I hope gas jumps another 50 cents before November!

[trumad]

I'm willing to bite the bullet and pay more at the pump in the next 7 months as long as it hurts Bush and gang.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. I Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, let the job market stay weak for this time too.

Save American: ABB!!!

:mad:

:kick:

[Mistress Quickly]

4. save America by hurting Americans!!!

woo hoo!!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

15. .

:eyes:

[Jane Austin]

32. I disagree

First of all, I think I've heard that the jobs have to pick up at least 6 months before the election for it to improve the incumbent's chances.

We're approaching that time period now, and I don't think there's anything they can do to turn it around in time.

What I don't want to see is more jobs at lower pay, which is what I think we're seeing in the figures now.

The unemployment rate looks halfway decent for Bush for two reasons that I can think of: 1) hundreds of thousands of people have fallen off the job seekers rolls and 2) the jobs many people have are lower-paying than the jobs from which they were laid off.

[buddy22600]

2. Thats kinda screwed up

That would seriously hurt most portions of the American Economy, most notably the manufacturing industries. If it costs more to ship something, then more jobs are going overseas. I really don't believe you mean what Hannity is alwaying talking about. You know what is bad for America is good for the Democrats??? Don't fall into his trap.

[uconnsms]

3. RE : "That's kinda screwed up"

I totally agree, and the fact that you would be willing to hurt the economy as well as the wallets of all your fellow Americans just to hurt GWBush makes you sound like a pretty bitter person. This is why the Republican kids in college poli sci classes can write off te things we say as extreme and unintelligent, because one of us always has to go and say stupid crap like that. Sorry to rant but it really pisses me off.

[lectrobyte]

9. No, what's screwed up are our energy policies

such as tax cuts encouraging businesses to buy 5000 lb Hummers instead of something more fuel efficient.

Get used to a messier future. Between the falling dollar, and decreasing oil production, I think the days of relatively cheap fuel are soon disappearing. There's a whole lot of information here on "peak oil", btw.

[Snivi Yllom]

35. thats more than screwed up. Do the OP think it would be great if

more people lost their jobs? Anything to get Bush out.

Sorry, that is fucked up logic.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Are you willing to see people go broke as well?

Such a spike in gas prices will seriously hurt a good many people who are already stretched thin as it is.

While a $0.50 rise might not affect your ability to put food on your table or meet basic bill payments, such a rise WILL adversely affect millions of the working poor in such a manner. Do you think that your electoral hopes surpass their ability to just keep their heads above water?

People really need to think before they make such outrageous statements, because they exhibit the "me first" attitude that we are so fond of condemning among the Republicans.

[Kanary]

8. Thanks, IrateCitizen

I hardly see anyone on DU anymore who has any understanding, let alone concern, for what happens to poor folk.

That alone is very discouraging about the state of the Democratic party!

I very much appreciate you speaking up.

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[Jane Austin]

33. Concern for poor folk

Amen.

While we're not poor, we did have to move out to a small town after our house burned down in Austin in order to save money for rebuilding.

There is no mass transit out this way, and in order to take care of things here at home my husband and I have to be on staggered schedules. Therefore, we go into Austin daily in separate vehicles.

We're spending $100 a week on gas, which bums me out on political grounds.

But translate our situation to someone who's moved out from town in order to afford ANY housing for their family, but who must work in Austin. What on earth are they to do?

It's going to be very tough for anybody who is barely making it now. :(

[Ricdude]

17. Such a spike in gas...

...will still mean we pay less than half of what Europeans pay for it.

Did you know that when you swipe your credit card at the pump, the pump cuts you off after $50.00 ??? Ask me how I know...

I remember early 2001 (just before our alleged president took office), gas was $1.15-$1.25/gallon, about $0.50 cheaper than it is now. By May of 2001, gas was up to about $1.70-$1.80/gallon, about the prices they are now. I traded my old Bronco (11 mpg) for a VW New Beetle with a diesel engine (almost a year ago today). Now I get 45 mpg, fill up half as often, go twice as far on a tank of gas, and when I feel like driving a little farther for fuel, can run it on renewable biodiesel.

The country seemed to survive the fuel price spike of 2001 (admittedly, poorly, though I believe there were other contributing factors), we can survive it again. Carpools, public transportation, working from home where possible are all ways to reduce the burden of high fuel prices. Cheap fuel is not sustainable in the long term, maybe it's better we start considering other options?

[Toucano]

24. You make some valid points.

But there's a world of difference in coping with a spike and hoping for a spike.

