PDA

View Full Version : How Much do YOU Spend on Gas??



road kill
03-09-2012, 10:39 AM
What ever it is, get ready to spend more.
President Obama did this behind the scenes so as to avoid showing America what he really stands for.
And it's NOT the working middle-classes.

This was done so he could avoid an open VETO in front of every body!!





Senate sends message to Obama on Keystone

Democratic leadership squeaked out a 56-42 vote. | John Shinkle/POLITICO


By ERICA MARTINSON and DAN BERMAN | 3/8/12 4:41 PM EST Updated: 3/9/12 6:25 AM EST
Thursday’s squeaker of a Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline serves both as a warning to President Barack Obama that a majority of both houses of Congress supports the pipeline and as encouragement to Republicans to keep pushing the issue.

Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help.

In all, 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline. Only the fact that 60 votes were needed for passage saved the White House from an embarrassing defeat.


Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) wryly congratulated Obama on his lobbying efforts.

“That was very strong work by President Obama himself, making personal calls to Democrats,” Lugar said. “He understood that a majority of the American public and a majority at least of the Senate are strongly in favor of this project.

“So I suppose you give credit to the president for once again blocking something, but I don't think the president really wants to do that indefinitely,” he added.

“We got a majority in the Senate,” said amendment sponsor Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who noted that two senators — Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) — were absent. “So we would have had 58 votes had all Republicans been able to be here.”

Republicans promised that the issue, which has been a staple of the campaign trail since Obama first attempted in November to punt the decision until 2013, will not go away.

“We’re very close to the 60,” Hoeven said. “It’s hard to say exactly which members maybe would have supported without White House intervention, but I think the important thing is that the support is there, and the support is there because the public wants this to happen.

“The pressure is just going to increase on the administration to get this project done,” Hoeven added.

The 11 Democrats who crossed party lines to support the amendment were Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Landrieu said she was not among those getting a call from Obama. And she was not surprised to see 10 Democrats join with her to cross party lines.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html#ixzz1odOJE7v9




RK

M&K's Retrievers
03-09-2012, 10:46 AM
Why in the Hell were two Republicans absent??

Daniel J Simoens
03-09-2012, 11:16 AM
~$125/month
oh it was a rhetorical question

lennie
03-09-2012, 11:40 AM
Right now.......$150.00 a week/600.00 a month. Just to get to my job!


Not rhetorical regards,

Earlene



FUBO

PlushHunter
03-09-2012, 12:07 PM
$75 a week with a 2004 explorer flex fuel 4x4 and thats just to go to work.

Jason Glavich
03-09-2012, 12:10 PM
40 a week in the car to go 20 miles each way to work, will be 25 when i get my neon running(oddly gets better mileage than most hybrids at 44 mpg). My wife drives the truck 6 miles a day and it costs 50 per week roughly.

M&K's Retrievers
03-09-2012, 12:11 PM
Kathy and I spend $600-$700 a month. When you live in BFE everything is a fer piece off.

Raymond Little
03-09-2012, 03:04 PM
Down to $500/month but figure on $800/month until we get a new prez.:)

BonMallari
03-09-2012, 04:11 PM
got rid of the Suburban and went with a Nissan Pathfinder...better gas mileage , miss the cargo space,horsepower...contemplating a move to either NoDak or Montana

zeus3925
03-09-2012, 06:00 PM
The prez has very little to do with the up and down of the oil market. Demand, supply and speculation drive the price of gasoline. The Keystone pipeline has little to do with the price of today's oil. Even if it were commenced today it would have no effect for several years. And its completion would most likely raise prices in the mid-west by draining the current surplus there.

BlaineT
03-09-2012, 06:44 PM
too much....

Gerry Clinchy
03-09-2012, 09:32 PM
The prez has very little to do with the up and down of the oil market. Demand, supply and speculation drive the price of gasoline. The Keystone pipeline has little to do with the price of today's oil. Even if it were commenced today it would have no effect for several years. And its completion would most likely raise prices in the mid-west by draining the current surplus there.

