It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Democrats vote NO to lower gas prices

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by dgtempe

Very true stuff like this is nothing more then a trick to deceive those who still cant see that both parties are two sides to the same coin hoping to distract us all from the larger picture...

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:26 PM
Point I've made recently...

Forty years ago, computers were huge machines that covered rooms, required large amounts of electricity, and were slow. Today, my laptop has more computing power and memory space than all of them put together. And, it runs on a rechargable battery.

Forty years ago, I could get around 25 mpg for a standard car that I could fix myseld. Today, I get around 25 mpg for a standard car that I need a mechanic just to change the oil.

How come one technology grows exponetially, while the other stagnates and becomes more complex?

Note to passenger...the flux-capacitor was used for time travel. Doc used "Mr. Fusion" to power the car.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by harvib
I think it's pretty obvious. Continue to pretend like it's a partsian issue and that there is low supply and thereby justify soaring gas prices...

So if it's not low supply what is it?

If it's not a partisan issue, what is it?

I still haven't heard an explanation that makes sense regarding why we shouldn't drill offshore.

It meshes perfectly with their global warming agenda my friend. Why do you think the price of oil and gas left the launch pad just as Gore was out of a job?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:37 PM
Ya alternatives are coming but when, Ya we need oil for dang near everything(every piece of plastic) but when to stop. Here is my question, If we can synthesize human cells and DNA now, Why cant we synthesize oil, gas, plastics, things of that sort??? If we can dang near create a living breathing being ( which is pretty complex IMO) Why cant we create what we need instead of draining the earth of its resources???


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by S1LV3R4D0

Well said! I wish everyone was able to take a step back from these polarized debates and realize we don't have to decide on choice A or choice B. We can demand a choice C, D, E, etc. I hope people will learn to expect more from their leaders then mediocrity.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:07 PM
Is it something to do with that when USA finally has tread on everyones toes and they don't sell them gas they want as much as possible in their own backyard...?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:35 PM
here is a thread I did months ago that died flat. It's ok, but it shows my opinion either way..

Oil Companies; Political Patsies or Greedy Fat-cats?

I have recently noticed the building anger towards the oil companies and their ridiculous profits...

Well this got me thinking, and bear with me, because I believe this is my first researched thread, and I want to get my point across.

Americans use a huge amount of gas every day....

it shows that the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day. If you look at the statistics on a page like this one, you find that a barrel of oil (which contains 42 gallons or 159 liters) will yield something like 19 or 20 gallons (75 liters) of gasoline, depending on the refinery. Therefore, in the United States, something like 400 million gallons (1.51 billion liters) of gasoline gets consumed every day.

And profits for the last quarter were 11 Billion for one company alone.(EXXON MOBIL)
In total, there were over 120 BILLION dollars in profit by oil companies last year. So why am I calling the oil companies "Patsies"?
For one, Exxon paid over 40% of it's profits to taxes. They were the largest payers of taxes in U.S. history.

If you were to do the math, the oil companies make less than 1 dollar per gallon of gas, being as I cannot get the figures for overseas fuel sales by these American Companies. So not to be liberal with the math or anything, but how much profit should be taken from the very corporations who we all have stock in?

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

By comparison, grocery stores RAKE in the profits on a Gallon of milk, and yet there is no uproar at the direct gouging done by those camps...

At one point in 2003, the profits that retailers earned for everygallon of milk equaled the wholesale amount farmers were paid
per gallon, Cotterill said in a report he issued on milk prices last year.

So what is my point? The company that pays more taxes than the lower half of wage earners combined, is also contributing 90% of it's profits to the various mutual funds that we all own, and has raised prices 25% when costs have risen 120% for it's product.

Read the data, and if you compensate for current prices for crude, you will see that there really should be MUCH HIGHER prices for fuel right now. If it was not for our low gas taxes, there would be much more to complain about.

So what's the conspiracy? Are we deliberately being maligned so that we begin to loathe the middle east and seek some war "spoils"? With ethanol costing more than twice the cost of regular fuel, (it takes a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of ethanol) and considering it uses the same amount of corn per gallon that a human eats in an ENTIRE year, are we being pushed to create the conditions for a complete destruction of the oil producing nations, and a famine for the rest of the world that we don't want to support anymore?
I am not rich, actually fairly poor, and I drive a gas guzzler, so please avoid the bias argument. Thanks, and please be gentle.

Sorry, figured it to be way relevant... Jason

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:20 PM
Off topic

Moderator, where did you get that beautiful dog? Colorado?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Took the words outa my mouth.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:15 PM
Why does everyone keep saying that both parties are the same?

