3 ways to immediately lower gas prices!

[IEATV8S]

YouTube Video

[a trail rider]

Part of his comments reminded me of an old Billy Joel song... Regarding Congress... "You CAN NOT handle PRESSURE!"

PRESSURE the Congress! They're noticing already, and more than 1 million people have probably signed Newt's petition by now.

Can't see anything he said to NOT agree with.

[The Blob]

Dumping our strategic reserves on the market would be about as smart as a cop not wearing his bulletproof vest because it was hot outside.

[Turbo RX-6]

Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say:
.
Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say
Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.
Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.
Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.
Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets.
"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."
OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD DUMP ONE-HALF OF OUR STRATEGIC OIL RESERVES ON THE OPEN MARKET TO BANKRUPT THE 'OIL SPECULATORS'.
THE OIL SPECULATORS ARE BELIEVED TO BE RESPONSIBLE, IN PART, FOR THE RUN UP IN OIL & GASOLINE PRICES. THE USA CAN WELL AFFORD TO DUMP A LARGE AMOUNT OF ITS STRATEGIC OIL RESERVES ON THE USA MARKET. BECAUSE OIL SPECULATORS ARE "BETTING” THAT OIL PRICES WILL INCREASE, THEY WILL BE FINANCIALLY RUINED BY A SUDDEN GLUT OF OIL ON THE MARKET.
IT WILL ALSO SEND A STRONG SIGNAL TO THE 'OIL SPECULATORS' THAT WE WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO STOP THEIR DESTRUCTIVE PRACTICES. IF THIS DOES NOT WORK WELL ENOUGH, LAWS & REGULATIONS PUTTING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS WILL BE NEXT.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by The Blob

Dumping our strategic reserves on the market would be about as smart as a cop not wearing his bulletproof vest because it was hot outside.

If all was, you're probably correct. But that's not what he suggested. One third would be a massive amount. One half could overcome speculation in short order, and send prices plummeting down. It isn't like we couldn't, or wouldn't re-supply those reserves in the future. And at much lower prices, it wouldn't take as much money to do either.

If a cop had reason to believe not wearing the vest might save both his job and his life, he may well elect to leave it at home. Not that he does have that reason, but we do have that reason with our massive strategic reserves.

[V8Assassin]

McCain needs to jump on this now! The energy debate, I believe, will dictate the outcome of the election. We need to get a comprehensive package out there and put the dems on the ropes with it. Most of the country wants to drill, but also expects a comprehensive package which includes nuclear, solar, wind, and alt fuels. This should be at the forefront of McCains strategy moving forward.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

McCain needs to jump on this now! The energy debate, I believe, will dictate the outcome of the election. We need to get a comprehensive package out there and put the dems on the ropes with it. Most of the country wants to drill, but also expects a comprehensive package which includes nuclear, solar, wind, and alt fuels. This should be at the forefront of McCains strategy moving forward.

He should. Clearly he's a leg up on his competition, considering Obama is against basically all that reasonable stuff.

[V8Assassin]

Originally Posted by a trail rider

He should. Clearly he's a leg up on his competition, considering Obama is against basically all that reasonable stuff.

Time to be bold and make this the issue. He can not only distance himself from Bush, but also reinforce the the reality that the only does b. hussein not have a clear plan other than taxing oil companies but simply does not have the experience to lead this country to energy independence. It will also serve to stengthen the fact the Nobama has waivering values when the eventual flip flop over nuclear and drilling happens, and it will because there is no possible way to make a comprehensive plan that does not include hydocarbons and nuclear.

[Squeelr]

Boy...you think you guys would have already learned from these liars by now.

And this advertisment was brought to you by big oil.

Did you see who the video was from at the end of the clip?

Drilling now will not do a damn thing for the prices of oil. Stopping Wall street from manipulating prices, just like they did with the subprime market will cease this B.S. tomorrow.

Oh but wait. The Conservatives are so into a "free-market", they'd sell their own souls to the devil to make a buck. Regardless of any ill effects on their country, their economy, their environment.

And the nuclear option!? Ha! As soon as (I left my wife with Cancer for another woman) Newt Gingrich (you know? One of those "moral" conservatives ) chooses to put some of those spent fuel rods in his backyard, I'll sign up for more nuclear power plants.

"Conservatives" my ass.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Squeelr

Boy...you think you guys would have already learned from these liars by now.

And this advertisment was brought to you by big oil.

Did you see who the video was from at the end of the clip?

Drilling now will not do a damn thing for the prices of oil. Stopping Wall street from manipulating prices, just like they did with the subprime market will cease this B.S. tomorrow.

Oh but wait. The Conservatives are so into a "free-market", they'd sell their own souls to the devil to make a buck. Regardless of any ill effects on their country, their economy, their environment.

And the nuclear option!? Ha! As soon as (I left my wife with Cancer for another woman) Newt Gingrich (you know? One of those "moral" conservatives ) chooses to put some of those spent fuel rods in his backyard, I'll sign up for more nuclear power plants.

"Conservatives" my ass.

Even a CNN poll shows you, your are WRONG! But hey, don't let this fact stop your ranting!

BTW, I used a LeFTIST site, CNN, others have it at a much higher rate!

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll: Majority of Americans favor oil drilling in off-limits areas « - Blogs from CNN.com

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by Squeelr

Boy...you think you guys would have already learned from these liars by now.

And this advertisment was brought to you by big oil.

Did you see who the video was from at the end of the clip?

Drilling now will not do a damn thing for the prices of oil. Stopping Wall street from manipulating prices, just like they did with the subprime market will cease this B.S. tomorrow.

Oh but wait. The Conservatives are so into a "free-market", they'd sell their own souls to the devil to make a buck. Regardless of any ill effects on their country, their economy, their environment.

And the nuclear option!? Ha! As soon as (I left my wife with Cancer for another woman) Newt Gingrich (you know? One of those "moral" conservatives ) chooses to put some of those spent fuel rods in his backyard, I'll sign up for more nuclear power plants.

"Conservatives" my ass.

Brought to us by big oil... And nuclear power, and the coal industry, and wind and solar sources. But it isn't being brought by Democrats! They just want higher taxes and more "gimmes" for the lazy.

Drilling now can do massively lower the price of oil. If we started releasing American oil into the market, OPEC would instantly consider the sales drop ahead, and lower prices. Because THEY TOO, see the supply and demand issue.

And drilling and selling American oil will cause speculators issues too, as they see more supply available, which always lowers cost. That, regardless the type of society, but more in capitalist nations.

Your remark about conservatives in general simply doesn't make any sense. Just look at it... They'd sell their soul to the devil to make a buck... Then why would they want to flood the market with US oil? Clearly they BELIEVE that would lower the price of oil, causing a lower profit for most of them immediately. And those lower prices would HELP the economy and WON'T hurt the environment according to any and all actual studies, unless there's an accident... Those happen worldwide, incase you didn't know. If their are "ill effects" involved, ask yourself where those are lessened by someone other than Americans, supplying oil?

You've GOT to be an idiot to brush off nuclear power due to fuel rods... There's no other conclusion known to mankind. We've been storing spent rods for decades and never had a recorded problem with the public at large.

We haven't had a "major" issue since 1979 in a single nuclear power plant within America and even then, NOBODY was actually injured. Not even people inside the plant! Meanwhile, nuclear plants provide clean, quiet, efficient electricity to about 20% of our needs.

And other countries, like France, use it for more like 85% of their electricity... Without issue.

We get all the "ingredients" for nuclear reactors from earth... Where should we put these things when its use is spent... EARTH! Nobody needs it in their backyard and nobody will... ever. That's another liberal, nonsensicle argument ONLY meant to frighten the uneducated... and it obviously works.

[Weester]

"You've GOT to be an idiot to brush off nuclear power due to fuel rods... There's no other conclusion known to mankind. We've been storing spent rods for decades and never had a recorded problem with the public at large. "

France gets 75% of its energy from nukes!!!! Take a look at their saftey records!!!!

