stuff is pure speculation and fear and it isn't based on fact at all. You could have 49 experts saying there isn't any issue and just one has to say that "we're running out of oil" and prices shoot up which is what's been happening.
Saudi Arabians are paying only what is the equivalent of 45 cents a gallon for gas.
QuoteSaudi Arabians are paying only what is the equivalent of 45 cents a gallon for gas.
It like I said in another thread, actually quote of a early 80's artist Gil Scott Heron, "The Arabs use to be in the third world, they have bought the second world and put a firm down payment on the first one, controlling your resources will control your world."
The war in the middle east was never about oil, but it's going to be if things don't change.
We're currently paying 10 South African rand for a gallon of fuel: I think you can get seven SA rand for one US$: diesel fuel costs more than that.
Most of our fuel costs are made up of weird levies, road taxes and those in charge make huge profits. They say the road taxes, toll fees and other levies go towards the upkeep of the roads........yeah, right, tell us another joke. :bluesad:
I don't live far from work so I am seriously considering riding a bike to work or taking the bus: thankfully I have a small car, but as soon as the fuel price goes up, everything goes up.
Quote from: Raffine on June 10, 2008, 04:17:28 PM
I'm looking seriously at going from a 5 day/8 hour day work week to a 4 day/10 hour day work week. I'm actually a salaried and not hourly employee, so my time is a bit more flexable, anyway.
But for having to leave earlier and thus be right in the middle of morning rush hour traffic, I think I'll prefer the 4 day week schedule: especially if I can take Wednesdays off. :teddyr:
I was seriously considering doing that at my current job. If I was still taking live interactions I would do that since it would be hard. However since I have to review interactions and the amount I review will vary based on the previous day this really is not a practical option for me since on the busy times of the year I can expect to review 30+ interactions for the day (Not fun), along with surveys and agent evaluations which can either be easy if there are few mistakes or a lot if there are a bunch of mistakes.
Quote from: Trevor on June 11, 2008, 05:51:47 AM
We're currently paying 10 South African rand for a gallon of fuel: I think you can get seven SA rand for one US$: diesel fuel costs more than that.
Most of our fuel costs are made up of weird levies, road taxes and those in charge make huge profits. They say the road taxes, toll fees and other levies go towards the upkeep of the roads........yeah, right, tell us another joke. :bluesad:
I don't live far from work so I am seriously considering riding a bike to work or taking the bus: thankfully I have a small car, but as soon as the fuel price goes up, everything goes up.
WHAT??? Are ya'll in cahoots with OPEC?
A quick look at xe.com says it's R 8.04275 to US$ 1.00 so that means gas is $1.20 gallon in SA. What's up with that? It's as of today and it will be higher tomorrow ... R 32.50 gallon here.
So tell me Trevor ... if that is your real name, where is bin Ladin?
Here in Norway we pay about 13kr per litre of petrol now, which is about 2 and a half dollars. We have quite a bit of taxes on the petrol though.
And Trev, I don't think road fees are ever actually used to build roads, there's some sort of rule against it.
On a side note, can't you damn yanks start to use the metric system already? :hatred:
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on June 11, 2008, 09:36:57 AM
Quote from: Trevor on June 11, 2008, 05:51:47 AM
We're currently paying 10 South African rand for a gallon of fuel: I think you can get seven SA rand for one US$: diesel fuel costs more than that.
Most of our fuel costs are made up of weird levies, road taxes and those in charge make huge profits. They say the road taxes, toll fees and other levies go towards the upkeep of the roads........yeah, right, tell us another joke. :bluesad:
I don't live far from work so I am seriously considering riding a bike to work or taking the bus: thankfully I have a small car, but as soon as the fuel price goes up, everything goes up.
WHAT??? Are ya'll in cahoots with OPEC?
A quick look at xe.com says it's R 8.04275 to US$ 1.00 so that means gas is $1.20 gallon in SA. What's up with that? It's as of today and it will be higher tomorrow ... R 32.50 gallon here.
So tell me Trevor ... if that is your real name, where is bin Ladin?
:teddyr: There is a small room in the house I live in where I am never allowed to go: maybe that's where he is?
Quote from: InspectorDC on June 11, 2008, 10:29:43 AM
Here in Norway we pay about 13kr per litre of petrol now, which is about 2 and a half dollars. We have quite a bit of taxes on the petrol though.
And Trev, I don't think road fees are ever actually used to build roads, there's some sort of rule against it.
On a side note, can't you damn yanks start to use the metric system already? :hatred:
.
:smile: Those road fees are definitely not used to build the roads here, that's for sure, Inspector.
What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.
I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power. I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."
Quote from: ulthar on June 11, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.
I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power. I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."
Maybe if you read Article I in a mirror so it reads backward it might have something about regulating profits of corporations.
Quote from: asimpson2006 on June 11, 2008, 11:16:46 AM
Quote from: ulthar on June 11, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.
I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power. I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."
Maybe if you read Article I in a mirror so it reads backward it might have something about regulating profits of corporations.
Actually I think you have to use a Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring.