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed


91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Clearly, they are not.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by sos37

Well, considering that all the locations we could drill for oil within our boundaries of our own coast lines is located right on a major fault line, the logic behind voting no to spend billions to construct the equipment needed in the right place would be something like this: "Hey, if there's an earthquake on that major fault line we'd lose billions of dollars for nothing." So, if you're all about throwing away billions of dollars, then by all means, go right ahead. But, please don't use MY tax money to do it.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by sos37
I'd like to hear the Democrats and Liberals explain this one away.

Am I the only one that saw this?

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., dismissed the need for oil explanation, speaking with FOX News Wednesday.

"There are 68 million acres right now that is available for exploration right now that the oil companies have — an area the size of Illinois and Georgia. We ought to be focusing on doing that," Blumenauer said, adding that a legal gap he referred to as the "Enron loophole" exempts energy trading from oversight of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

I would have expected Fox to leave that part out. Whoops.

Originally posted by passenger
Oil companies make about $.08 (eight cents) per gallon in profit. The Federal Government takes $.184 (eighteen point four) cents per gallon. Who’s making a bigger profit off the sale of gas? Why doesn’t the government cut back a little. It might not be $.50 (fifty cents) per gallon, but it’s a start.

If this were true, then certainly the democrats would allow more drilling for more revenue, No? Oh, I get it. The "government" is a different entity than the democrats.

This whole attempt at blaming the democrats for the price of gas is ridiculous. The price is going up because demand is going up, namely from China. But every cloud has a silver lining. Amazingly, I see my fellow Americans are now starting to conserve and doing what we should have all along. In a way, I think this has been good for us.

edit to add: Also forgot to mention the price of gas is also going up due to the weakening dollar, as well as higher demand from China.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by Hal9000]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:48 PM
reply to post by Boone 870

My friend, while you watch your team vs. the other team play it out the guys in the sky box are robbing us blind.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:51 PM
Obviously the democrats vote no to lower gas prices its the BS liberal policies that are the reason gas is 4 change a gallon. and yet they wanna tell me to ride a damn bike and lower the heat in my house but then al gore uses more fuel in a month then i do in a year.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS So, if you're all about throwing away billions of dollars, then by all means, go right ahead. But, please don't use MY tax money to do it.

This is America, not a a communist state. Oil companies spend their profits to drill for oil. They don't use your tax money.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:28 AM
The oil companies ARE NOT the problem. I wish Americans could stop biting the hand that feeds them. Record breaking profits = record breaking taxes paid.

Since when is it a bad thing, in America, for a company to make profits? Lots of profits IS the American Dream. Don't we all secretly hope to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs??? No one is screaming about Apple's record breaking profit margin... or the monopoly of the Windows operating system... nor have they ever.

The oil companies aren't breaking any laws, in fact, they actually WANT to drill and refine more oil... it's lobbyists and court battles which are preventing them from doing so and helping the Americans.

Americans can't blame the oil companies for prices they don't control. Besides, check into your own 401K program, I can almost bet there is oil stock in that puppy... American's are profiting, too.

Alternative energy is the answer, yes, but to use your analogy... in a society that knows nothing but apples, it's going to take time to switch to oranges. It can (and will) happen. The BEST solution is to plant more of BOTH trees. As my momma always told me, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Even if we completely changed our energy to renewable, we STILL need crude oil for many other products that we use every single day. Switching completely, is the goal... and THAT is a long term goal.

What are we supposed to do in the meantime?

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:45 AM
In my personal opinion, if the goal is for us to become energy independent and to lower the cost of gas, then we need to begin more agressively exploiting the Bakken formation.

Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.

USGS Source

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

so then is this why thousands of permits have been granted to drill off shore?

- More Drilling: Domestic drilling has not led to lower prices. Since 2000, drilling has increased dramatically – climbing about 66 percent– while gas prices continue to increase. and gas companies have shown that they cannot keep pace with the rate of drilling permits that the federal government is handing out – over the past 4 years they have received and are sitting on nearly 10,000 permits that they aren’t using to increase domestic production. Since 1999, drilling permits for oil and gas development on public lands increased more than 361 percent.

Tens of thousands indeed, but no drilling! Hello! You have oil executives in the white house, and Bush cronies (oil executives) staffing the federal agencies...if you buy and tow the Republican line, you have been lied to! Yet you people continue to defend the Republicans...what the hell for?

[edit on 13-6-2008 by skyshow]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by skyshow

Drilling permits do not equal oil.

Oil found does not always mean available.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:29 AM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

finally we agree on something...of course it doesn't mean more oil. Are you finally seeing it here? The conspiracy is "they don't want more oil on the market"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ding ding ding!!!!

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in