I think someone (on another thread) pointed out that speculation plays a large role in the price of gas. Historically, any announcement of increased drilling and/or exploration has resulted in a drop in prices as speculation anticipates a drop in prices ... even though the supply such announcements relate to will take time to get in the pipelines.

HPL
03-09-2012, 10:18 PM
I think someone (on another thread) pointed out that speculation plays a large role in the price of gas. Historically, any announcement of increased drilling and/or exploration has resulted in a drop in prices as speculation anticipates a drop in prices ... even though the supply such announcements relate to will take time to get in the pipelines.
What he said. When prices ran way up during Bush's tenure, he signed off on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico and the prices plummeted the next day, so presidential actions can have a dramatic effect.

Gerry Clinchy
03-09-2012, 10:27 PM
What he said. When prices ran way up during Bush's tenure, he signed off on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico and the prices plummeted the next day, so presidential actions can have a dramatic effect.

Guess there's no hope of a repeat of that for a while ... Obama lobbied hard in the Senate to keep them from overriding his decision on the Keystone Pipeline.

Marvin S
03-09-2012, 10:42 PM
got rid of the Suburban and went with a Nissan Pathfinder...better gas mileage , miss the cargo space,horsepower...contemplating a move to either NoDak or Montana

If you go there be sure you have an engine plugin heater & watch the viscosity on your tranny fluid :). 40 below is not uncommon. When I worked the missile sites in the early 60's had the heater so the car would start but had to ease the clutch out as the tranny oil was really thick. When we were on the farm in SD we used to light up a pan of used oil under the tractor transmission to loosen it up enough to start things.

road kill
03-10-2012, 05:22 AM
Guess there's no hope of a repeat of that for a while ... Obama lobbied hard in the Senate to keep them from overriding his decision on the Keystone Pipeline.

Did anyone happen to read the original post??

RK

zeus3925
03-10-2012, 08:34 AM
You have a number of factors right now contributing to speculation now. The big elephant is Iran. There is an international attempt to boycott Iranian oil in order to bring it to heel on the nuclear issue. That chokes the supply causing prices to rise.

One way to curtail speculation is to increase margin requirements on petroleum futures.

Pembroke John
03-10-2012, 09:46 AM
Great thinking ! If the Keystone is approved the supply goes up and that in the opinion of Zeus would have no effect. Is that the type of economics they teach in MN or is it just a poor confused defender of the idiot now in the White House ? Makes no diff if it takes 3-5 years to complete , at that point the supply goes up and the price comes down no matter who buys that oil. The world supply is increased. C'mom Man ! Do you think we are all idiots?

zeus3925
03-10-2012, 01:00 PM
The question is where that oil is going. Going to an ocean port will open up a global market to that supply. It is not likely to contribute much to the local supply, but rather drain it. My point is: who will the pipeline decrease prices for, IF the oil is kept domestically? Some will lose and some will gain as the present supply differential is decreased. But, there is no guarantee the supply will be kept domestically.

If the pipeline oil is shipped globally, then the global price will come into play. In that case the pipeline can not contribute significantly to the lowering of price in face of rising global demand. It iwould be but a trickle in a river.

I believe the Keystone pipeline will be built once Nebraska's routing concerns have been addressed. In fact, the Oklahoma to the Gulf segment construction is about to commence. However, I would not count the construction of that pipeline as being a great boon to anybody's wallet except to the company that builds it.

zeus3925
03-10-2012, 01:14 PM
For a map of how gas prices compare nationally:

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx


Pros and cons on Keystone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

charly_t
03-10-2012, 01:30 PM
My thoughts are that we need more refineries in the USA. Seems to me that part of our problem is not our supply ( at least in Oklahoma ) but the small amount of places to refine the oil. May just be badly run or old refineries. I don't know enough to address this problem but it seems to me that it was said we have large amounts of big storage tanks for the oil. More big tanks being built all the time we are told. Refineries can't handle the volume of oil
in this country ? I'm pretty sure that false reports of gasoline shortages many years ago were due to a certain company ( or companies ) making those shortages themselves. One man we knew said gasoline was being trucked to a certain storage area and stored ( 1970s I think ). I would presume that gasoline would lose octane if it was kept stored for very long but I know nothing about it.

