Liberals Get Their Wish
Phel is moving downtown… but not by choice.
It’s very simple. I can no longer afford to live in the wonderful duplex that I live in. It’s all due to energy prices.
Therefore, unless I want to live paycheck to paycheck and not save or invest in my future, I have to move closer to work.
Ah yes, the liberal dream come true. Raise the cost of energy so much that people MUST downsize and walk or bike wherever it is they have to go.
In all honesty, I am rather excited about moving downtown. But I wish I had more choice in the matter. As it is right now, my energy costs exceed $400 a month. This is between heat, cooking gas, and gas for my small car. That’s pretty excessive for a single woman who doesn’t eat much and has few and basic needs.
I know that this is a hard choice for Phelony. I would also emphasize the hardship that these choices put on families. For example, we are loath to make our kids change schools. It’s costing more and more for me to commute, but the personal value we put in keeping our kids in their school and circle of friends outweighs that cost… for now. The glib notion of some liberals that jacking up energy costs will force people to lead more “earth friendly” lifestyles has costs beyond that of a barrel of oil.
Talk about glib and distasteful. Laying her misfortune at the feet of liberals is pretty uncalled for.
Posted by scott on March 26, 2008 at 2146 hrs
The situation didn’t materialize out of thin air Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 2216 hrs
Talk about glib and distasteful. Laying her misfortune at the feet of liberals is pretty uncalled for.
Damn… I knew it was too good to be true…
—
I know that this is a hard choice for Phelony. I would also emphasize the hardship that these choices put on families.
Everyones standard of living is being reduced by energy prices. Single persons, familes, dinks, etc.
For anyone to suggest that government policy over the past decades has not played a strong role in this is misguided.
Sure supply and demand are at play here with the growth ind emand for fuel in developing parts of the world (china/india etc), but thats only part of the equation. Our government at the hands of liberals who don’t understand the economic consequences of their policies and conservatives who have lost the war of attrition to liberals have pretty much done everything they could to exacerbate the problem and drive us to the energy issues that we have.
Great job guys.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 2245 hrs
Gee what happened to defending the free market, you know that supply and demand stuff?
Sure supply and demand are at play here with the growth ind emand for fuel in developing parts of the world (china/india etc), but thats only part of the equation.
Nope that pretty much is the equation.
That $100+ barrel of oil does not have one drop of ethanol in it.
Welcome to the world of a truly competitive global economy in which developing economies will continue to outbid us for a lot of the world’s resources.
Buckle up people, the ride might get a little rough.
So it is the liberals who control Big Oil and Wall Street, man do they put up a good front.
I would never have guessed.
Somebody better let Cheney know that he was having those secret energy policy meetings with a bunch of liberals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 2342 hrs
I must have missed the part where the controlling interrests in Washington over the last 7 years, the oilmen and the CEO Administration went all mushy liberal.
This post has the tone of a bully with bloody knuckles. “Look at what your nose made me do.” You may wish to avoid responsibility for the failures of your free-market philosophies but you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Now, if only there was reliable public transportation to ease the burden of the commute. Oh, wait. Nevermind
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0509 hrs
Oil prices went down the past couple of days/weeks but did the price of gas come down? No, because the price of ethanol went up. Anybody check the cost of food lately, that has gone up significantly, the reason, cost of fuel and cost of corn because it is being made for ethanol. Who is mostly responsible for ethanol? Liberals and a moderate president.
pjr is right, it is the supply side working, but through ethanol mandates, it is helping ruin the economy. Yes, I blame liberals and Bush on this one.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0733 hrs
And Phel, you can always move to a climate that you don’t need a heater or air conditioner. In Vegas, we can go 6 months with no heater or A/C. Your always welcome here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0735 hrs
Scott:
I thought you were done posting because of all the “liberal bashing”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0746 hrs
More and more evidence is becoming apparent that will allow all of us to reject our “proposed” role in Global Warming.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
What a scam.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0755 hrs
Don’t you love references to “Big Oil”—especially when ExxonMobil, Shell, (etc.) only control FIVE PERCENT of oil-extraction?
The rest is nationalized: Pemex, Venezuela, ARAMCO.
Next assault: blaming “Big Oil” for NOT building more refineries. You saw the beginning of that last night on the news…
Posted by dad29 on March 27, 2008 at 0813 hrs
That $100+ barrel of oil does not have one drop of ethanol in it.
You are right - it would be much higher with Ethanol.
