I think that $2.00 @ gallon gas is totally workable in terms of today's economy, but $2.50-$3.00 will break the country's back. The inflation that it will cause along w/ the general slowing of the economy from other reasons will bring enormous pain. :(

But the oil companies will be breaking every record in the books, profit-wise. It's almost like they are really run by the communist party, trying to speed up the revolution. :cool:

I was there. Didja' see me? I was in back, cleaning the bathrooms because I hadn't enough to pay for gas. :D

Yes, but as I recall, this happened last year. I think most of us made it through okay. There are alternatives. I talked to my old man today, whose about to unload his STS Caddy and thinking of a Mini. I'm just saying there are ways. I'd love nothing better than to ride my bike into work, especially since we have more daylight hours. The only thing keeping me from doing this is the joy of driving my car. I wouldn't carpool, though - I'm not much fun in the morning. :rolleyes:

Here in Sacramento, I pay about $11+ to fill my Indian Chief with premium.

My last 911 fill up here in the UK....

53 litres = 11.83 UK gallons = 14.19 USA gallons

£48.37 = £4.09 per UK gallon

£48.37 = $90.45 dollars for 14.19 USA gallons

= $6.37 per USA gallon.

Are you hurting yet?

Well - WE ARE!

Ouch, $100 to fill up........................so who are they blaming over there?

No one here ever blames Tony Blair for anything. We have our own jerk(s) in high office who until just a couple of years ago was still getting a six figure check from a certain company that over charges for fuel.

Cheney and Haliburton business is good, how about you?

How about Condi Rice - she had a Super-Tanker named after her, you would think she/they would be in a position to help us out.

Stop wondering why all that Texas oil money was given to the Bush campaign.

They don't make money if you conserve or when prices are stable, they make the money on the fluctuation cycle. They can always hold back supply, just needed a reason to do so.

We are so fluxed now.:cool:

I just read that if everyone drove a car that got 30mpg or better, the United States would not have to import one DROP of oil. sounds too good to be true, what do you think?

$45 fill up last night at the cheapest station we know of...

I take the bus to work.

Maybe I wont sell the Harley.....

Also, NJ and other states have websites that post fuel prices so you can get the best deal in the area. I still see regular here at $1.99.

>>"By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption"

Well, the other side of the coin here is that there has been essentially NO increase in refining capacity in the United States for the last 20 years. Top that with the fact that almost every attempt to introduce a new source of crude on our home turf gets shot down by your government. Reduction in consumption or increase in effieciency is one thing, but its high time to meet in the middle and stop stifling growth with fuel supply. Running everything leaner is fine to a point, but there will arrive a day when the sheer numbers call for more production regardless of if the family sedan gets a 100 mpg or not.

2.50 a gallon this morning on my way into work. would not be such a big deal, i guess if i did not go 80 miles round trip every day..

i blame W.

I drive 80 round trip also. I am thinking of dusting off the old Honda Intercepter and start biking it on occasion. I just do not enjoy sitting on a bike that long day after day anymore (not to mention the added risk).
Maybe like in the past the price will settle back to just under $2.00. I just do not see it staying at $2.50 + for very long.

I hope that you are right, but the reality is that it might go quite a bit higher. All politics aside, super-expensive oil is not good for the world's economy and will cause major pain on a micro and macro level.

I do not see the leadership that will tackle this very messed-up situation, though. Do you? :cool:

I do not think the "leadership" can realistically do much about it. No matter what he tries, his detractors will claim that his decisions are based on his past in the oil business. He will be accused of trying to hook up a couple of his old oil buddies at the expense of the American people.

Is that what you mean?

Regarding the 'no increase in refining' argument: this is a big fat juicy red herring. No new refineries were built, but refining capacity has increased. Oil companies have not built new refineries because they've made their existing ones more profitable, and they can leverage high gas prices for environmental and tax breaks. If they really wanted to build new refineries (although probably not in CA) they could, but why would they? They've been raking in cash by the tanker ful. If they increase capacity, prices go down. It's the comsumer side of OPEC.

Someone with such an obvious conflict of interest should not be in such a position in the first place.

Basically Thom, anyone who ever held a position in the private sector, has no business being president due to POTENTIAL conflict of interest. Is that your opinion Thom?

While I don't think a blanket statement is appropriate, in this day and age of very closely-linked government and corporate interests, it is irresponsible to overlook the potential for conflict of interest.

Another example: I'm sure the NeoCons would go spastic if someone with an educational background were elected, seeing as how you hate teachers so much.

Yeah, but what are the chances of that happening? "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".

Obviously, I am kidding. :)

My mother was jr high teacher ( a republican too). I guess that means I do not quite fit the "teacher hating republican" mold (allthough there was that nasty old 5th grade teacher who used to yank me out of my chair by the ear!:D ).

FYI:

"Adjusted for inflation, gas would have to hit $2.99 a gallon for a record."

from todays Yahoo! news...