BonMallari
03-10-2012, 01:46 PM
My thoughts are that we need more refineries in the USA. Seems to me that part of our problem is not our supply ( at least in Oklahoma ) but the small amount of places to refine the oil. May just be badly run or old refineries. I don't know enough to address this problem but it seems to me that it was said we have large amounts of big storage tanks for the oil. More big tanks being built all the time we are told. Refineries can't handle the volume of oil
in this country ? I'm pretty sure that false reports of gasoline shortages many years ago were due to a certain company ( or companies ) making those shortages themselves. One man we knew said gasoline was being trucked to a certain storage area and stored ( 1970s I think ). I would presume that gasoline would lose octane if it was kept stored for very long but I know nothing about it.

and that is where the tree huggers and environmentalists have thwarted the problems we have and made us dependant on foreign oil....they will not allow refineries to be built and the EPA has unrealistic standards that cant be met...When was the last refinery built here in the US...cant remember that far back

menmon
03-12-2012, 11:37 AM
What ever it is, get ready to spend more.
President Obama did this behind the scenes so as to avoid showing America what he really stands for.
And it's NOT the working middle-classes.

This was done so he could avoid an open VETO in front of every body!!



RK

I think the only thing standing in the way of this bill getting approved is asurity that the oil will be used in America, not sold to China and India.

For the record, oil production in the US is up under Obama. Oil consumption in America is down under Obama. These facts are what I thought we Americans wanted.

The reason prices are up and will continue to go up is that China and India are consuming approximatly 10-20% more a year.

Now ask this question, do you really want to allow Canada to sell their oil to China and India by giving them a pipeline? Wouldn't it be better if those reserves were used by the US if not Canada?

zeus3925
03-12-2012, 12:12 PM
I think the only thing standing in the way of this bill getting approved is asurity that the oil will be used in America, not sold to China and India.

For the record, oil production in the US is up under Obama. Oil consumption in America is down under Obama. These facts are what I thought we Americans wanted.

The reason prices are up and will continue to go up is that China and India are consuming approximatly 10-20% more a year.

Now ask this question, do you really want to allow Canada to sell their oil to China and India by giving them a pipeline? Wouldn't it be better if those reserves were used by the US if not Canada?

That's just it. Once that oil hits a salt water port, there's no telling where it will go.

road kill
03-12-2012, 12:23 PM
That's just it. Once that oil hits a salt water port, there's no telling where it will go.

That is the rationale behind not drilling or building the pipeline??

Seriously??


RK

menmon
03-12-2012, 12:54 PM
That is the rationale behind not drilling or building the pipeline??

Seriously??


RK

No but lets be patience and get what we want, instead of giving the oil companies what they want. We will get there if the republicans will get out of the oil companies pocket.

All they have to do is blame it on the democrats and we are ok with that.

road kill
03-12-2012, 02:35 PM
No but lets be patience and get what we want, instead of giving the oil companies what they want. We will get there if the republicans will get out of the oil companies pocket.

All they have to do is blame it on the democrats and we are ok with that.

I beleive it was Maxine that inadvertently admitted the progressives end game!!!;-)


RK

zeus3925
03-12-2012, 02:49 PM
That is the rationale behind not drilling or building the pipeline??

Seriously??


RK

Drilling is going on at near full capacity.

As for the pipeline, the GOP tried to make Obama make a decision on a very short time frame. He wasn't going to be backed into a corner like that.

I'd be very much surprised if that is a final "no!". I think the OK will come down on the POTUS's time frame, not one imposed by a Congressional faction that would love to force him into doing something rash.