And since you brought up Ethanol - let’s read this headline
“Is ethanol to blame for 1,100 job cuts at Pilgrim’s Pride?”Ethanol, a weak dollar (caused by gummit overspending), lack of oil (can we say ANWAR, gulf coast), boutique blends of gasoline, the hatred of diesel engines by the left, and poor energy policies for the last 30 years have put us where we are today.
Unless of course you are a taxing entity, everyone has to make cuts and sacrifices. If you are a taxing entity, you can just increase taxes.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 0824 hrs
Oil prices went down the past couple of days/weeks but did the price of gas come down? No, because the price of ethanol went up.
Actually most of the ethanol sold to refiners is on relatively long fixed price contracts. So current spot pricing for ethanol has little to do with gasoline prices from that perspective.
Retail gas prices always tend to be sticky on the way down.
By the way dad my reference to big oil had nothing to do with blame, anymore than any other sector in the market including consumers.
You want the price of anything to come down, buy less of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 0914 hrs
You want the price of anything to come down, buy less of it.
Or you could produce more of it…. just a thought.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 0916 hrs
Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found
http://www.cato.orgTried to post a link to Cato and got this message.link.
What’s up Owen?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1026 hrs
Dunno. The blacklist is automatic. Perhaps Jed can unleash his wicked ComputerFu on this issue.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2008 at 1028 hrs
Thanks for posting this fine example of conservative stupidity. This gem:
Ah yes, the liberal dream come true. Raise the cost of energy so much that people MUST downsize and walk or bike wherever it is they have to go.
Neglects that when the price of energy goes up under the so-called free market all of the profits of this increase go into of the producers. Bunch of socialists I’ll wager.
Under the system that this person is whining about, the increases go into alternative energy programs such as in Denmark. For the common good and all that.
Your favorite exploiter Dick Cheney didn’t say “oil at $110 a barrel is just where it should be” for nothing.
The real irony is that with the increase the oil shale/oil sands out of Canada become a viable option, and we get to pay for their national health insurance program.
Sweet.
By the way I love how you all get so hopeful when the party line is reinforced by the trickle of “information” countering global warming comes and you so eagerly latch onto it. Again, this is so out of the mainstream. As one meteorologist told me, “about 5% of the scientists doubt climate change,” and I’ll bet most of those are on oil company payrolls.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
—H.L. Mencken.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1047 hrs
You are evidence of that quote.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2008 at 1049 hrs
OK, that was uncalled for. I apologize, Keith.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2008 at 1051 hrs
Neglects that when the price of energy goes up under the so-called free market
Keith you finally got something right.
It is a so-called free market, because only one side (demand) is free. The other side (supply) has been hampered by liberals, and poor pc energy policies for the last 30 years. No new refineries, no new nuclear, no new drilling/exploring.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1115 hrs
The other side (supply) has been hampered by liberals, and poor pc energy policies for the last 30 years. No new refineries, no new nuclear, no new drilling/exploring.
Agreed on nukes, if we can’t figure out what to do with the waste by the time we really need to our goose will be cooked anyway.
Refineries, well the link to the Cato report i tried to post would have answered that. It was this article;
High Pump-Price Fairy Tales
by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van DorenJerry Taylor is director of natural-resource studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Peter Van Doren is editor of Cato’s Regulation magazine.
Finally, my personal thought on domestic drilling and exploration is that this should be the last choice to be tapped for reasons of national security.
If everything else goes away we would at least have that to fall back on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1147 hrs
Finally, my personal thought on domestic drilling and exploration is that this should be the last choice to be tapped for reasons of national security.
If everything else goes away we would at least have that to fall back on.
Two problems - one is time. It takes ten years to get refineries up and running. I don’t know how long it takes to get oil/NG wells running, but I know that it is more than a week.
Second - since most libs believe that we went to Iraq for oil, wouldn’t that be a good excuse to start producing energy locally??
if we can’t figure out what to do with the waste ...
We have - it is being buried in the mountains of NV. I also am not sure why we are not launching it into space.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1152 hrs
Appreciated Owen.
Damn internet. We all need to count to ten sometimes when hitting the submit button.
And now back to Clint. Doesn’t seem like execs with Exxon, BP, Shell and others are suffering.
That’s the points. Why should the middle class have to bust their balls while a tiny minority makes out big time. If there is pain to be had, let’s really be free market and spread it around.
Only a sucker would accept this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1210 hrs
Actually there are quite a few nuclear waste sites;
http://ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/newsroom/photos/images/00199dc_012e_72dpi.jpg
The big one at Yucca Mountain is in Nevada. The problem is the methods they are using now I think are good for about 12,000 years while the stuff is dangerous for a lot longer than that. But like it i said we should have enough time to sort it out.