FYI,

Those spent rods can be RE-USED to produce CHEAP HYDROGEN!!!!


BUILD MORE NUKES!!!!!

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by Weester

"You've GOT to be an idiot to brush off nuclear power due to fuel rods... There's no other conclusion known to mankind. We've been storing spent rods for decades and never had a recorded problem with the public at large. "

France gets 75% of its energy from nukes!!!! Take a look at their saftey records!!!!

FYI,

Those spent rods can be RE-USED to produce CHEAP HYDROGEN!!!!


BUILD MORE NUKES!!!!!

So you're agreeing with me on this? Heh... So rare I have to ask. I guess I was off though, saying about 85%...

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by a trail rider

If all was, you're probably correct. But that's not what he suggested. One third would be a massive amount. One half could overcome speculation in short order, and send prices plummeting down. It isn't like we couldn't, or wouldn't re-supply those reserves in the future. And at much lower prices, it wouldn't take as much money to do either.

If a cop had reason to believe not wearing the vest might save both his job and his life, he may well elect to leave it at home. Not that he does have that reason, but we do have that reason with our massive strategic reserves.

We have what reason to sell our strategic reserves... so Muffy and Biff can afford to drive their Sequoia without cutting into their dining out budget? So Chad and Jennifer's kid won't be embarassed that Mommy isn't dropping her off at gymnastics in the Navigator anymore? So that Billy Ray... who thinks it is his natural born right to drive a big-by-God-truck... can keep his F-250 on the road?

Give me a break.

Google 'Strategic Petroleum Reserves' and see what they are there for. It's not that.

A big reason for the price of fuel being what it is is that WE USE TOO DAMN MUCH OF IT.

Here's an excellent way to deal with the high cost of gasoline... and this is something I am doing myself... USE LESS.

And if anyone chooses to do otherwise, that's fine. Just STFU about what it costs because, like I said, you're part of the problem.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by The Blob

We have what reason to sell our strategic reserves... so Muffy and Biff can afford to drive their Sequoia without cutting into their dining out budget? So Chad and Jennifer's kid won't be embarassed that Mommy isn't dropping her off at gymnastics in the Navigator anymore? So that Billy Ray... who thinks it is his natural born right to drive a big-by-God-truck... can keep his F-250 on the road?

Give me a break.

Google 'Strategic Petroleum Reserves' and see what they are there for. It's not that.

A big reason for the price of fuel being what it is is that WE USE TOO DAMN MUCH OF IT.

Here's an excellent way to deal with the high cost of gasoline... and this is something I am doing myself... USE LESS.

And if anyone chooses to do otherwise, that's fine. Just STFU about what it costs because, like I said, you're part of the problem.

How about so "Joe employee" can afford to take his ass to work 5-7 days a week? Isn't that a good reason? Keeping our economy going is all the reason we need. THAT is pretty strategic, don't you think?

Or how about the fact, we already own it so we should be able to choose when we use it too.

Or maybe the fact, this nation DEPENDS on millions of big trucks on our roads to deliver EVERYTHING we don't make locally? And those big trucks can't get better than about 8mpg, so they need fuel they can AFFORD to purchase. How easy do you think it is for a semi driver to simply use less? Hadn't thought about that in the least, had you? Well I sure do, because I drive those trucks and I know what it's like to see a $1300.00 fill up! I also operate heavy equipment, but haven't seen any run without fossil fuels yet.

Without an ease in fuel prices, your bank account will suffer far more than just at the pump. It will suffer each time YOU want to eat out too, or simply when you go get groceries at the local store, or buy a new pair of tennies so you can walk somewhere comfortably. None of which you'd be doing if not for semi tractors delivering the goods you devour all year, every year.

When you googled that SPR, did you notice when it was setup? That would be 1975, after we were cut off from oil out of the OPEC nations area. And using it now would only be temporary, and those reserves would be replenished once we get our own supply lines back on par.