You'll note, of course, that Europeans generally have a much greater social services network and better mass transit than the US has. The social safety net catches people who get pinched by economic fluctuation far better than ours.

Until there's national leadership in place to help people cope with the changes higher fuel prices are going to bring, to wish for higher fuel prices to produce political change is insensitive to the needs of those who are the most vulnerable in our society.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Your long-term points I agree with wholeheartedly

However, WRT the short-term, we simply don't have the infrastructure in place to cope.

I visited Europe for a month this past summer with my wife, for our honeymoon. I noticed several things that are different there than here.
1. The majority of people actually live IN the cities, and the "suburbs" are where the undesirable neighborhoods are.
2. Sprawl is not an issue because of highly restrictive zoning laws. Suburban development is non-existent -- all commericial and industrial activity is concentrated in the cities.
3. You don't need a car to get around. You can catch trains and streetcars pretty much 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. Cities are also much more pedestrian and bike friendly (to the extreme in Amsterdam). In fact, in many cities it is actually quite expensive and inconvenient to even own a car.
4. Their neighborhoods are better planned to keep amenities within a close range. You don't have to get in a car to drive to the market or store -- you can simply walk.

Additionally, did you realize that the highest percentage of trips by car compared to total trips in Europe is in Germany, at approximately 49%? The percentage in the United States is a staggering 86%! That statistic alone shows how far behind we are with regards to alternative modes of transportation!

[Ricdude]

39. Compare when Europe and America "expanded"

The majority of land "development" in America occurred after the invention of the car, and is scaled accordingly. New York city (and to some extent downtown DC) are perhaps the only places in the country where you can really get by without a car. Europe had a pedestrian-friendly scale to its cities long before America was colonized. Personally, I'm all over the "restructure society so we don't need cars" theory. It makes sense on so many levels: Lower energy requirements for transportation, easier to walk more places means more likely to get some exercise, fewer pollutants spewed into the ecosystem ...

P.S. Ever read Kunstler? =)

[IrateCitizen]

40. Oh, it's starting -- here and there, but it's starting

The current suburban model has just become sustainable, and people all across the ideological spectrum are realizing this and turning more toward "smart growth" policies that center on mixed-use zoning, revitalization of run-down urban areas as opposed to greenfields development, installation of bike paths and expansion of public transit, etc.

Of course, we certainly have a long way to go in this regard, but it is something that needs to start community by community.

I'm all with you on the need to design communities better. I love living in a town in which I can ride my bike or walk to almost everywhere I want to go. It's just a question of how much time I want to take out of my day -- but when I compare that with the enjoyment I get of just getting out around town on my bike, it's no contest.

The trick is getting other people to realize the same thing. I'm still working on my wife!

[Alpharetta]

6. I would like a pointer to how much control Bush has over SPR

Can Bush cause a net outflow from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves? Does he have authority? How quickly could he drop gas prices if he wanted to?

[tobius]

14. didn't help gore a month or so b4 last election

Gore defends release of U.S. oil reserve

September 25, 2000
Web posted at: 9:41 AM EDT (1341 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore defended Monday the release of U.S. oil reserves before the November election, saying he would not go along with the "apologists" for big oil firms.

In an interview with NBC's "Today" show, Vice President Gore said the current administration would not "sit around and do nothing" while consumers were being charged "outrageously high" oil prices.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/25/campaign.gore.oil.reut/

[Alpharetta]

41. Thanks for the pointer. Looks like it had some effect.

I am betting just the announcement or the threat of releasing reserves can crater speculation slow the "run" on gas prices.

I would expect Bush to make similar announcements and release some reserves this summer if prices continue to rise.

If I was brave, I'd buy "put" options accordingly.

[legin]

43. The rule of thumb guide that i read somewhere is

'a 1% change in supply = a 10% change in price'

so Clinton's 30m barrels over 30 days was over 1% of supply so nowdays would be worth about $3 off a barrel of oil.

If Clinton can do it in 2000, bush* can do it in 2004.

And bush* is building up the Strategic Reserve at the rate of 0.1m barrels a day at the moment.

[legin]

44. And it is a free shot too

It will wash over the general population without them noticing.

I regard myself as quite keen on the oil issue and i was unaware that the u.s. had a Strategic Reserve until about six months ago.
:silly:

[legin]

48. I could see bush* doing 60m over 45 days

take about 20 - 30 cents off a gallon of petrol.

[Kanary]

7. Are you also "willing" to help out all the poor who would be

very badly damaged by such a thing?????

