Author

Comment

Democrats in Congress want to help you spend less on Gasoline

Lead

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 1:49 PM)

They will not vote for drilling.
So, they want taxpayers to foot the bill for you to use less gasoline.
The Transportation and Housing Options for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008 -- H.R. 6495 --
would allocate taxpayer money to:

1. expand public transportation

2. encourage "pay-as-you-drive" auto insurance policies that reward low-mileage drivers with lower insurance premiums

3. reduce commuting costs by providing incentives to employers and employees to take transit, bicycle, carpool, walk, or telecommute to work

4. help local governments create "walkable, bikeable" communities

5. help Americans make "smart" transportation and housing choices by educating them about their options

6. create "location efficient mortgages" that would make owning a home near transit more affordable

7. require the federal government upgrade key Web sites so Americans would have easier access to government services without leaving home or work

8. encourage the creation of "new and necessary" transit alternatives

http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeepers, throw all of this over to the private sector, start drilling now and work on the oil shale in the midwest and we could achieve foreign oil independence in 7 to 10 years without all of this taxpayer money down another set of rat holes.

I could not find an estimate of the cost to the American taxpayer for all of the above but just the mortgage portion alone will be very pricey.
As a taxpayer who does not drive a lot, has a already paid for home near the city ''transit hub,'' already has an low mileage auto insurance benefit, who does not commute to a job and who has never had a problem finding a government service on line I cannot see this doing anything but costing me.

Can it's cost be worth it to you?
How does this save you one thin dime on the gasoline that you need for day-to-day life?
No, it does not.......but it will cost you even more anyway as you drive only as needed, never for pleasure. Dang!
I think I'll enjoy my ''pristine beach'' some more in the future as fewer people will be able to get here to share it with me.
(Well, actually, I get to enjoy the scene of those lovely money making off shore drilling islands named for the four fallen astronauts.)

Trebissky

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:31 PM)

1. expand public transportation
They'd need to "expand" it a hell of a lot, to cover every part of every town or city, from where people LIVE, all the way to where they WORK. I used to take buses or streetcars anywhere I needed to go. And if the buses or streetcars didn't go somewhere, neither did I, unless someone gave me a ride... in their CAR. And I used to have to take TWO buses to get to work, usually over an hour trip one way, including waiting at the transfer stop... in heat, rain, snow, sleet... and if I missed the bus by even fifteen seconds, it became an hour and a half, and I was late for work. I can make the same trip by car in about ten minutes. Fifteen, if I catch all the red lights.

2. encourage "pay-as-you-drive" auto insurance policies that reward low-mileage drivers with lower insurance premiums
Now, THAT, at least, is a workable idea. On the other hand, how many people actually live less than 5 miles from where they work?

3. reduce commuting costs by providing incentives to employers and employees to take transit, bicycle, carpool, walk, or telecommute to work
For a while, I used to ride a bicycle to and from work, instead of the buses... luckily, it was at a FACTORY, where nobody much noticed how frigging SWEATY I got every day, especially all summer long. NOT that great an idea if you work in an office. ANY office.

4. help local governments create "walkable, bikeable" communities
And IF they do, what happens to all the "non-walkable, non-bikeable" communities all over the place now? Do they tear them all down and build somewhere else, or just leave them there until they fall over on themselves?

5. help Americans make "smart" transportation and housing choices by educating them about their options
Giving them more than TWO viable options would need to happen first.

6. create "location efficient mortgages" that would make owning a home near transit more affordable
And if you do buy such a "location efficient" home, and then later that efficient transit dries up from lack of funding or something... like, never gets set up at all... you still need to use that good old CAR, after all, don't you?

7. require the federal government upgrade key Web sites so Americans would have easier access to government services without leaving home or work
Yeah, and buy everyone who doesn't already have one, their own computer and Internet service, so they can use those key Web sites.

8. encourage the creation of "new and necessary" transit alternatives
Such as what? Use surplus Chinook helicopters as "flying buses" that can and do go ANYWHERE?

You DO know what all that comes under the heading of, don't you?

Wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills first.

Last Edited By: Trebissky Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:41 PM. Edited 1 times.

NannyG123

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:07 PM)

These guys don't even really know if they want gasoline prices to drop, you know.

1.Democrats hope to curb carbon emissions.
How?
By high prices, imposed through federal carbon taxes or carbon caps.

2. Gas prices are already ~$5.00 a gallon.
So.....
Democrats complain that high prices are a bad thing.
They have dreamed up a number of boogie men responsible for high prices and drafted silver-bullet bills to kill them off.
They have proposed several solutions that range from the impractical ("sue OPEC") to the irrelevant (crack down on "speculators") to the absurd ("nationalize the oil industry"). The Democrats even have a bill threatening to confiscate or double the price of non-producing oil land leases.
None of their plans would have lowered prices at the pump.

