Originally Posted by RichieLion

...Our military actions adds $2.00 a gallon to the price of gas? You've got to stop devouring all the propaganda from the anti-oil activist web-sites which are the only sites I could find that state this subjective and unsubstantiated statistic....

Richie, I haven't visited or read even one "anti-oil activist website". Not one!

As far as the substantiation of the numbers are concerned, all I did was take the actual expenditures for the wars in the Middle East, as published by the Government Accounting Office. No propaganda there whatever. The $2.00 per gallon estimate was mine, no one elses! Go read my other post here ("Should We Permit The Free Market To Work?") and see how I calculated the $2.00 per gallon government subsidy. Please note that the government's subsidy of the price of gas we pay at the pump isn't even being paid for indirectly by the American public. We borrow all that money, mostly from China! (Do you want me to get into the discussion of how China benefits from the blood and treasure we spend to protect the flow of oil at no cost to them whatsoever!)

It seems to me that if you are so honked off about the electric car rebate program, you ought to be really mad about the amount of our money our government spends to support the foreign countries who want to continue to sell us oil and the oil companies who want to buy it instead of drilling for it.

The amount of the electric car rebate program is less than piddly by comparison. As an example, the entire electric car rebate program will cost less than what our government has spent in the last six days supporting the anti-Khaddafi insurgents in Libya!

Do you have an answer perchance why, after thirty years of Khaddafi brutally and dictatorily ruling Libya, that we suddenly decided to attack the Libyan government? If you come up with any other reason other than oil, I'll be surprised.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

If you're right about that, we don't need this rebate program. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

It they're good products that people want, they'll sell themselves.

So if oil companies are making billions, why give them tax breaks?

Why did GE pay no taxes on $14.2B in profits?

Seriously, you *must* be able to see a "chicken / egg" situation when it comes to electric and extended-range electric cars. Batteries cost a metric buttload of money - though far less than in the past.

Now, I make a decent living. I'm paying $250/mo on the loan on my Camry and that goes away later this year. I pay between $175-$225/mo in gas at current prices (depending on how much non-commuting I do). I *want* to put my money where my mouth is. But, quite frankly, it's going to take an amount of "ignoring the bottom line" to take on a $400/mo car payment to save $100+/mo - to say nothing of the fact that I have other obligations that could use being paid down faster to the tune of $250/mo.

Anything that reduces our reliance on foreign oil is A Good Thing since it's good for jobs, good for the trade imbalance, good for our strategic interests and good for security. That's not to say to do things at ALL costs but there's more to be concerned about here than just the Almighty Dollar Bottom Line.

Originally Posted by djplong

So if oil companies are making billions, why give them tax breaks?

Why did GE pay no taxes on $14.2B in profits?

Seriously, you *must* be able to see a "chicken / egg" situation when it comes to electric and extended-range electric cars. Batteries cost a metric buttload of money - though far less than in the past.

Now, I make a decent living. I'm paying $250/mo on the loan on my Camry and that goes away later this year. I pay between $175-$225/mo in gas at current prices (depending on how much non-commuting I do). I *want* to put my money where my mouth is. But, quite frankly, it's going to take an amount of "ignoring the bottom line" to take on a $400/mo car payment to save $100+/mo - to say nothing of the fact that I have other obligations that could use being paid down faster to the tune of $250/mo.

Anything that reduces our reliance on foreign oil is A Good Thing since it's good for jobs, good for the trade imbalance, good for our strategic interests and good for security. That's not to say to do things at ALL costs but there's more to be concerned about here than just the Almighty Dollar Bottom Line.

My post was really just my humor in kind of catching you in a "gotcha" moment and I couldn't resist. We're not going to agree on this, I know.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Richie, I haven't visited or read even one "anti-oil activist website". Not one!

As far as the substantiation of the numbers are concerned, all I did was take the actual expenditures for the wars in the Middle East, as published by the Government Accounting Office. No propaganda there whatever. The $2.00 per gallon estimate was mine, no one elses! Go read my other post here ("Should We Permit The Free Market To Work?") and see how I calculated the $2.00 per gallon government subsidy. Please note that the government's subsidy of the price of gas we pay at the pump isn't even being paid for indirectly by the American public. We borrow all that money, mostly from China! (Do you want me to get into the discussion of how China benefits from the blood and treasure we spend to protect the flow of oil at no cost to them whatsoever!)