It's truly amazing that you think most of the average folk would really be affected. If they were concerned about the cost of gas, they wouldn't be driving gas hogs.

It's the POOR who are affected.

That's really not that hard to figure out.

Kanary, amazed....

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[tandot]

10. what is it going to change?

The rich don't worry about gas prices. I drive 100 miles daily from and to work on a very limited income. My car gets 30 miles per gallon but it still hurts financially

And religious, right-wing fanatics are not going to vote for Kerry, no matter how high the gas price is.

[Jane Austin]

45. Fanatics

Fanatics of any group are a small portion of whatever that group is.

I'll bet you'd find that an awful lot of people who are members of those same groups aren't as committed to the ideology as the fanatics, may be more suseptible to pocketbook issues, and might even resent the loudmouthed fanatics they are associated with.

[placton]

11. What we CAN say is

"Bush told us to elect him, in part, because of his closeness with the oil producing states. Apparently, he approves of this price hike, since he is doing nothing about it." Except, of course, to urge us to produce a hydrogen car after he is dead.

[sadiesworld]

12. Negative wishful thinking is not incredibly attractive, but...

if the economy does a temporary (and it will be temporary) turnaround it is very likely that * will be elected. Also, this is nothing compared to the repukes attempts to actively sabotage policy in order to get their idiots elected.

[LiberalBushFan]

13. everyone here knows that would be a good thing

because getting Bush out would help the economy on the long-term more than enough to make up for the negative consequences of rising gas prices. But you are getting ragged because you're not supposed to say that in public, for obvious reasons. They've already been saying "Democrats want the economy to go bad so they can win." Of course it's been bad since shortly after Bush took office, so let's just leave it at that.

[Kanary]

16. So much for those "negative consequences"

Those "negative consequences" have faces, and the same desires and reasons for living that you do.

The fact that you can so easily dismiss human beings speaks volumes for the whole state of the Democratic party, and why the vote of poor people has largely been lost.

Yet, in the next breath, I'm willing to bet you'll start talking about getting poor people registered, and complaining that they "don't vote".

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[Shopaholic]

18. Help me respond to this repug. . .

On another board I just had to read through a long rant from a repug idiot who tried to convince the rest of us that Bush & Co. have nothing to do with the higher gas prices--some crap about how the oil reserves are low, crude oil prices have skyrocketed, and that all liberals have problems with businesses & corporations making a profit. I don't really know how to respond to his argument or if I should respond to it, but it annoys me that he believes this crap and is trying to cram his rhetoric down everyone else's throats--and oh yeah, this is a board for a rock group! Go figure! Those repugs don't waste an opportunity to try and convert someone to their cult do they?

[tandot]

19. Thanks, Kanary

If gas prices get any higher I can't afford to drive to work anymore.

I guess that would make some of you here glad...increases the unemployment rate.

[IrateCitizen]

31. Those "faces" don't matter -- it's all about the "big win"!!!

Didn't you get that memo, Kanary? Real people don't matter -- only the electoral success of the Democratic Party!

:puke:

It's grossly ignorant statements like this one that almost make me ashamed to be a Democrat. Like another poster asked, "Are we really nothing more than pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Freepers?"

I prefer to keep myself reminded of the words of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, who said, "Politics is about the importance of people's lives."

Keep that in mind, always, and you'll be fine.

[LiberalBushFan]

46. excuse me?

what does that have do with my argument at all?

Yes, the negative consequences of high gas prices and Bush re-election both have faces, desires, and the same reasons for living that I do. I'm just saying the negative consequences of the second is a whole lot worse than the first.

So why did you launch into your flurry of insults? I don't think that's what being a "delusional diehard for Dennis" is supposed to be about.

What do you think is going to happen to gas prices in Bush term #2?

[tobius]

20. wouldn't it be great if more people could lose their jobs, more soldiers

would get killed, the stock market tanks, more mad cow infections, food shortages became common, interest rates shot through the roof, inflation came back with a bang, the dollar lost all value, bush was caught blowing up an elementary school? man, that would be awesome!



</sarcasm>

[buddy22600]

21. My point exactly

Wishing people would suffer is a really bad way to get people to vote Democratic, we would just play into the stereotypes that republicans push on the world. Aren't we supposed to be a party of caring people, who want success for all and not about screwing over a good portion of the country for the success of a few. Doesn't that sound pretty much like what republicans want. Screw the poor so our party stays in/gains power.

[BringEmOn]

22. If we need a 50 cent hike in gas prices to beat Bush

we are really in trouble.