Barack Obama, lamented in mid-June that high gasoline prices have hurt Americans, but he later gave a much more accurate representation of the party line: "I think that I would have preferred a more gradual adjustment."
The Kyoto Agreement would require much higher gasoline prices - perhaps $7 or $8 a gallon, or even more - over a very long period of time.
So, Obama's for that, isn't he?

Oil speculators will leave off shorting oil as soon as we say we are going to drill......after all, more potential oil in the world makes the oil price go down.

So what have Republicans done?

President Bush made the decision this week to allow preparation of leases for energy exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Bush's executive order of Monday removes all White House restrictions on the establishment of new oil leases.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service has estimated that there are 85.9 billion barrels of oil (11 years' worth of U.S. consumption) and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (an 18-year supply) sitting out there. And there could be much more, since many areas off the coasts remain unexplored.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), who cast the deciding Senate vote against letting Virginia drill off its coast last June, said last week that he is now, well, warming to the idea.
We'll see.
Maybe Democrats will surprise us all and listen to millions of constituents over a few greenies.

Ducky M

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:20 PM)

The handwriting is on the wall. But nobody wants to read it.

The elephant is comfortably sitting in everybody's living room couch. But nobody wants to talk about it.

Nothing new under the sun.

Last Edited By: Ducky M Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:26 PM. Edited 1 times.

NannyG123

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:27 PM)

Ducky M, how'ya been?
But isn't everybody talking about "it?"
Or did you have some other "it" in mind?

Trebissky

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:39 PM)

RE: Your links...

1. You know what's the really fun part of posting links to pdf files... especially pdf files with HUNDREDS of pages? And without SAYING that's where the links go? You already know going in that NOBODY is going to scroll through the whole damn thing to find the ONE OR TWO PARAGRAPHS you're "quoting".

2. You can't COPY AND PASTE anything out of a pdf file into one of these forums. So we really have only YOUR WORD that what you posted is really in there at all UNLESS we go and scroll down through the whole thing trying to find it.

Must be nice...

3.

Go to Google News

We're sorry.

The article you've requested is no longer available.

That's one of the drawbacks to Yahoo/AP, but it's also why I post THE WHOLE DAMN THING in here, instead of just parts of it.

4. Linking to OBVIOUSLY PRO-YOUR SIDE SITES as an attempt to supply "proof" of something only does one thing. It makes anyone and everyone on THE OTHER SIDE, no matter which side that is, go "Yeah, right, UH huh." That's one of the main reasons I stick with Yahoo/AP.

5. When the HEADLINE of what the link goes to is...

Friday, June 20, 2008

There Will Be Straight-Jackets

Posted by: Tom DeLay at 8:44 AM

and especially when the author is someone who has been PUBLICLY DISCREDITED long since... "Yeah, right, UH huh" changes into "Aw, what the FUCK..."

6. You have to watch out for CONFLICTING INFO in the very same article, such as:

"The evidence is pretty clear that none of these drilling schemes would have any near-term impact on gasoline supply or prices. It is a concern if Democrats start shifting their positions solely in response to polls."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who opposed offshore exploration during his 2000 presidential campaign, now supports opening up the coasts to exploration. Democrat Barack Obama is opposed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said yesterday that "this call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration."

But hey, you do whatever makes YOU feel good, bud.

Ducky M

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:41 PM)

NannyG123 wrote:
But isn't everybody talking about "it?"
Or did you have some other "it" in mind?

How about performing a simple experiment to find out -- even though of course it would involve a rather small sample size?

Could everybody here please state their idea of what the "it" I'm talking about is?

Trebissky

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:01 PM)

And if you really wanta talk about the ELEPHANT in the room, let's talk about THIS ELEPHANT:

Specifically, let's talk about WHY THE STARS ON IT ARE UPSIDE DOWN?

Isn't that supposed to be a SATANICAL SYMBOL?

So why is the Party of the "Religious Right" using it on their LOGO?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??

NannyG123

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31 PM)

Pronoun references left dangling could be anything.
It would be ''ass-you-me''ing to pretend to know what's in another person's head.
That's why I asked.
If Ducky M wants to play games he can be coy.
Or he can engage.
You are presuming to read his mind.
One of my pet peeves is that I accidentally do leave a pronoun hanging out there from time to time.
Another one is when people presume to know what another person (especially a dead one, but anyone) would do today.

SciFiGuy

[-]

(Thu, Jul 17, 2008 8:43 PM)

Ye Board
Taker-Carer-Of'er

Ducky M wrote:

Could everybody here please state their idea of what the "it" I'm talking about is?

I'm afraid I don't know. I'm thinking the "elephant" that everyone is pretending not to see is that the planet is nearly out of oil?

DoctorFederalist

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 6:42 AM)

Resident Doctor
of Philosophy

There can never be "foreign oil independence" since oil is traded on a global market (that we will never control)....

It is also difficult to rationalize new oil leases when the current leases (or rather a large proportion of them) are not being developed now.

I'm in favor of increasing production, but this "them" and "us" approach to energy policy is ridiculous.

Ducky M

The fairy tales got it right...

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 6:50 AM)

SciFiGuy wrote:

I'm thinking the "elephant" that everyone is pretending not to see is that the planet is nearly out of oil?

That's a BIG part of the elephant. If the seven blind men ( or women ) vocally pool together their tactile impressions of the critter, they may yet be able to get around their lack of vision. And be able to pay off the piper before he takes away our future.

Last Edited By: Ducky M Fri, Jul 18, 2008 7:29 AM. Edited 2 times.

Ducky M

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 6:54 AM)

Trebissky wrote:
Specifically, let's talk about WHY THE STARS ON IT ARE UPSIDE DOWN?

This situation will self-correct once the elephant goes belly up, and elephantiasis has become history.
__________________________________________________________

Elephantiasis: the notion that infinite economic growth can be achieved in a finite planet. This disease is at present being actively spread by this prominent victim who is unaware of the gravity of his affliction.

Last Edited By: Ducky M Fri, Jul 18, 2008 7:26 AM. Edited 3 times.

NannyG123

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 7:56 AM)

There's been a theory around since the old Soviets in the 1950's but Oil Companies and OPEC don't really want it to be looked into.
Oil might not be a fossil fuel at all.

The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system - huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

See the book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," by Dr. Thomas Gold.It is available at Amazon
He also says oil seems to be ''organic'' only because, once it rises to a certain point underground bacteria can attack it.
(Some bacterias will eat anything....I knew a microbiologist who got nominated for a Nobel Prize for discovering a microbe that was responsible for ''wing rot'' on airplanes.....his newly discovered microbe ate metal!)

This doesn't mean that there are unlimited inexhaustible amounts of oil under the earth's crust right now, but it does mean that we can find plenty of oil here ..... if we look for it.

Ducky M

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 8:08 AM)

Thomas Gold

Most western geologists and petrologists consider petroleum abiogenic theories implausible and believe the biogenic theory of 'fossil fuel' formation adequately explains all observed hydrocarbon deposits. Most geologists do recognize the geologic carbon cycle includes subducted carbon, which returns to the surface, with studies showing the carbon does rise in various ways. Gold and geology experts point out the biogenic theories do not explain phenomena such as helium in oil fields and oil fields associated with deep geologic features.

However, recent discoveries have shown that bacteria live at depths far greater than previously believed. Whilst this does not prove Gold's theory, it may lend support to its arguments. A thermal depolymerization process which converts animal waste to carbon fuels does show some processes can be done without bacterial action, but does not explain details of natural oil deposits such as magnetite production.

An article on abiogenic hydrocarbon production in the February 2008 issue of Science Magazine reported how the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

Last Edited By: Ducky M Fri, Jul 18, 2008 8:47 AM. Edited 2 times.

Trebissky

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 8:30 PM)

Another one is when people presume to know what another person (especially a dead one, but anyone) would do today.

Yeah, like the whole "Lincoln and the Republicans" thing... or anything about what those long-dead Founding Fathers wanted us to be doing 230 years later... and hey, let's not forget "What Would Jesus Do?"

Trebissky

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 8:42 PM)

There's been a theory around since the old Soviets in the 1950's but Oil Companies and OPEC don't really want it to be looked into.

Oil might not be a fossil fuel at all.

How bad do YOU want to find out for sure?

The thing is, there have been so MANY other energy sources INVENTED... but not DEVELOPED beyond a prototype stage... that if those who now are rolling in PETRODOLLARS really wanted to, they could make just as big a buck from DEVELOPING some or all of the others. But like that elephant up there, nobody wants to even THINK ABOUT the possibility that we just might be about to suck the last of it up out of there. And if all the wells we already DO have dry up, how much is drilling a few hundred new wells where oil MIGHT BE going to help anything?

On the OTHER hand... if or when someone actually does PROVE that oil keeps being produced underground all the time, and is therefore INEXHAUSTIBLE after all... gas prices will go to about 15 cents a gallon and stay there forever.

Yeah. THAT'LL happen.

Last Edited By: Trebissky Fri, Jul 18, 2008 9:03 PM. Edited 1 times.

Trebissky

[-]

(Fri, Jul 18, 2008 9:09 PM)

A thought occurs... one of many things being mentioned on TV News lately, about Afghanistan, is that they're still widely dependent on those ILLEGAL opium poppies for their income.

So, what if instead of growing those, they started growing the type of CORN and other grains that can be used to make BIOFUELS? That'd pull in more dough than heroin, and it'd not only be completely LEGAL, but it'd never run out as long as they had seeds.

And if by some silly fluke, they actually had any left over, they could either eat it themselves or feed their cattle.

Yuku free message boards

Democrats in Congress want to help you spend less on Gasoline

Democrats in Congress want to help you spend less on Gasoline

We're sorry.