It seems to me that if you are so honked off about the electric car rebate program, you ought to be really mad about the amount of our money our government spends to support the foreign countries who want to continue to sell us oil and the oil companies who want to buy it instead of drilling for it.

The amount of the electric car rebate program is less than piddly by comparison. As an example, the entire electric car rebate program will cost less than what our government has spent in the last six days supporting the anti-Khaddafi insurgents in Libya!

Do you have an answer perchance why, after thirty years of Khaddafi brutally and dictatorily ruling Libya, that we suddenly decided to attack the Libyan government? If you come up with any other reason other than oil, I'll be surprised.

Here is the only site I could find that had your numbers. I'll probably regret sending this to you (only kidding), but here it is.

http://www.endoil.org/site/c.ddJGKNN...Real_Price.htm

We import almost no oil from Libya and so I'm not sure why Obama decided to misuse our military capacity there. Libya supply's only about 2% of the world's oil, and that mainly goes to Europe (which is probably why Obama now says he handing off control to NATO, which we fund, of course, and are the predominant player) We get our N.Africa oil from Algeria mainly.

So, I would have to say that since we virtually buy no oil from Libya, the cost of that conflict has little bearing on the price of the oil. (just thinking logically)

I find nothing piddly in all of this crazy federal spending and this taxpayer funded "green car" rebate scam is just one more example of this ludicrous spending in my opinion.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Here is the only site I could find that had your numbers. I'll probably regret sending this to you (only kidding), but here it is.

http://www.endoil.org/site/c.ddJGKNN...Real_Price.htm
...

That article makes exactly the point I was making, although I'm not sure I'd buy into all of their numbers. I think they included all expenditures on defense where I assumed that we'd still spend about half of what we do now, even if we weren't fighting wars in the Middle East. But the principle of the article is the point I was making. Our government is subsidizing the tue price of the gasoline we consume in a very big way. The spending is very real, but it is "hidden" in a way most people--even the most fiscally conservative--don't associate the spending with the subsidization of an industry or a product. The end result is that the manipulation of the supply-demand curve to continue to make gasoline the most desired fuel for consumers and very, very profitable for the big oil companies. If consumers were to pay the actual cost of gas, the law of supply and demand would quickly result in the development of alternative fuels. That would be a good thing, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

That article makes exactly the point I was making, although I'm not sure I'd buy into all of their numbers. I think they included all expenditures on defense where I assumed that we'd still spend about half of what we do now, even if we weren't fighting wars in the Middle East. But the principle of the article is the point I was making. Our government is subsidizing the tue price of the gasoline we consume in a very big way. The spending is very real, but it is "hidden" in a way most people--even the most fiscally conservative--don't associate the spending with the subsidization of an industry or a product. The end result is that the manipulation of the supply-demand curve to continue to make gasoline the most desired fuel for consumers and very, very profitable for the big oil companies. If consumers were to pay the actual cost of gas, the law of supply and demand would quickly result in the development of alternative fuels. That would be a good thing, in my opinion.

Quickly, how quickly?; Right now there is no technology on the horizon that can replace oil and coal, and even nuclear, in the production of energy required to power humankind's needs in the quantity required or costs involved.

At present we would have to "devolve" our way of life to meet some utopian crackpot idea of a "greener life". I'm not fond of this idea.

I agree we should be looking at alternative sources of energy. I've often wondered why geo-thermal plants aren't looked at with more interest and investment, as it is a localized almost limitless source of energy. I can only surmise that the costs don't justify the expense for the amount of power attained, or someone would be trying to make a buck.

Geothermal DOES work. Heck, Iceland is practically RUNNING on it.

The basic problem is that every single "new" technology can be thwarted by a sudden dip in oil prices. They all, universally, take a lot of capital up front and depend on the price of oil styaing relatively higher in order to justify the investment in time and capital.

So, some Saudi sheik turns up the spigots a bit, the prices fall and investors scurry back, afraid to make long-term expensive energy commitments.

