Interesting

This was already a topic. The taxtable is entirely misleading. I posted links to tax experts and the like speaking on the differences. Stuff way beyond my understanding.

Also when Bush took office, gas was a 1.46. He now has a Democratic Congress to blame for his oil greed, so you knew it was going to get bad before worse. I can't wait until we actually have Obama in the White House with a Democratic Congress. Awesome.

Well Ill be.......... I think I agree with the Monkey!.....

quote:

Originally posted by MonkeysUncleByMarriage:
This was already a topic. The taxtable is entirely misleading. I posted links to tax experts and the like speaking on the differences. Stuff way beyond my understanding.

Also when Bush took office, gas was a 1.46. He now has a Democratic Congress to blame for his oil greed, so you knew it was going to get bad before worse. I can't wait until we actually have Obama in the White House with a Democratic Congress. Awesome.

When Bush took office regular gasoline was selling at WalMart in Muscle Shoals for less than a dollar a gal. Had gone up a penny or so from being $0.98 for several years.
The hot topic at the time tho, was not how fortunate we were to have peace , prosperity and cheap gasoline, but the sex life of the president. So I guess that leaves us with the impression that:
Democrats concentrate on bread and butter economic issues.
Republicans concentrate on the sex life of Democrats.

Here it is again xman:

In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratically controlled Congress
in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a
gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in
equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);

5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2
trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for "change" in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes the law, not the
President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

Sky always just repeats things,never a fact or idea or clue originates from him lol

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:

When Bush took office regular gasoline was selling at WalMart in Muscle Shoals for less than a dollar a gal. Had gone up a penny or so from being $0.98 for several years.
The hot topic at the time tho, was not how fortunate we were to have peace , prosperity and cheap gasoline, but the sex life of the president. So I guess that leaves us with the impression that:
Democrats concentrate on bread and butter economic issues.
Republicans concentrate on the sex life of Democrats.

True about the gas prices. I meant the national average. It was much cheaper here than 1.46.

I'd like to know how you all think that Bush is to blame for the price of gas. He doesn't control OPEC anymore than I do. The only oil companies he can levy any control over are American companies and they only supply a small amount of our oil.

No, but he loves begging the Saudis (once in June, and again this month--May) for more oil. You would think someone as smart as Bush would want to take the country in a new direction and ween America from its addiction to oil. Maybe not 100% but drastically reduce the amount of consumption. You would think he would be smart enough to know he would be ultimately saving America from being at the mercy of the Middle East.

Unfortunately, his energy policy is to just beg for more oil, and that will get us nowhere.

It's also amazing that the majority of the hijackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but for some reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention whatsoever of Saudi Arabia. Why? Oil.

quote:

Originally posted by Si, se puede!:
No, but he loves begging the Saudis (once in June, and again this month--May) for more oil. You would think someone as smart as Bush would want to take the country in a new direction and ween America from its addiction to oil. Maybe not 100% but drastically reduce the amount of consumption. You would think he would be smart enough to know he would be ultimately saving America from being at the mercy of the Middle East.

Unfortunately, his energy policy is to just beg for more oil, and that will get us nowhere.

It's also amazing that the majority of the hijackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but for some reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention whatsoever of Saudi Arabia. Why? Oil.

What, exactly, do you expect the president to do about our use of oil?

Is he just supposed to snap his fingers and make all our energy issues go away?

Could we cut back on some of our dependence on foreign oil by drilling at home? Absolutely.
Will the enviormental folks let us drill? No

Could we build more Nuke plants and greatly reduce our need for carbon based fuels for electricity? Absolutely
Will the enviormental folks let us? No

Could we produce more gas by building new refineries (since we haven't built one since 1976)? Absolutely
Will the enviormental folks let us? No

GWB has tried these things and many others (to include all types of enviormentally friendly, renewable fuels) and has been shot down each time. So I ask you again, what exactly do you want him to do?

He hasn't tried to think outside the box. There are other options that I'm sure could gain the environmentalists support.

He just wants to drill more. Since he can't have his way, I guess we will just keep begging for more oil....

quote:

Originally posted by Si, se puede!:
No, but he loves begging the Saudis (once in June, and again this month--May) for more oil. You would think someone as smart as Bush would want to take the country in a new direction and ween America from its addiction to oil. Maybe not 100% but drastically reduce the amount of consumption. You would think he would be smart enough to know he would be ultimately saving America from being at the mercy of the Middle East.

Unfortunately, his energy policy is to just beg for more oil, and that will get us nowhere.

It's also amazing that the majority of the hijackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but for some reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention whatsoever of Saudi Arabia. Why? Oil.

Well, since you seem to have all the answers, how would one go about "weening" us from the oil tit? We have already signed legislation to increase the mileage demands on US manufactured vehicles. We are paying more now for bread and cereals because of government subsidies for corn which will be used as fuel additives? Where else does Mr. bush need to go? He went to Saudi to ask on behalf of those of us who depend on the products that need to be gotten to market. If you bought groceries this week, that includes you.
before I condemn the man for trying something that would certainly only amount to a short term fix, I would thinkg about the ramifications of his actions and despicable the Saudi oil barons are for ignoring his pleas. As far as I am concerned they may be able to ski in their indoor palaces, but until they can learn to like "Hydrocarbon" cereals, they could eat sand.
If the environmentalists do not wish for us to increase our refining capacity and our use of nuclear fuels, they better come up with a new way to get food to market and light our homes.