It takes ten years to get refineries up and running. I don’t know how long it takes to get oil/NG wells running, but I know that it is more than a week.
Refining seems to be a industry driven problem from the Cato article but maybe you have better info.
We don’t have a good track record of “we want it now” versus “saving for a rainy day” as a nation, so I would think it a more conservative (not in any political sense, but what it actually means to conserve) approach to keep it at a distance from the spigot.
since most libs believe that we went to Iraq for oil, wouldn’t that be a good excuse to start producing energy locally??
Uh, that’s what the fledgling ethanol market is all about. Remeber how expensive flat panel were 5 years ago?
Besides it’s just the first step, here’s something interesting from conservative’s (political) Wi favorite town;
http://www.agprofessional.com/show_story.php?id=51476
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1227 hrs
I don’t get what you are saying about the execs. Personally, I don’t even know what they have to do with it. If anything, the execs LOVE the liberal policies that allow them to rack up the $$$ with such low supply.
The simple fact is that if there were more supply then the price will go down. The US gummit has hampered all domestic energy supply (save coal) for 30 years. And we still are.
While we can certainly reduce our usage to a certain point and it would be a very small percentage, we can’t do squat about the continued development of other nations.
Within a year, energy prices could be reduced substaintially (25-30%) with some rather simple, but big changes in US Energy policy.
1. Allow for exploration and recovery of energy in the US - Coasts and ANWAR
2. Allow for the building of energy infrastruture
3. Postpone by 5 years Tier 2 Bin 5 regulations on Diesel powered automobiles.
VW’s 2006 sales were 10-15% diesel powered. Those buyers now have to buy gasoline cars which are significantly less fuel effiecent.
Honda has Diesel engines in the Civic and Accord which meet Tier 2 Bin 10 standards (Non-CA,NY,MA US standards) and almost have the tech to make CA standards but pricing may turn out to be an issue. The Civic gets mid-high 50/MPG US while the Accord gets low 50’s/MPG US
Ford also has a v-6 that they are trying to put into the F-150 that would get high 20’s in a 4x4 F150. Motor is currently used in Land Rover models oversees.
The opening up of US exploration will send shockwaves in to the Futures market. The ability to bring more energy to market (oil, NG, and nuclear) will lower those prices. I am tired of WEnergies constantly hiking the rates.
And diesel engines are proven fuel savers, and would be especially usefull in the US were so many drivers drive highway miles.
The solutions are there, the policies are not.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1228 hrs
But PJR, using more food for fuel isn’t going to help anything, that is only going to make things worse.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1230 hrs
Gee, I thought the Iraq war was going to drop the price of gas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1237 hrs
Keith - the cost of fuel to the gold standard hasn’t risen, as much as the dollar has taken a tumble. That and I was using the liberal bumper sticker as a reason why we would want local exploration.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1251 hrs
using more food for fuel isn’t going to help anything,
Corn based ethanol is the baby step.
Read the article on biogasoline and there is plenty of other stuff out there on using switch grass and timber/paper industry waste to produce ethanol.
Cheap energy is not a birthright nor is it guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Get over the blame game and a we want it now mentality.
The world is changing, we are not the only kid on the block anymore.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1253 hrs
The world is changing
Yes you are right. The world is changing. We are not adapting to that change. The fear mongering of the left has halted progress and the ability to change.
Since switch grass and sugar, beets all sorts of other items that are not corn are so much better, why aren’t those being subsidized instead of corn??
Cheap energy is not a birthright nor is it guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Once again you are right. Can you tell me what paragraph and line it is in the Bill of Rights the the US gummit is suppose to stand in the way of people providing a commodity at the lowest price possible.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1259 hrs
Well, at least we can all wish her well in the vibrant world of downtown Milwaukee, which is getting a nationwide reputation for all it has to offer.
As for the rest of her post, I’m glad the socialists who run corporate America are doing so well off of us. This thing is so inadvertently funny it should get a wider audience.
Maybe her next move could be into reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1306 hrs
Thanks to our poorly managed economy run on conservative fantasies, which includes the deficits wracked up by the war which has stretched our credit, no kidding the dollar has fallen. Bush critics could see this coming a mile away.
The price of our oil imports has pushed this along, augmented by jobs and productive capability being sent overseas by our socialist corporate executives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1309 hrs
The fear mongering of the left has halted progress and the ability to change.
What fear mongering would that be?
Since switch grass and sugar, beets all sorts of other items that are not corn are so much better, why aren’t those being subsidized instead of corn??
Not sure but I am gonna guess the answer is technologically based and that the ready access to an exiting supply chain for corn would be part of an answer.
US gummit is suppose to stand in the way of people providing a commodity at the lowest price possible.
Which commodity?
Getting back to Iraq for a minute. They banked $50 billion in oil revenue surplus last year. Yet we continue to pick up the tab.
Thank you President Bush.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1321 hrs
Scott:
I thought you were done posting because of all the “liberal bashing”?
Posted by bajaskier on March 27, 2008 at 0746 hrs
he he… I noticed that too.. hence the “too good to be true” comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1351 hrs
That was a really cool article about AgroFuel gasoline, pjr! Doesn’t that have the same problem as gasoline though, giving off too much CO2? I still like it from a national security standpoint though. Thanks for the link.
People who have $400 heating bills are keeping it too warm in their houses in the winter. We keep our house at 57 when we’re home and 50 when we’re gone or asleep. We wear lots of warm clothes in our house in the winter, they’re much cheaper than natural gas.
Our energy bill never broke $200 this winter, and when it’s not freezing out it’s almost always under $100. Insulating your house is also a good idea, walk around in the winter with an incense stick and find out where cold air is leaking in. Fix those leaks when it gets warmer. There is also the option of taking advantage of liberal mandated subsidization of solar panels for your house. At $400/month they’ll pay themselves off fairly quickly, I’m sure.Posted by Matt on March 27, 2008 at 1355 hrs
Thanks to our poorly managed economy run on conservative fantasies
The economy is not run by conservatives. They are being run (both locally and federally) by spenders (both R&D;)
Iraq is costing the US about $100B/year of of the $2.4 Trillion dollar budget in 2007 - that would be less than 5% of the federal budget. Do you still want to blame the war for the massives spending spree Washington has been on for the last 30 years??I am gonna guess the answer is technologically
No - it is called bowing to the Iowa caucuses. Why does the gummit still have a tariff on Brazillian ethanol - Corn Farmers.
Which commodity?
It is called energy - here I will slow down so that you understand E-N-E-R-GY
Do I believe that Iraq should be picking up the cost of their rebuilding and security - absolutely.
While you like to blame Bush for the US’s woos there are an awful lot of (D)‘s that have signed off on those exact same policies. Bush only has the power to veto bills - he isn’t the one who rights the bills.
“Maybe her next move could be into reality. “
Keith - maybe you could come back to the real world before you criticize someone else.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1356 hrs
Matt - it is not just HVAC that is a componnet of energy.
Gas - 15k miles per year (average) at $3.00 gallon in the average car getting 27 mpg costs $1,670 per year which is $139 per month. Multiply x two if there are two working adults in the house.
To heat my house (892 sq feet plus rec room in basement) costs me $153/month on WEnergies budget plan. That is with new windows, 12 inches of insulation in the attic and the thermostat programmed at 67 when we are home 60 when we aren’t, fluorescent bulbs wherever possible, HE Washer, gas furnace, A/C units and ceiling fans.
For you to suggest that 50/57 degrees is fine in the winter is a joke. I would love to see that recommendation sent to senior citizens, those with small children and those with circulation problems.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1405 hrs
By the way I love how you all get so hopeful when the party line is reinforced by the trickle of “information” countering global warming comes and you so eagerly latch onto it. Again, this is so out of the mainstream. As one meteorologist told me, “about 5% of the scientists doubt climate change,” and I’ll bet most of those are on oil company payrolls.
Ignoring it won’t make it go away Keith. Try refuting it, if you dare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1419 hrs
Jason, what does your last post mean?
And Clint, if you have a problem with the way government has been running things which party has been running things in the past eight years? So should we have more of this brilliant leadership?
This is just amazing. This is just so Onionish. You don’t like the way things are going then you just make up and fantasize who is in charge of the power structures.
Your approach can be summed up here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1432 hrs
The party of Government has been running things for the last 60 years.
While there are people in DC with an (R) behind there names - very few are fiscal conservatives and free market types. Very few would be classified as Conservative. If you notice throughout this thread I have laid blame at BOTH parties feet for our energy crisis. While you have blinders on and still severly effected from BDS, I have no problem blaming Bush, Clinton, Bush 41 and both parties that have occupied DC for the last 20-30 years. None of them have the balls to stand up and say stop the spending. All I can think of is Susan Powter and “Stop the Insanity” when it comes to federal spending. While dems and libs and to many (R)‘s only think of other ways to spend money.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1444 hrs
And the really sad thing is that the 3 things that I outlined in comment #24 to reduce energy costs would cost absolutely nothing.