I think the pipeline will be built once the routing issues are addressed.

Gerry Clinchy
03-13-2012, 12:55 AM
There is no way to guarantee to whom Canada would sell its oil ... but if they had decided to build a pipeline to their west coast, it would be that much easier to send that oil to China.

If the oil is refined at the Gulf refineries, then it seems to me that it would be more efficient for China to get its oil from the Mideast than from US refineries.

Speculation has been that if Iran closed the strait of Hormuz, the cost of a barrel of oil would quadruple. What would happen to our economy if gas were $16/gallon?

If that happened, it sure would be nice to know that the Keystone pipeline were in operation, so there would at least be some oil available that didn't have to go through the strait. If that happened, I find it hard to believe that Canada wouldn't feel it was in their own national interest to sell that oil to the U.S.

Fossil fuels are going to be needed to keep the engine of economies going while effective, efficient alternatives are developed. You can't just shut down the economy arbitrarily in the interim or there is no capital to work on that research and development. Not to mention decreasing tax revenues to maintain those great govt give-aways.

There are times I really wish that Jobs or Gates had felt a calling to be auto mechanics instead of computer geeks. The auto industry could have used such genius to good advantage.

JDogger
03-13-2012, 05:20 AM
There are times I really wish that Jobs or Gates had felt a calling to be auto mechanics instead of computer geeks. The auto industry could have used such genius to good advantage.

If Gates did cars, we would have to select "start" to turn them "off". :rolleyes:

M&K's Retrievers
03-13-2012, 09:54 AM
If Gates did cars, we would have to select "start" to turn them "off". :rolleyes:

If Gates did cars, you might get the dreaded "blue screen" at 70 MPH.:shock:

mngundog
03-13-2012, 10:07 AM
Drilling is going on at near full capacity.

As for the pipeline, the GOP tried to make Obama make a decision on a very short time frame. He wasn't going to be backed into a corner like that.

I'd be very much surprised if that is a final "no!". I think the OK will come down on the POTUS's time frame, not one imposed by a Congressional faction that would love to force him into doing something rash.

I think the pipeline will be built once the routing issues are addressed.
Sitting back and thinking about it would be a novel idea, I wish Obama and the democrats would of thought about that before giving away billions in bailouts to their buddies. How long is a short time frame for Obama? In the past with bailouts and health care they wanted things done in days not weeks, "We'll see whats in the bill after we vote on it". :D

menmon
03-13-2012, 01:00 PM
There is no way to guarantee to whom Canada would sell its oil ... but if they had decided to build a pipeline to their west coast, it would be that much easier to send that oil to China.

If the oil is refined at the Gulf refineries, then it seems to me that it would be more efficient for China to get its oil from the Mideast than from US refineries.

Speculation has been that if Iran closed the strait of Hormuz, the cost of a barrel of oil would quadruple. What would happen to our economy if gas were $16/gallon?

If that happened, it sure would be nice to know that the Keystone pipeline were in operation, so there would at least be some oil available that didn't have to go through the strait. If that happened, I find it hard to believe that Canada wouldn't feel it was in their own national interest to sell that oil to the U.S.

Fossil fuels are going to be needed to keep the engine of economies going while effective, efficient alternatives are developed. You can't just shut down the economy arbitrarily in the interim or there is no capital to work on that research and development. Not to mention decreasing tax revenues to maintain those great govt give-aways.

There are times I really wish that Jobs or Gates had felt a calling to be auto mechanics instead of computer geeks. The auto industry could have used such genius to good advantage.

First of all you have that risk anytime and this pipeline will take years to construct. They are building part of it now, and the rest would probably get built if it wasn't for the republicans making it their keystone jab at Obama...no pun intended;-)

Gerry Clinchy
03-13-2012, 09:10 PM
This is craziness
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/wind-power-companies-paid-to-not-produce/?intcmp=obinsite

The windfarms and hydroelectric are producing TOO MUCH power, so they are paying the wind farms to not generate!