Nuclear energy is not a bad thing, but the disposal of waste is what is the major concern for environmentalists. I am all for it if it can be done in a safe manner.

A combination of other energy sources could replace a lot of our energy consumption. Wind power and solar energy could help with housing energy needs.

Corn is NOT a good idea. An alternative fuel should not be harvested from a crop that a lot of people use. Soy beans are not that bad of an idea. I've also read a lot about hemp.... just saying....

If you want people to stop smoking it, use it all to produce fuel. You would be killing 2 birds with one stone. (www.hemp4fuel.com) It sounds hysterical, but it actually is feasible. Just one of many ideas.

I'm sure there are other ideas that haven't even been thought of yet. The Bush Administration stayed determined on drilling in ANWR while other ideas were discarded. Now we are begging the Saudis for oil and have no long-term plan, let alone short-term. China and India are also a part of this problem, so encouraging those nations to reduce usage could help in the short term.

This doesn't even address the fact that Americans do not rely on mass transit, but individual cars. If more urban areas transitioned to mass transit, it would help in the short-term. But people just want to commute 40 miles to work one way so they have their own personal A/C and can listen to David Lee Cook's latest cover, I mean original.

Considering that tanks and jets and hummers have to use fuel, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23922063/

If we are going to stay in Iraq, Americans should be comfortable with the possibility of paying at least $7-10 for gas in the future.

If they are unhappy with that price, bringing our troops home might help curb that price.

Scary times...

I will agree, we need to stop talking about ANWAR and drill there. Talking about it for 8 years now and it is still off limits, despite gas at near $4 a gallon and oil at $130 a barrell, a real shame, since even though figures show we are helping to stem our use, we continue to need the fuel in order to survive at our current standard of living.
Nuclear power is a very viable solution, it is used throughout Europe, and if you exlcude the poorly designed plant at Chernobyl, it has a good history. To my knowledge there has been no issues with storing this material in the US, there are plenty of repositories that can accept the spent fuel and store it for thousands of years.
Mass transit should be utilized more effectively. I for one have traveled to Europe and love the rail systems, and fail to see whythey have not caught on here. I would love to see a rail system connecting the Shoals to Nashville or BHM that ran twice a day for an economical price. I would love to see a reliable bus service here, unfortunately we just are not big enough for that.
Hemp, never heard of that one, but sounds great to me, heck if you could sniff the exhaust you probably wouldn't care what the cost of regular gas was, but my guess is that the munchies would probably cause an exponential growth in the availability of Taco Bell along all major highways...
I too agree that burning corn, a stable food source is a bad idea. However most of the corn the local guys are growing for this venture is not orth eating anyways. That however means they are growing less of the "good stuff" like we have on our table. Can't blame them though, they are farming for money and they grow what pays the best. Corn futures look pretty good right now.

Nuclear power is very safe and effective. The only example those against it can provide is Chernobyl. Keep in mind that was designed by a Communist government that the liberals love so much.

The proposed drilling site in ANWAR is a fraction of the entire reserve. No one will be drilling through baby seal lions to get to it as many would have us believe. It's a barren, frozen desert in northern Alaska. Not only would it create jobs, it would help lower our fuel costs.

Using corn for fuel is a terrible idea. Now the price of corn skyrockets, farmers grow less edible corn and more fuel corn, and it takes something like 400 lbs of corn for a gallon of fuel. Not very economical.

So until the day when we can power our cars on water, which isn't far away actually, we have to get oil where we can. To have so much of it in our own back yard and not touch it is completely illogical.

Sugar cane and sugar beets are a much more viable source of ethanol than corn.

Placing greater emphasis on land efficiency—that is, maximizing energy yield per acre—will be essential to making the best use of ethanol. Though corn has broad political support as a feedstock in the United States, it is one of the least efficient sources of ethanol. For example, ethanol yields per acre for French sugar beets and Brazilian sugarcane are roughly double those for American corn.

Also important is the amount of energy used to produce ethanol. Growing, transporting, and distilling corn to make a gallon of ethanol uses almost as much energy as is contained in the ethanol itself. Sugar beets are a better source, producing nearly two units of energy for every unit used in production. Sugarcane, though, is by far the most efficient of the current feedstocks—yielding eight times as much energy as is needed to produce the ethanol. Given their positive energy balances and higher yields, it makes more sense to produce ethanol from sugar crops than from grains.


Looking beyond Corn

There are HHO conversion kits out there that supposedly can help increase gas mileage just by using water.

http://www.drivewithwaterfuel.com/?hop=stevemgray

Basically, it converts water into HHO gas using the car battery. I don't know anyone yet who has tried one, but it looks interesting.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Sugar cane and sugar beets are a much more viable source of ethanol than corn.

QUOTE]

I could have told you that... ...I run much better on rum (sugar cane) than rot gut whickey (corn squeezings)....LOL