Coincidence?
Am I the only one who has noticed that when the GOP was in control of the U.S. Congress, the price of gas hovered around $2 per gallon, but now that the Democrats are in control, the price of gas has climbed over $3 and does not appear to be coming down any time soon?
Tim Vronay, Clifton
Seems to me it hit $3 last year, and the Repugs were in charge.
Posted by TJ on May 16, 2007 08:24 AMNo, but luckily people can look past their hatred of other people and realize that neither democrats or republicans decide the price of gas. But it's understandable how you want to blame everything on democrats seeing as how nothing else your party does can be redeemed.
Posted by Larry on May 16, 2007 08:25 AMSo, let me get this straight. When the price of gas is high, and republicans are in control, there's "nothing they can do about it".
But, all the sudden, once democrats have been in control for a whopping 4 months, all the sudden its the democrats fault? Once again, IOKIYAR.
Well guess what Timmeh. In 2005, gas averaged $2.23. In 2006, gas averaged $2.53. So far in 2007, gas has averaged $2.46. For the first half of 2006, gas averaged $2.43, only 3 cents lower than right now.
Besides, I thought there was trouble with the refineries? How is that democrats fault? Please - we all know that the oil companies are manipulating prices to gouge us at the pump. Don't worry though, we'll get to the bottom of it in 2009.
Posted by Tbone on May 16, 2007 08:28 AM"Don't worry though, we'll get to the bottom of it in 2009."
The gullibility of the populace is sometimes astounding. Virtually all politicians are slimy eels who's only loyalty is to themselves and whoever is offering the most under the table funds. It doesn't matter if they wear a blue or red label on their sleeve, Democrats and Republicans spawn in the same filthy latrine.
Posted by No use on May 16, 2007 08:41 AMThat was the stupidist argument about gas prices I have ever heard Tim. And I'm a Rebublican. No wonder the dems think we are morons....
Posted by on May 16, 2007 08:54 AMMust be another another Republican plot like just before the last election. And Rove is at the heart of it. (/sarcasm)
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 09:00 AMTim - Please put the crack pipe down. There's not much that any politician can do to influence prices in a free market (aside from artificially raising / lowering a commodity's price via tax increases or reductions)
Thank God it is this way though...do you really want a bunch of clowns in DC controlling prices?
Posted by on May 16, 2007 09:23 AMBottom line....... Oil company's GOUGE, GOUGE, GOUGE!!
Posted by T on May 16, 2007 10:01 AMT - Maybe I missed it, but where in the Constitution does it say that cheap energy is our birthright. Perhaps if we really wanted to stick it to the oil companies, instead of forwarding inane requests for a MAy 15 boycott, we should all take the bus one day a week, drive less, and conserve more.
Posted by on May 16, 2007 10:03 AMTim you ignorant ass, try looking things up before you spout off. Here's a table of gas prices per gallon compiled by the Department of Energy:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usw.htm
A quick (maybe longer for you, Tim) glance at this shows that when Bush took office in 2001 with a Repub congress, gas prices were $1.44. They climbed steadily until August of '06, where they topped out at $3.08. The casual observer (i.e., not somebody as stupid as Tim and KW) would note that this is DOUBLE what it was in '01.
Then a weird thing happened. The price inexplicably began falling, and continued to fall until just after November 4 2006. I can't imagine why that would be, but it's all right here in the table. Since then, they've been rising again, and are now back up to $3.09, or just about where they were in August before the "magical" price drop.
But I'm sure all the Republicans are right: politicians almost definitely can't control oil prices (I mean, come on, in order to do that, they would have to have worked in the oil industry and probably still know some high ranking people at energy companies).
God you people disgust me. Get a F&@*ng clue.
Posted by Grog on May 16, 2007 10:13 AMThanks Grog, saved me the time and said it very well. Stupidest letter of the day by far.
Posted by B. Drunk on May 16, 2007 10:22 AMDude, it sounds like you, and about 90% of Republicans, need to take an economics class, as well as some science classes, biology, sex-ed, math, and an ethics class or two.
Posted by Sean on May 16, 2007 10:28 AMDude, it sounds like you, and about 90% of Republicans, need to take an economics class, as well as some science classes, biology, sex-ed, math, and an ethics class or two.
Posted by Sean on May 16, 2007 10:34 AMAm I the only one to notice that when the GOP controlled Congress Jerry Falwell was alive, but now that the Democrats are in control he is dead? Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by on May 16, 2007 01:01 PMMemorial Day coming up,more gouging..like for Mother's Day. All the gas stations cover the unleaded w/ plastic so we'd have to buy the higher price fuel. All gas stations are guilty of this. GOUGE.. GOUGE IS RIGHT.