We're working on doing everthing... But right now we need to use what we have, not what we hope to see later. We can almost all cut back a bit, but that isn't going to truly help, and it won't lower prices a penny at the pump. We know this because it's been tried countless times with no good effect to date.

So if you REALLY want that break, consider you're not the only one who may suffer here. We're looking at job losses instead of gains, which could be had if only we open more of our own resources to public use. We're looking at a full depression if prices aren't brought under control, soon. If a company has to choose between layoffs or shutting down their operations, layoffs always come first. I've had to make that choice as well, and it isn't fun.

It's not about just being able to drive what one WANTS to drive, but there is something to be said here too... If they never built them, we wouldn't see so many on the roads. If our government really gave a ratsass about the problem, we'd all be driving more economical vehicles by now, including those big pickup trucks. Not only that, but we'd have less expensive fuel to boot, and not by governmental control, but by sound judgement. But the fact is, they really don't care, so long as we keep paying.

[henschman]

i agree with Newt on getting rid of the idiotic laws against free exploration for petroleum... enough has been said about this. but i disagree with the "loose the reserves to punish speculators" and sort of disagree with "encourage alternative energy," and i'll tell you why.

as for speculators, i hate it when the government targets a certain group of people (who aren't violating anyone's rights) with special discriminatory laws just because that group isn't popular with a lot of the public. It's a popular vote-buying strategy, but it isn't right. people have a right to trade in any commodity whatsoever, as long as there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. Nobody has a right to purchase a certain good for a certain price, like people act as if they have with regard to gasoline. in a free country, the price of goods is fixed by market forces, including commodity traders. Newt's idea on this is just another instance of the government trying to fight the inevitable forces of the market, because they don't like the direction they are headed. Anyway, we need our reserves in case of a real war. Our military is already stretched very thin with our presence in 130 countries and major conflicts in two. if somebody actually seriously attacked or threatened us, we would be screwed enough without a possible gas shortage that was caused by some politician's envy at peaceful commodity traders just trying to make a living through voluntary exchange.

admit it -- you people who are for outlawing or punishing commodity traders are just mad/envious because they are making money and you aren't, so you want the government to go out and "even the playing field" a little in your favor (and to hell with their liberty and property rights). it's the "soak the rich" policies from the 1930s all over again.

actually, this happens every time we go through tough economic times -- somebody tries to loot somebody else through the power of the state. it's just human nature -- our innate instinct to better ourselves, even at the expense of others. however, placing a check on that instinct to the extent that it violates the rights of others is the reason we have governments! unfortunately, the government ends up being an agent of the destruction of people's rights all to often, rather than the gurantor and protector of them (especially when it's the rights of a small, unpopular minority).

as for alternative energy, i say that i am against the government promoting it, but i only mean "active" promotion. there actually is a way they should be promoting technological advancement, and it is a wholly passive one -- get out of the way and let people invent whatever they think will make them money, without burdensome regulations or subsidies to whatever types of technology those "genius" central planners think are the best.

In the end, the solution to oil dependence will come naturally through the free market, if we let it. Due to the scarcity of the resource and the rapidly-escalating demand for it, oil will continue to rise in price naturally. As it does, the demand for a cheaper replacement will rise. As the demand for something rises, more and more people will look for a way to meet it (and make money). no one can say which form of alternative energy (or which combination of energy forms) will eventually be found to be the best and catch on -- which is why it is idiotic for the arrogant central planner bureaucrats in Washington to sit there and think they know what industries should be subsidized and in what amounts/proportions. it is well-known that if you subsidize one thing, you harm its competitors. by subsidizing ethanol production, the government might be dooming an alternate technology that could have been much more promising, or delaying the development of ethanol production technology by artificially keeping it more economical than gasoline (maybe with some advances, it would be cheaper to produce than gasoline without any subsidies?).

Like with most things, the the government screws things up more than it helps when it gets involved with scientific research and economics. Just keep them out, and we will be fine. also, we will be obeying our Constitution, which doesn't give the federal government any power to promote technological advancement (other than by issuing patents).