Or a graduated sur tax based on the average miles per gallon your vehicle gets?
15 mpg and below to pay hefty annual sur charge.....35 and above to pay little or nothing. That would severly change what the buying public would demand from the car makers.
There should be some kind of penalty for owning and driving a gas hog. To the rich it won't matter. To those who need to be in a gas hog for what ever reason...let them pay.

Just note what kinds of engines are in the cars of the buying public in Europe...mostly 4 cylinders...price of gas these days approaching the equivilent of $10 per gallon.

As long as it remains a political issue with no plan to do anything about it the only result will be even more dependence of foreign oil...we managed to double our usage from 40 years ago when then POTUS made a speech just like Obama's last week. Rah-Rah we gotta stop doin' this and get better....no commitment...no plan...no action...no follow up...the usual no results...

but just wait for the day the foreign oil supply is really interrupted....then America goes to it's knees and then to a stop. Because we all know the fix requires a long term commitment.

Just another simple problem to solve held at bay by business as usual in Washington...

btk

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Quickly, how quickly?...

It wouldn't be fast and it wouldn't be easy. But one thing is for sure...until we start trying to make changes, nothing is going to happen. Haven't we proven that by the almost complete inaction by our elected leaders over all the years since President Carter said we needed a comprehensive energy policy? No one argued with that at the time, nor has anyone since. We needed one then and we desperately need one now.

We do need a completely different way we use energy, particularly fossil fuels, and until we start, we'll just keep on driving the big gas guzzlers, borrowing more and more and more from China, then turning around and shipping those dollars by the boatload to Saudi Arabia.

What did T. Boone Pickens call our current situation..."the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind"...that was it wasn't it? That's what happens when we all sit back and let our government continue to kick the can down the road. If there's one thing that can begin the turnaround of our economy over the long term, it's to reduce that transfer of wealth. It won't be quick and it won't be easy.

Originally Posted by djplong

...The basic problem is that every single "new" technology can be thwarted by a sudden dip in oil prices. They all, universally, take a lot of capital up front and depend on the price of oil styaing relatively higher in order to justify the investment in time and capital.

So, some Saudi sheik turns up the spigots a bit, the prices fall and investors scurry back, afraid to make long-term expensive energy commitments.

Yep, that's likely to happen. But again, our government can take action to incent people and companies to reduce their reliance on imported oil and invest in alternative technologies. A gas tax designed to keep the price of gasoline at a high level would largely neuter OPEC's expected manipulation of oil prices when their gravy train is threatened. Maybe we should use the additional tax receipts to fund the cost of the Defense Department's defending the flow of oil from those Middle Eastern countries.

Some of it is 'perception' as well. I mean, look at how popular the new generations of diesel cars are in Europe. Lord knows I saw a LOT of them when I was there last year. They get far better mileage than gas ('petrol'). In addition, there's less maintenance AND - and I think is is very important - you can make BIODIESEL with today's technology. So there's a bit of "future-proofing" in there.

The last time I was looking at a new car, I kinda liked what I saw in the new Jeep Compass. Not too big, not too small. Could handle some hauling (had a kid in college) and had optional 4WD. Mileage wasn't the greatest, but it was better than my Intrepid.

In my research, I discovered there was to be a DIESEL option! ..but only IN SOUTH AMERICA...

WHY?????

Ford made great, efficient cars.. ...in EUROPE. Only NOW are they starting to come over here.

or in the spring. Same as they are using in their Opel in Europe.
It is dumb there are not more offered.

It no doubt has to do with the oil lobbyists in this country that do not want us to use too many products that reduce overall consumption.

btk

Wind, solar energy still face huge challenges (i.e cost, electric grid and have not had the technology needed. Ethanol is sending food prices sky high and environmentalist/greens have Obama's ear and pocketbook.

Brazil invested heavily in oil production in 1980 when importing 77% of oil and today they do not import oil. Their domestic oil production is up 876%. It is clear that we have ample oil and natural gas both on land and offshore. so what does Obama want to do tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Why? Obvious he want gas to rise because it makes his green agenda appear better. If Brazil can go import free so can we

with OPEC as ours do, hence, the nation is destined to suffer a future disaster.

btk

The 'official' response of Chrysler concerning why the Compass would only have the diesel option in South America was basically that Americans "didn't like" diesels and they had a "negative market opinion".