Grog,
Of course the letter was foolish. I have no idea why RMN would publish it.
But you said:
"But I'm sure all the Republicans are right: politicians almost definitely can't control oil prices (I mean, come on, in order to do that, they would have to have worked in the oil industry and probably still know some high ranking people at energy companies)."
Your insinuation is just as foolish as the letter's.
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 01:33 PMSo, its merely coinsidence that Condie Rice has an Exxon (where she was employed) tanker named after her? And, that Dead Eye Dick held secret, closed door meeting to set energy policy? And that the president was in the oil exploration industry? Or that the one top donors to the R members of Congress is the oil lobby?
You sir, are either a fool or willfully ignorant.
Posted by Is it? on May 16, 2007 01:47 PM1:27
"All the gas stations cover the unleaded w/ plastic so we'd have to buy the higher price fuel."
You don't have to buy anything. Mother's Day was Sunday. You don't have to drive on Sunday.
Define gouging. There's no constitutional right to $2 a gallon gasoline. Gas stations could charge $10 a gallon and it still wouldn't be gouging. Gas stations do not exist solely for your convenience on Mother's Day. They exist, like every other business, to make a profit. If they raise the price of gasoline and you still choose to buy it, then obviously the value you place on gasoline matched it's price.
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 01:48 PMIs it,
None of your questions offers any proof that oil companies are purposely lowering fuel prices to benefit their supposed friends in politics.
Exxon is a public company. That means thousands of shareholders own Exxon stock to make a profit. Why would Exxon shareholders sacrifice profit just to please it's former employees? It makes no sense.
What is the big deal if Mr. Bush once worked in the oil industry? How does that get him any favors?
Grog,
"Then a weird thing happened. The price inexplicably began falling, and continued to fall until just after November 4 2006. I can't imagine why that would be, but it's all right here in the table. Since then, they've been rising again, and are now back up to $3.09, or just about where they were in August before the "magical" price drop."
It's not so weird. The pattern you observed during the November 2006 is similar to the pattern almost every year before 2006.
Fuel prices tend to rise during July, August, and September. Then, they start to lower in late October and November.
It's all there in the table you graciously provided for us.
For almost every year, November saw a fuel price drop. Guess which year didn't follow that pattern? 2004, the year George Bush was running for re-election. Fuel prices rose from $1.90 in mid September to $2.07 in the first week of November (aka Election Day). So much for friends in the oil business.
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 02:30 PMThe problem with having a "public company", is that you can have 50 million people that have shares in it, and one of those people has 99% of the stock. Exxon is in fact doing anything but sacrificing profit. The way it gives bush favors is because he can get sanctions and restrictions lifted so that the money doesn't have to filter through the company before going into his pocket.
Posted by Furguson on May 16, 2007 02:36 PMHey wait a minute that looser john kerry thought we should be paying what the french are at close to 5 bucks a gallon.
the price is up because we can't refine it fast enough. when was the last new refineray built? long time ago but comsumption is way up.
thats ok old hill said she will take the oil company profits and use them for what she wants. you know just like hugo in venezuela did.
Furguson,
You said:
"The problem with having a "public company", is that you can have 50 million people that have shares in it, and one of those people has 99% of the stock."
Here's a list of the the largest 15 shareholders of Exxon:
Barclays Global Investors
State Street Global Advisors
Vanguard Group
Fidelity Management & Research
AllianceBernstein
Northern Trust Co
Capital Research & Management Co
Wellington Management Company
Columbia Management Advisors
JPMorgan Private Bank
Mellon Private Wealth Management
BlackRock Investment Management
Tiaa-Cref Investment Management
Goldman Sachs Asset Management (US)
State Farm Investment Mgmt Corp
Are you suggesting all these companies are somehow colluding to lower fuel prices in November 2006 to help Republicans win? Why did fuel prices drop almost every November before 2006? Why did prices rise in November 2004?
"The way it gives bush favors is because he can get sanctions and restrictions lifted so that the money doesn't have to filter through the company before going into his pocket."
I'm not following that statement. Can you clarify?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 02:48 PMJohn II-
You seem to be missing the point that gas prices have risen while the cost of oil has remained constant. In fact, a barrel of oil is $10 cheaper than is was this time last year.
THAT, my friend, is gouging.
Posted by Tbone on May 16, 2007 02:52 PMHey T-Bone,
The democrats were in controll of Congress in the 1970s when they outlawed the building of new refineries in the country, and also outlawed the drilling for oil off the east coast, the west coast and in the caribbean off the coast of Florida......
Posted by Tim on May 16, 2007 02:59 PMTbone,
"THAT, my friend, is gouging."
How so? Define gouging. If the cost of oil really has dropped but gas prices have risen, that means gas prices were too low to begin with.
Gas companies can charge $20 or even $100 a gallon if they wanted to. Their goal, like any other company, is to make the largest profit they can. The real gougers are those who feel they deserve a low price just because that's what they want. No one owes you cheap gas.
But, I already commented on this in a previous post. I hate repeating myself.
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 03:02 PMThe only reason I said that was because it is possible. I didn't say exxon does that, and I'm not saying that any other company does that either. Basically it was just a this is what public company can do, which would certainly give preference to the largest shareholder.
My other statement was saying that instead of paying fee's to go through the proper and legal channels, such as pricing, quality, things like that, someone in power can say "I will look the other way when you skip these procedures, if you use the money you were going to spend on it, on me".
Posted by Furguson on May 16, 2007 03:17 PMSo, in other words, Furguson, you're full of crap. You just shared with us the paranoid anti-Bush, anti-capitalism nonsense floating around in your liberal mind. You have no proof or evidence for any of your claims.
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 03:22 PMYes John, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for clearing that up for me and giving me such great insight into the mind of an actual person. Since when has evidence or proof been important your party?
Posted by Furguson on May 16, 2007 03:26 PMDoes that mean I can start blaming democrats for everything wrong with you?
Posted by Furguson on May 16, 2007 03:27 PMI'd love to blame the Dems for this, but the price of oil and gas have much more to do with global supply and demand than which political party is in power.
This is the biggest myth that a President or Congress can 'manage' an economy - what a load of bunk!
It's Economics 101, supply and demand. No one from either party should make this stupid argument that a good or bad economy occurs because one party or the other was in power.
Posted by Brian O. on May 16, 2007 04:00 PMThank you Brian O.
Posted by Furguson on May 16, 2007 04:04 PMFurguson,
Didn't you just argue the opposite of what Brian O. just said?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 04:10 PMNot the way I intentioned.
Posted by Furguson on May 16, 2007 04:17 PMOf course prices went down right before the election. They did the same thing when Clinton was in office. Remember when gas went to .99 right before that election. I don't know how the politicians do it but they do. Democrat or republican or whatever George Bush is now, it doesn't matter they're all crooks!
Posted by on May 16, 2007 04:27 PMOf course prices went down right before the election. They did the same thing when Clinton was in office. Remember when gas went to .99 right before that election. I don't know how the politicians do it but they do. Democrat or republican or whatever George Bush is now, it doesn't matter they're all crooks!
Posted by on May 16, 2007 04:27 PMTim-
I wasn't around much in the 70's, but I do seem to remember 3 repub presidents since the 70's, not to mention 12 years of repub controlled congress in the 90's and 00's. What was stopping them from allowing new refineries to be built?
Posted by Tbone on May 16, 2007 04:58 PMJohn II
"How so? Define gouging. If the cost of oil really has dropped but gas prices have risen, that means gas prices were too low to begin with."
Not necessarily. It just means that oil companies realized they could get away with charging high prices, so they continued to do so.
Of course - we could try to reduce the demand for oil though higher fuel efficiency standards. But nooo. Wouldnt want to do anything to reduce those profits, would we?
Posted by Tbone on May 16, 2007 05:02 PMTbone,
"Not necessarily. It just means that oil companies realized they could get away with charging high prices, so they continued to do so."
You're still missing the point. Actually, you made the point for me but you don't seem to understand it. Of course the oil companies are going to charge as a high a price as people will pay for gas. That's called business. Every company tries to charge the highest price they can for their product. That's the whole point of doing business.
You don't have to wait for the government to raise fuel efficiency standards, just buy a smaller car. Or live closer to your job. Or take the train or bus. Or ride a bike. Or work from home.
The Chevy Aveo gets 37 MPG on the highway and it only costs a bit over $10k. Why doesn't everyone buy one of those if fuel prices are so high?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 05:45 PMJohnII
You're right - I've never said a company can't charge as much as they want for something. But, that does not mean it's right.
Raking Americans over the coals so you can fatten your wallet? Priceless.
Posted by Tbone on May 16, 2007 05:57 PMHow about we all stop buying Exxon gas and lets see if the CEO will get a salary of $22.9 mill in 2007 like he pulled down in 2006. Maybe boycotting one company will give the oil boys something to think about and the CEO's will be willing to make
a little less$$$ to keep their jobs.