(http://www.mwotrc.com/rrpix/ovltndcr.jpg)
I just heard a story that Chuck Schumer (I think it was Schumer, might have been Harry Reed) wants of take oil company profits and set up a trust fund ... for what, for who? The Congressional cafeteria? Which just needed an emergency funding of $250,000 to make payroll ... jeez they can't run a restaurant and they're going to fix all these other problems ... PLEASE!!!
Who's profits will they take next if they take the oil company profits ... which by the way is publicly held stock, 60% of which is owned by Mutual Funds which are widely held by 401K programs ... that means congress wants to take the money that could be going into your retirement... but they don't tell you that, do they?
edit typo
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on June 11, 2008, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: asimpson2006 on June 11, 2008, 11:16:46 AM
Quote from: ulthar on June 11, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.
I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power. I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."
Maybe if you read Article I in a mirror so it reads backward it might have something about regulating profits of corporations.
Actually I think you have to use a Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring.
(http://www.mwotrc.com/rrpix/ovltndcr.jpg)
ROFL, Karma for you. Seeing that decoder ring made me think of that scene in A Christmas Story about drinking your ovaltine and I just crack up every time I think of it.
Quote from: ulthar on June 11, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.
I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power. I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."
I know that won't please you--it doesn't please me--but there's little doubt in my mind that's where the power comes from, and that even the current conservative Supreme Court would uphold such a law as valid under the Commerce Clause.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on June 11, 2008, 08:35:55 PM
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."
That looks to me like a foreign trade clause or at worse an Interstate Commerce clause.
So, what does that have to do with limiting PROFITS of publicly owned, private US based corporations retailing their goods to private, US citizens?
Congress is not in talks to regulate how much the US Oil Companies can PAY for oil from foreign sources. They are not even really talking about limiting the price the consumer will pay at the pump. They are talking about stealing the profits from the sale of a freely traded, legal product between a US company and the US citizenry.
Remind me how that fits the spirit of the Constitution and Federal Government as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson?
Quote
I know that won't please you--it doesn't please me--but there's little doubt in my mind that's where the power comes from, and that even the current conservative Supreme Court would uphold such a law as valid under the Commerce Clause.
You're right...I'm not satisfied with that. But what do I know?
Personally, I don't think their power to do this comes from anywhere in the Constitution...I think it is power usurped. But they'll get away with it, because it looks like they are "doing something," and a lot of folks won't see beyond their own wallets (like these measures will lower the price of gas anyway).
Quote from: Rev. Powell on June 11, 2008, 08:35:55 PM
Quote from: ulthar on June 11, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.
I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power. I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."
I know that won't please you--it doesn't please me--but there's little doubt in my mind that's where the power comes from, and that even the current conservative Supreme Court would uphold such a law as valid under the Commerce Clause.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I do not think that extends to PRIVATE industry. Note the words NATIONS and STATES (and Indian tribes).
Art I Sec 8 deal primarily with taxation and other methods of taking and spending.
The point is not that IF they CAN do it is IF they SHOULD do it ... and the answer is no they should not.
Oil Companies make about 9 cents on every dollar.
Software Co make about 22 cents per dollar.
Soft drink Co make about 14 cents per dollar.
Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cent per dollar.
Altria Group (Marlboro) 22 cents per dollar.
Merck pharmaceutical, 25.3 cents per dollar.
Where is the outcry over those profits? Should we tax them and undermine everything that is American, everything that is capitalism?
Exxon Mobil the US's largest oil company was ranked No. 127 on Fortunes gross profitability rating. So we need to tax the other 126 to right? Let's drive all prices up higher, that would be fair.
Quote
You're right...I'm not satisfied with that. But what do I know?
Personally, I don't think their power to do this comes from anywhere in the Constitution...I think it is power usurped. But they'll get away with it, because it looks like they are "doing something," and a lot of folks won't see beyond their own wallets (like these measures will lower the price of gas anyway).
I agree with you (and Cheeze). And many Constitutional scholars agree, in principle. But whether Hamilton and Jefferson would have agreed with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it's been settled Constitutional law for 70 years that the federal power to regulate commerce extends to private industry.
Want to get outraged? In 1948 the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government could regulate the amount of wheat a man could grow
on his own land, for his
own private consumption, even though it was not intended to enter commerce (much less interstate commerce). It was a commercial activity properly within Congress' power to regulate. Federalism died the day the court handed down that decision.
Article I Sec. 8 deals with ennumerated powers of Congress, not just taxation. It includes, for example, the power of Congress to declare war, which is now in reality pretty much an executive function.
Back on topic, Cheeze is right: it's not a question of whether Congress has the power to regulate profits, but whether it's a good idea to. I've been told that oil companies follow a boom or bust cycle: they make huge profits in years like 2008, but post small losses most years. So theur "windfall" profits now help them to keep funtioning in the lean years. In the long run hurting their profitability will hurt us all: companies will get out of the oil business. But people who feel they're paying too much at the pump won't elect a candidate who won't promise to do something about it, even if it's foolish.
QuoteBut people who feel they're paying too much at the pump won't elect a candidate who won't promise to do something about it, even if it's foolish.
The primary reason we end up with the clowns we have in Washington, they don't want a politician that well tell them the truth they want one that will promise them the moon. This is what happens when you have a voting public that is about 99% lemming and 1% independent thinker. Nothing a politician hates worse than a educated voter.