Posted by Clint on March 27, 2008 at 1447 hrs
2008 and 2009 will be fun for the federal government, Clint. They are currently adopting a policy which has the intent of delaying the appearance of a recession until after November. All levels of government could very quickly find themselves in a situation where they have to fight both inflation and a stagnant economy while already running steep budget deficits. Tax increases won’t be possible and additional borrowing may only devalue the currency further. Fun times indeed. The hog that is the federal government might finally be forced on a diet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1501 hrs
Clint, your house sounds similar to my own, however, I have old windows and no insulation in the attic. That’s one of the projects for the summer. My wife has Reynauds syndrome, so being cold is an issue for her, but she’s the one who wants our thermostat so low. We also supplement with electric space heaters, electricity is usually cheaper than gas during the winter, (if you’re not on the budget plan) plus it’s cheaper to heat one room vs. a whole house. We also carpool to work, and live within ten miles of our jobs, so we save money that way as well.
I never said that everyone has to wear long underwear and two sweaters while huddling under a blanket in the winter like we do. 50/57 is fine for us; yes, we’re crazy, but every degree higher is more money we’re burning in our furnace. I just gave an example that I’m intimate with, never said everyone ought to be nuts. But anyone can be smart about how much energy they’re using and find ways to lower their bills. If you’re cold put more clothes on, that’s free, turning up the thermostat isn’t.
Posted by Matt on March 27, 2008 at 1604 hrs
1. Allow for exploration and recovery of energy in the US - Coasts and ANWAR
I guess we are going to just disagree on what is a prudent step in managing the only energy supplies we control without depending on the goodwill of others. And how will this cost absolutely nothing?
2. Allow for the building of energy infrastruture
With the exception of nuclear power generation, how has the government prevented this from happening? And I guess I just don’t see anyone scrambling to build this stuff for free, maybe you do.
As far as #3 goes I don’t have much background on that, but again I can’t imagine that it is costless. I do not believe in a free lunch.
And I would really like to see the data to back this up?
Within a year, energy prices could be reduced substaintially (25-30%) with some rather simple, but big changes in US Energy policy.
What did you say the lead time was for refineries? Was it 10 years?
Here’s a couple of more things that have had me scratching my head and, Ok, giggling.
I am tired of WEnergies constantly hiking the rates.
And this is a government problem how? I can only imagine what rates would be if they did not have to have the PCS approve increases.
and this
Bush only has the power to veto bills - he isn’t the one who rights the bills.
Well if he doesn’t veto them, then I guess he signs/approves them whether he writes them or not.
Keith, This is way better than the Onion.
You don’t like the way things are going then you just make up and fantasize…..
That happens a lot around here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2008 at 1823 hrs
Another point that should be noted is that Phelony is in fact doing this by choice.
Therefore, unless I want to live paycheck to paycheck and not save or invest in my future, I have to move closer to work.
She wisely chose to save and invest rather than pay for the cost of living somewhere which incurred some additional costs for transportation and probably parking.
All other things being equal the annual square foot cost of her utilities should not be impacted a bit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2008 at 0118 hrs
Does she live on the first floor of her duplex? She should move upstairs. You get a bunch of the heat from the first floor person up there.
Posted by Matt on March 28, 2008 at 0752 hrs
And how will this cost absolutely nothing?
It isn’t the US gummit doing the exploration. In fact they will make money off of the rights and royalties.
With the exception of nuclear power generation, how has the government prevented this from happening? And I guess I just don’t see anyone scrambling to build this stuff for free, maybe you do.
the gummit hasn’t allowed for the construction of refineries. Will Big Oil build for free?? Hell no. But every oil company would love to add production capabilitiy and would build them.
As far as #3 goes I don’t have much background on that, but again I can’t imagine that it is costless. I do not believe in a free lunch.
How does it cost anything?? The rules being postponed won’t cost anyone anything and is a long term solution. 5 years would allow auto manufactures to refine the technology to make it affordable for diesels to meet Tier 2 Bin 5 vs. Bin 10.
What did you say the lead time was for refineries? Was it 10 years?
yes but today’s oil prices are based off of tomorrow’s (futures) prices of oil. If futures do up or down, then the same effect would be for today.
Currently there is a significant amount of available capacity in the Alaskan pipe line. When oil is found and brought into the pipe line, and supply is increase, price goes down.
Does Bush sign crap that he shouldn’t -yep. No arguement here. I can only imagine the beating that he would take for decreasing spending. Considering the beating that he takes when he increases spending but not as much as liberals want he takes a beating like no other.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2008 at 1547 hrs
Total Entries: 19642
Total Comments: 129731
Most Recent Entry: 02/07/2012 09:25 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 12:44 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 125
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 12:45 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).