Let's compare John Browne, the CEO of BP 2006 salary of $6.9 million to Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon with a whopping $22.9 million for 2006. Seems a bit excessive don't ya think? Tillerson is making $440,000 a week. These guys are laughing at us as they fill out their bank deposit slips. BOYCOTT EXXON!!!!!
[you made up the name. but you could choose a different one as long as you announced it and used it consistently thereafter.]
So who's the gutless pissant at the News who gets to insert his made-up name in my posts?
tbonehead,I was going to waste my time explainings the facts on gas prices,refineries,incompetant judges, and the bribed controled dems.in office.But as a educated man I knew I would be wasting my time because you are such an idiot.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 12:12 AMtbonehead,I was going to waste my time explainings the facts on gas prices,refineries,incompetant judges, and the bribed controled dems.in office.But as a educated man I knew I would be wasting my time because you are such an idiot.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 12:12 AMBG,
"How about we all stop buying Exxon gas and lets see if the CEO will get a salary of $22.9 mill in 2007 like he pulled down in 2006. Maybe boycotting one company will give the oil boys something to think about and the CEO's will be willing to make a little less$$$ to keep their jobs. "
Why do you care how much the CEO makes? Do you own Exxon stock? If not, then why worry about it? Exxon is free to pay their employees whatever they want.
Exxon employs over 82,000 people. I see that as a good thing. Your grandiose plan to boycott Exxon would hurt more employees than CEOs.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 07:20 AMJohn II
Your typical, narrow-minded, overly simplistic rhetoric makes me nauseous.
You see folks, John II thinks gas prices affect only the liquid you pump into your vehicle. Simply choose to run out and spend $11,000 on a new car, drive less and shut your mouth.
We shouldn't care how industry leaders are compensated. It's a free market, morons!
Energy and health insurance are most definitely NOT free markets, John II.
I know you'll demand that I elaborate, John II, but if you'd remove the blinders and look at the big picture I'm sure you can figure it out yourself.
Posted by Lazy Chemist on May 17, 2007 08:32 AMThank you for you insightful contribution to the opinion page, Tim. Everyone who read your letter is now dumber.
Posted by JG on May 17, 2007 08:34 AMThank you for your insightful contribution to the letters section Tim. Everyone who read this is now dumber than yesterday.
Posted by JG on May 17, 2007 08:36 AMLazy Chemist,
"I know you'll demand that I elaborate, John II, but if you'd remove the blinders and look at the big picture I'm sure you can figure it out yourself."
Elaborate? No need for that. You're doing a fine job substituting insult for intellect.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 08:37 AMI apologize, John II.
I failed to realize intellect was a requirement for posting.
How on earth could I have been so mistaken??
Posted by Lazy Chemist on May 17, 2007 09:10 AMEconomics 001.1
The price of wheat goes up. The price of bread goes up.
The price of wheat goes down. The price of bread goes up.
The bottom drops out of the wheat market. You need a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
It's called "Unrestrained Free Enterprise".
(Feel free to substitute your own choice of raw material and finished products. And someone, please take the time to explain the last example to our resident Economics Pundit. he couldn't understand it when it was posted last time.)
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 11:45 AMOld Grouch,
The little economics lesson that you keep posting is fundamentally flawed and may explain why your take on economics is distorted.
Consumers are not demanding oil. They're demanding gasoline. Consumers do not demand steel. They demand cars. Consumers do not demand wheat. They demand bread.
You're confusing the raw materials with the finished product.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 11:59 AMIf this were "true", then it only shows how far up the, oops, in the pockets of big oil the Republicans are.
Posted by Shayna Jones on May 17, 2007 06:24 PMJohn II,
And in your criticism you presume that finished products come into being without first being raw materials; and then indicate that there is no cost relationship between them.
Which is just about as sensible as any of the other economics lessons you have given before.Reminds me of the dear old days, back in Grad School, when "economics" used to be the joke of the campus. And we used to play on the Professor's name by calling him "Fog Faster".
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 07:56 PMOld Grouch,
Consumers demand the finished product, not the raw materials. Demand plays a bigger part in the cost of the product.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 09:03 PMWhich came first, the chicken or the egg?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 07:31 AMIt is no coincidence that letter writer Tim Vronay is a Christian, to wit: "Powers of darkness, Wickedness in High Place and Demonic forces; By the Blood and NAME of Jesus Christ I Command you to Cease your works...." Get my drift? Ah, but I have an answer for Old Grouch if only he will tell me which one got the foreplay first. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 19, 2007 03:23 PM