[Toucano]

23. What a terrible thing to say.

Of course the energy policy is wrong.

But higher gas prices have a serious and immediate detrimental effect on the poorest people first. Without a real plan and leadership, what you're hoping for is an increase in suffering.

It would seem that progressive minded people would not go around hoping to increase the burden of the working poor.

Especially when one could hope, for example, that the 911 commission reveals BushCo. was negligent in preventing the attacks, the Plame indictments implicate Cheney, and growing evidence will come out that the Iraq war was motivated by Bush's self-interests. All are very likely events that would hurt Bush more than they would hurt innocent people.

You may not mind "biting the bullet", but millions of Americans have been biting the bullet for years now. They can't bite any harder.

Shame on you! :fingerwag:

[Mick Knox]

25. I'm not willing to "bite that bullet"...

The election can be won without BS hopes.. or maybe we dont deserve to win. Are we about change for a better direction.. or are we freepers who are prochoice and support gay marriage...

This is a horrible post.. people cant afford this.

[Forkboy]

26. figures

this doesn't suprise me in the least :eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. The BCE is manipulating the oil market deliberately.

Don't believe me? Where do you think all this extra profit is going? Right into Junior's campaign.

Still don't believe me? Why is it that gas is so much fucking higher on the west coast than the rest of the country. You know, the west coast.... three states that did NOT vote for that fucking criminal bastard!

And wasn't the illegal invasion of Iraq supposed to make gas cheaper

You better believe that piece of shit is manipulating the oil market for his own benefit.

[Mr.Green93]

28. go all out

hope for a terrorist attack also

[revcarol]

29. 56 miles round-trip to go to the grocery store.

Are you willing to make the poor and the RURAL people suffer?

No public transportation out here.

[Festivito]

34. NO, I don't think you want US hurt just to get Bush out.

I understand the sentiment, but if you try and elaborate, I think you'll find that you can't do it well. I think you made a mistake.

[MadHound]

36. Sorry, but that is one horrible idea there

Can you afford the jump in fuel costs? Not just at the pump, but also for food, clothing, utilities, and just about every other single consumer good that is transported? We're already paying a high fuel price surcharge on most consumer goods now, have been since '01. Most people can't afford for more of the same to be added on.

There are truckers, mostly independents now, who are out of work because of high fuel prices. You want more families to suffer unemployment?

Sorry, though I can understand the sentiment behind it, this idea is terrible. What is even more terrible is that you might just get your wish. That is one reason why I'm getting into biodiesel later this year.

[MercutioATC]

37. I hope gas jumps another $3 before November...

America is the innovator of the world, but only when it's profitable. Gas is too cheap to make it profitable right now, but at $5/gallon, we'll start innovating. $5/gallon gas is the best thing that could happen to us at this point...

[fishnfla]

38. And the oil companies will adjust the prices down 11/5/04

To their current levels, which are at record setting profit levels. I dont think * and cheney get any donations from oil company execs anyway, so yes, this will hurt them.
or maybe not

[Alpharetta]

42. Barbara Boxer calls for lower prices by releasing Strategic Reserve

interestingly, it's a Democrat who wants Bush to release some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves so that prices can be lowered. Ironic because Bush was critical of Clinton/Gore using the SPR to lower reserves right before Election 2000.

http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2020874,00.html

Lawmakers ask feds to tap reserves to ease gas prices

By James Tressler The Times-Standard


North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer this week are calling on federal authorities to help ease California's soaring gas prices.

The two California Democrats on Monday sent a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, requesting the department tap into the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

"These high gas prices are a tremendous financial strain on families in California," Boxer said in a press release. "Californians need relief and taking advantage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should result in lower gas prices."

Gas prices soared in recent weeks all over the West Coast, and have remained even higher in Humboldt and Del Norte counties. Motorists here pay some 60 cents higher than the national average, which recently posted a near-historic high of $1.74 per gallon. In the past month, the average price of gas in Eureka jumped from $1.94 to $2.18. Stations in Crescent City have topped $2.22.


According to the U.S. Department of Energy's website, the strategic reserve is the largest stockpile of government-owned emergency crude oil in the world. Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the reserve is intended to give the president an option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy. It also allows the United States to meet part of its International Energy Agency obligation to maintain emergency oil stocks, and it provides a national defense fuel reserve. The reserve currently holds about 648 million barrels, which are stored in a government complex consisting of four sites created in deep underground salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.

[CatWoman]

47. check it out, Tru

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1240206
:hi: