President Bush and Gasoline...

Both teams play the same strategy when it suits their agenda!

If Bush had done it then, he wouldnt be able to do it now, when prices are well over a dollar higher.

should be a good circus

have raised rapidly in the past few years with a quantifiable result of more people starting to quit.

If we raise taxes on fuel maybe that would provide the impetus for transportation systems and energy grids to become more efficient since the recent energy bill has done nothing but help raise energy profits? After all necessity is a Mother Fu... uh... how does that saying go again?

grim

So then why complain?

Why are the Democrats complaining? It has nothing to do with gas proices and everything to do with bashiung Bush. Period.

Bush is pandering in this instance to gain approval points and garner votes this fall... if this statement is Bush Bashing then so be it. Why is the truth considered bashing?

I've grown tired of the old saw about Bush Bashing... it's a nonsensical comment designed to put people who disagree with Bush on the defensive. I disagree with Bush on many issues. I'm sure I will disagree with the next president on many issue as well (even if they are Democrat).

As far as being "ON RECORD"... I was speculating. Was this not an interesting thing to consider? People often won't change their daily behaviors without being forced to. Isn't this very fact the reason why the evangelical conservatives in this country are so obsessed with getting like-minded judges on the SCOTUS? What's your point?

As far as complaining... where on this thread did I complain about gas prices?

The Democrats are demogoguing this to the HILT, and blaming Bush even though they KNOW it isn't his fault (and it's more theirs actually). That's Bush Bashing. Tough if you don't like the term; it fits like a glove.

Higher cigarette taxes lead to higher cigarette prices and lower use of cigarettes; higher gas taxes lead to....

You as much as said that you were in favor of gas taxes, thus higher gas prices. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Can't take it back now.

Don't be silly. You have complained about high gas prices often enough. "on this thread". Are you going for a Clinton award?

People often won't change their daily behaviors without being forced to. Yes. That's what I am afraid of.

''(and it's more theirs actually)'' Gas prices are the fault of democrats? - a cheap generalization, back it up... and don't worry, it won't hurt my feelings if you do demonstrate that gas prices are the fault of democrats, but I get the strong smell of ''hyperbole'' from this statement.

Bush Bashing... it's a cliche, it's tired, it's so yesterday, it's so Paris Hilton. Use it all you want, your just wearing out your keyboard

''If we raise taxes on fuel maybe that would provide the impetus for transportation systems and energy grids to become more efficient, since the recent energy bill has done nothing but help raise energy profits?''... sounds like speculation to me. Now if I had said ''we SHOULD raise taxes to FORCE change'' then you would have some ground to stand on. Weren't you harping about accuracy to me on another thread?

''You have complained about high gas prices often enough''... I've asked about gas prices and suggested possible ways of increasing fuel efficiencies in the future which, BTW, you have always taken exception to. I don't recall any vigorous or repetitive ''complaining'' however, as you seem to be implying. How often is ''often enough'' by the way? Is it twice... three or four times? You couldn't help me out here by siting all these posts could you? No... don't bother. You will be much too busy trying to prove that gas prices are the democrats fault.

Democrats have consistently resisted Alaskan drilling, nuclear power and many other things that would have kept energy prices down. Yet they try to blame Bush. In other words they BUSH BASH!

Spin it however you want.

What hits me right between the eyes is the idea that his Democtatic solution to high gass prices is to raise the taxes on it, making it cost more. No thanks, I'll not spend my vote on a party that proposes raising my taxes and taking food off my table.

is you all think if you keep saying that I said to raise taxes that somehow it will suddenly become true.

What did you guys spike your coffee with this morning?

would have kept energy prices down

You're dreaming.

As long as the US is importing more than half of it's oil , oil prices are out US control.

All the US can control is the amount of tax they collect.

maybe not a lot, but enough to notice. And having another domestic source would also put the damper on speculation somewhat.

So, IMHO you are incorrect.

Also, more nuclear would take the pressure off somewhat.

any additional demand from China, India or trouble with oil producing countries will increase speculation.

Opening up ANWAR will have little influence.

Oil traders are nervous about a variety of political tensions rattling oil-producing countries, such as the West's nuclear standoff with Iran, violence in Nigeria and moves toward greater nationalization of natural resources in Venezuela.
Refineries ran at 88.2 per cent of their capacity, up two per cent from a week ago, while crude-oil imports rose by 199,000 barrels a day to 9.86 million barrels a day.

Lets try and see.

this time I am. Congress could quickly and easily reduce or eliminate the 40% tax the levied on gas rather than have EVERYONE continue the perpetual complaint about the oil company profits when the oil companies get 9%.

My state is among many (I'm sure) that adds large additional taxes to the price of gasoline.

Increasing the CAFE burden would have the effect of damaging the US auto industry, possibly killing it. It would do little or nothing to lower gas prices in the short term and maybe raise them in the long term.

Oh, Global Warming is going to destroy theh Arctic Wildlife environment (bull)? Then buy all means drill away.

is damaged anyway! It's been trying to kill itself off for years with ill considered design philosophies and a total lack of future vision. It's gone for the quick buck after every dodged bullet rather than invest in the future.

Free market philosophy... it's time for one or more of the major US auto companies to die off. Don't want to see it happen but if that is what it takes...

''Oh, Global Warming is going to destroy theh Arctic Wildlife environment (bull)? Then buy all means drill away.'' (sic)... are you saying if something is partially damaged then let us just go ahead and destroy it?

He's the one who said it was moot anyway. I know better; that the tiny bit of drilling would have almost NO impact on that environment.

So, no, that's not at all what I am saying.

I the same post you say:

The US auto industry is damaged anyway! It's been trying to kill itself off for years with ill considered design philosophies and a total lack of future vision. It's gone for the quick buck after every dodged bullet rather than invest in the future.

Npot quite accurate, but never mind, for you go on to say (referring to Alaska):

are you saying if something is partially damaged then let us just go ahead and destroy it?

Also not true, but which is it? Okay to destroy one but not the other?

Are you in favor of hurting the auto industry (and all its workers) AND the oil industry (and all its workers)? 'Cause that seems to be the liberal agenda.

in favor of a free market economy and all it implies?

All the "workers" are just another capital investment to be used as the company sees fit. After all, the conservative agenda would have it that labor unions impede production cost and thus market efficiency of any business - particularly the auto industry as displayed by the recent restructuring of corporate interests and the threat of reduction or total removal of retiree benefits now that they aren't as affordable as they were 25 years ago.

Market share goes down... you have to make up costs somewhere... layoffs have been the most popular for years when you needed to increase the bottom line. Suddenly your suggesting they are sacred? Or just the companies they work for?

I heard a recent quote from a chinese business man about their burgeoning economy. "you can't plant something new without plowing under the old"

"Are you in favor of hurting the auto industry (and all its workers) AND the oil industry (and all its workers)?"... If they can't compete then why should they survive?

Hurting the Auto industry is NOT part of the free market.

Do you deny that unions have also hurt the Auto industry???

If they can't compete then why should they survive?
Why hobble them further? Maybe one reason they can't compete is GOVERNMENT??? Hmmmm?

Interesting you say that when the fed is the reason why Chrysler still exists today.

By the way... why do you hate fuel efficient vehicles? You got stock in Exxon?

That is totally ridiculous. What did YOU put in your coffee this morning? Jeeeeezzz!!!