Is it just me, or are there some DU'ers cheering for higher gas prices?

I ask, because whenever there is a thread on high gas prices, DUers line up with the "No sympathy for SUV drivers" schtick.

I think SUVs are kind of ridiculous myself.
I also understand people who want to reduce consumption of gas.

But high gas prices hurt working Americans who drive 40 minutes to work. I drive 45 minutes to work every day in a Ford Focus. And $4 dollar gas will eat me up. I'd love to work in the town where I live, but that isn't possible. Even if I could sell my house, all it would do is force my wife to drive 45 minutes to work. It's unlikely she would find work in the town I work in.

So, next time your about to cheer for high gas prices because it validates your political agenda, stop, and consider that Democrats are supposed to care about the average American worker.

High gas prices may be inevitable. But it sure would be nice if people didn't cheer on the pain it will cause.

type. . But I ignore it.

who make money from the criminal "speculation" racket that artificially raises oil prices.

I've seen pessimistic opinions on if it will recover, but I haven't seen anyone rooting for it to fail completely.

different, Utopian type of economy. They don't seem to realize or care about the amount of damage that would cause to millions (billions) throughout the country and the world. It is a fantasy.

what you've been hearing is any cheering.

Gas prices are going to go up as the dollar goes down. Eventually, that will force Congress to take the necessary step to shore up the dollar: raise taxes. Since the working and middle classes are tapped out, that means the rich are just going to have to cough up whether or not they like it.

But no, we're all going to get hurt if gas prices go up as far as they did during Stupid's oil man administration. I don't think they'll go that far, but the north side of three bucks a gallon is certainly not out of the question.

Reducing deficits, getting to a balance budget, paying down some of this record $11T (going to $20T by end of Obama second term) debt will.

Sadly I think Congress will use the falling dollar as an excuse to raise taxes and then raise sending right along side it.

We likely will only learn when there is a worldwide boycott of dollar backed assets. Interest on national debt spikes to something in the 13% range, paying that interest becomes 40% of federal budget, dollar falls another 30%, and gasoline is $8 a gallon.

Then *maybe* Congress will realize the awful simple reality. YOU CANT SPEND MORE MONEY THEN YOU HAVE.

I don't think it is common on DU, but they are a loud, pouty minority.

"Hey, I've got a great idea! Why we go to the Outlet Mall together..... and we can stop by that new supermarket on the way home."

"Oh, you're going to Home Depot? Would it be too much trouble to pick me up on (not) the way? I might need a couple of things."

I used to get that kind of crap all the time when I lived in the nearby suburbs of a major city or two. You know, I really don't mind helping someone out, and I usually don't mind going out of my way and spending my time, but when the same person or someone similar then gets all self righteous about people who own vehicles in general or trucks in particular, it's a bit much. Not as bad as when they brag about how much money they save though.

Clue to the urban chic: The premium wine in your favorite "little cafe" gets there by car, a salesman (usually a woman actually) brings it. The rare, weird, and expensive ingredients in your innovative nouvelle, usually travel by car or van. Your neighborhood market isn't big enough to get deliveries, he drives to the produce market at 4 or 5 am to get your avocado. Just about everything in your doctor's office gets there by car, including your test results. Most of the people who do the scut work in your pricey little neighborhood can't afford to live there, and couldn't even if they got rid of their cars.

Just as there are those children who hope for a "snow day" to cancel classes, there'll always be those who'll cheer when the toilet backs up and applaud when dinner is burned. Happens throughout society, not just on this board.

have an alternative. Some poorer people are stuck driving what they have, which might be an older guzzler. Plenty of rich people drive them as status symbols, which ought to be a capital offense.

The up side to higher gas prices is that it discourages waste and excess driving. The down side is that hurts the little guy.

I don't see anybody cheering on the pain it causes. You have an overactive imagination.

I own a 32 ft. RV. When I tow it, I get 6 mpg. I can afford the gas. That doesn't mean I enjoy 4 bucks a gal. I'm retired. I enjoy traveling.

nothing else matters does it?

There have been several OP's here wishing for a larger, deeper economic collapse of any type so that a real liberal agenda can be pushed through. Some posters think it's OK to break a few eggs (people's livelihoods) for the purpose of making their omelet (liberal utopia).

Car culture is a millstone around the neck of the industrialized world, particularly America, and now all of Asia lusts for private automobiles. It is one of those things we MUST change, starting today.

I'm not calling for overnight change, just that we no longer delay dealing with this; our energy and resource problems will require a long-term commitment to solve. As you say, your own situation has you caught in a bad place. I, too, am not well-heeled, and $4/gallon gas will cut into my income as well.

Thinking about the political and social changes we must make in the next 20-50 years shows just how screwed we are. On the other hand, we've had tougher challenges. So I don't have any answers except to say that most of the gloating is akin to gallows humor.

--d!

solve our energy problems. $4.00 a gallon is unheard of in Europe, but here it's like the end of the world.

I am not cheering for higher gas prices especially in this economy but eventually we need to bite the bullet and revamp our public transportation system to accommodate everyone.

and their wasteful habits.

That's the bottom line- and anything that moves people in that direction is in the long run beneficial- and necessary for everyone's economic survival.

I suspect their glee is a bit misplaced.

when the economy and employment show signs of improvement, gas prices go up. If we could trade 4% or less unemployment for $5 gas, I'd take it. In the mean time higher mpg cars can help to offset this real world problem of higher employment>higher gas prices.

It's best to take revenue from those who can best afford it. Fuel efficiencies can be regulated without disproportionally causing suffering on the poorest Americans. A fuel tax might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the richest 1% have almost half the wealth in this country.

that would be the final nail in the coffin for the hope of a recovery. That would sink the economy. After the banks and the insurance companies, the oil companies should be regulated and taxed.

...alternatives the way we need to in order to transition to a true green economy.

Already big-ass trucks and SUVs are being purchased again, as if we never had those high prices.

I'd like to see a giant gas tax going toward green energy and help for those who qualify. (Those who don't drive gas hogs, make a modest living and must travel to work.)

how much he has...and when a guy says that sex isn't important, check and see who's he's married to.

I understand, and sympathize with, the populist impulse against Wall Street, but I suspect that cheering for the market to implode isn't really about well-founded hostility towards "The Man", but rather, part of an overall drive that pathologically wants everything to fail, collapse, and descend into utter chaos - human toll be damned. These people want to be right no matter the cost, and regardless of the facts. The obverse side of the same coin that the teabaggers represent.

For better or ill, many middle and working class Americans have their already-depleted retirement funds tied into the market through simple savings accounts, CD's, 401k's, IRA's, and mutual funds. Sure, I am all for the Wall Street fat cats getting their due, but I just can't bring myself to root for people's life savings taking a hit. Yes, I know that the fat cats are at fault for this mess, but the "system" isn't being dismantled and rebuilt from scratch anytime in this young century. We can go after them, and at the same time, help rebuild at least part of what was lost for many well-meaning, hard-working people. Yes, that means pushing for progressive taxation and other measures. But if any part of a rebuilding effort is tied into the Dow at some level and in some way, then so be it. I don't have to necessarily root for it to hit 10,000, but I surely don't feel comfortable waving my pom-pom's for a Second Great Depression either. We're close enough as it is.

So yes, the gas price issue is a part of this pathology on DU. Middle and working class people sometimes have long commutes, and can't afford hybrids, etc. even as many drive gas-sensible cars and not SUV's. So this crowd claims to be a champion of the middle and working classes, but are willing to "teach them a lesson" and have them "pay the price". Burn the village in order to save it, et al.

Being right, and being better than others less enlightened than they, is an honored DU pastime for a select few.

where there's no money at all, everyone gets whatever they need, no one has to work for anyone else, and all government services are provided by money that appears out of nowhere by magic just because of the pure goodness of the people's hatred for business, money-making, and financial enterprise.

Because we all know that the universe wants to fire up the magic money-machine for us, but we damn capitalists keep it from happening.

I got lectured by an elitist on this site about the type of coffee that was acceptable after a comment I made about my husband reheating his coffee in the microwave.



:puke:

:shrug:

One day it may be your turn to do it (I've already taken my turn a few times)

That's just the nature of a message board with over 150,000 active users.

It's a Ford Escape hybrid that gets 28 mpg. It would fit our lifestyle plus save, too. Not all SUVs are created equal. :)

Even the Chevy Equinox gets 32mpg on the highway. There's some decent choices out there if your mission requires a SUV.

We're test driving next weekend. Oh, and husband wants 4 wheel drive. Thanks!

The new 2wd Escape Hybrid does about 31 mpg on the highway IIRC and I'm sure it does considerably better in town.

Hybrids typically do better for city or mixed driving and conventional drivetrains do better for highway driving where the hybrid advantages are nullified.

In my rural area, I have no other choice.

High gas prices really hurt rural communities hard. Not only is it costlier to commute, but the prices in supermarkets reflect the cost of the fuel to get the food here.

prices are definitely a drain on income, but by comparison our European cousins have been paying through the nose for decades:

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/european-gas-prices-and-you-thought-350.html

Of course, that doesn't lessen the pain over here, but the wakeup call about ostentatious gas guzzlers, the need for government-mandated fuel efficiency, and the use of progressive taxation was long overdue. The days of the 4-car family may need a serious review, and affordable and convenient taxpayer-subsidized public transportation should be the focus of governments at all levels, from city to federal.

because naturally increased gas prices won't have an impact on public transit...

I am from California and I like to drive, go to hell.

When gas prices went through the roof last year bus service was getting CUT BACK because of the short-fall.

Europeans use high fuel taxes to subsidize public transportation. The result is a very robust public transportation system that actually is a viable alternative in the vast majority of situations and it's cheaper and faster. In the US we've decided to trade more pollution, higher costs, and less efficiency so people can maintain their facade of pseudo rugged individualism.

In the US, gas taxes don't come anywhere close to covering what the government spends building and maintaining roads. So automobile usage ends up being heavily subsidized by general revenue funds.

In Europe they simply choose to subsidize automobile usage a bit less and invest more in mass transit.

Only recently has the HTF been unable to meet it's obligations and that's because the spike in fuel prices has greatly reduced consumption over the past couple of years. When you factor in things like the billions of earmarks that have nothing to do with auto transportation, the difference becomes negligible.

In many European countries, fuel tax accounts for 50-70% of the total price compared to 17% in the US. The difference is night and day.

Take the amount of money the government spends building, maintaining roads and providing other services for motorists.

Subtract the amount of revenue the government collects exclusively from motorists.

The difference is the amount the government subsidizes automobile usage.

In my city of 200K the difference is several million dollars a year.

The HTF isn't the government's only expense when it comes to automobiles.

But of course no one knows the exact amount we're talking about. You'd have to analyze every municipal, state and federal budget. As far as I know, no one's ever bothered doing that.

And let's not even get into the portion of the defense budget that exists to protect oil fields.

It's a depository of fuel taxes with disbursements going directly to finance road and bridge costs. It's not rocket surgery. The HTF has been essentially pay as you go since 1956. An the HTF does subsidize mass transit, although to a very small degree. By law, the federal government CAN'T reimburse states for highway and bridge projects unless it comes out of the HTF. The federal government can infuse money into the HTF from the general fund, but it must be approved by congress. This did happen last year for reasons that I listed.

States budgets are less and can much less afford to subsidize road expenses outside of fuel tax receipts and there's little need to since most states charge as much fuel tax as is needed. Local governments can and sometimes do finance road projects by other means, and usually this happens by property taxes, but it's assumed that local citizen property owners and businesses benefit directly or indirectly by having paved roads in their area. In my area, anytime commercial property is built, the developers must pay into a fund that improves the local roads. Subsequent maintenance is paid for by state fuel taxes. I can't speak for other states, but I assume they have a similar method for building and maintaining roads.

Show one state budget where the fuel taxes collected cover the state's cost of building and maintaining roads.

I suspect I'll have to wait a while.

First of all, it's your assertion that roads are "subsidized" in the first place. Why you think I should have to disprove your tangential assertion that you never offered one iota of proof in the first place is beyond me. I don't fall for those tricks. Try someone more weak minded.

The reality is that roads are indeed subsidized, but not even within a cab ride of how you think they are. The Romans were building roads paid for by the "general fund" thousands of years before anyone knew what the fuck a car was. And those roads are the single biggest reason why they were transformed from a society of inbred sheepherders to a major world power that defined western civilization to this very day. So regardless of whether you ride a donkey to work the fact that you have a job in the first place is probably because we have a system of roads. Unless you live within walking distance of a sea port or a navigable river, you would probably be spending a good part of your time grinding corn with a rock sporting a bone through your nose. So there's no question that roads should be "subsidized", but the more relevant question is who is subsidizing whom? So lets suppose you have enough money to hire your own personal ball washer that follows you around all day with a bowl of warm soapy water and a washcloth. Even if you have an H1 hummer that you drive 300 miles per day just for shits and giggles, chances are you spend less on fuel taxes than you do on bills that you use to light your cigars. On the other hand, if you are one of the poorest working Americans, you might be spending more on fuel taxes than you can afford to spend on Spam for the week's dinners.

So fuel taxes shouldn't exist in the first place. Roads should be financed out of the "general fund" 100% by a taxation system that actually is progressive rather than just pretending to be progressive. They should be paid for by those who derive the most benefit from them and have the greatest ability to pay. Instead it's the other way around which is imbecilic. Arguing why and how on the details of how those taxes should be more regressive is....well what's an adjective that is dumber than imbecilic?

Cheers!

I knew that Google would eventually bail me out.

God I love proving that someone is WRONG ON THE INTERNET.

Better than sex.

Nice rant though.

:toast:

http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/magazine/032Spring/02provocateur.html

Your own reference proves me exactly right and you exactly wrong.

Your claim was, and I quote, "automobile usage ends up being heavily subsidized by general revenue funds"

Your own reference shows general fund appropriation at 15%. I'm sure you've also tried to convince people that 4" is huge. And if you actually had bothered to go to the Brookings site and read the article, you would have found this...



Which matches up almost precisely with what I had already told you, which was...



Literacy is a great thing. You should try it sometime. I'll also note that you dismissed my progressive stance as a "rant" and ignored it completely. In your defense, I'm sure you were too busy masturbating.

Have a nice day.

We spend probably trillions on mass transportation in this country, but it is all for kids - to get them to school and then back home. When I rode the train in Deutschland, from Burbach to Siegen early in the morning, that train filled up with schoolkids, Seems to me that that's a potentially huge subsidy for public transportation.

Where I live you can't go from Fort Worth to Dallas without going through two completely different systems that are financed independently. So you have two sets of overhead for essentially one system, and that's not counting all the school districts which each have their own independent system with their own overhead.

with concentrated urban centers. For better or worse we're simply constructed differently.

You also have areas of the US that have similar population densities as compared to Europe. Some have similarly adequate mass transit in a few areas, but this is the exception, rather than the rule.

yeah it doesn't always work that way but it should.

I'm not sure if you mentioned this already, but also higher prices also causes transit agencies to raise fares, which wouldn't help increase mass transit. It would just hurt poor people in cities who depend more on public transportation. Sometimes I think the people who cheer high gas prices forget that public transportation also need gas in order to run.

The only consumption that gets altered is that people drive less because they don't have a job to go to.

Most of the trips where people have a viable alternative to a car are short trips where they could walk or bike. Those trips aren't influenced by gas prices.

If I bike to work instead of drive I save less than a buck. If money was my only motivating factor I would need a much bigger bribe.

Of course a 45 minute drive is doable on a bicycle, if you're in halfway decent physical condition. Maybe not every day but at least occasionally.

its a tweaked way of looking at things. They root for a deeper recession because they've been predicting depression and catastrophic societal failure for awhile now. Kind of like the peak oil thing. Suburbia is doomed. No way are there any alternatives available to keep up the lifestyle we have. Its a wasteland waiting to happen. we're DOOOOOMED

like a sports fan invests in his team. They can't be happy that there may be alternatives that will allow us to maintain our standard of living because that means they might be wrong. The have so much ego invested in being correct they don't care about the consequences it will have on all of us.

I started seeing doomsday tracts back in the 60's. They were generally mimeographs then. Or chain letters.

for lower income folks who don't have access to transit.

Personally I am still driving my 97 Taurus and it's a guzzler ... but I only drive about 3000 miles a year. I pay over $100 per month for transit though. I'd love to see higher gas taxes fund expanded transit systems so fewer people would have to drive.

the easier it is to promote alternative energy sources.

I see people who want change without changing. I can't put my finger on it. But I am one who has a strong desire for change. And unfortunately people don't like being responsible unless they have a fire under them. In fact, people can't even agree that we are having a problem. We are in an emergency, not just a problem period. Gas prices are insignificant in terms of the overall situation in which we find ourselves. In a thousand years nobody is going to care if gas was a dollar, or a hundred dollars per gallon. But they sure as fuck are going to care about no environmental buffer system.

I'm very upset about this. Even the brightest, most liberal of people just don't get that it's not "them", but us who make up this problem. It's not Exxon. It wasn't Bush. It's US. Fox never fooled me. I even remember how sheepish I felt when Bush Sr. started his Iraq war and I said in my office "No blood for oil". It was almost like treason back then. I will agree that a strong leader would help the brainless open their eyes. But it's that trip, vacation, child. It's about petroleum combustion. Period.

I love how so many DUers elevate themselves above the herd, imagining themselves so much brighter, more logical, more cultured, more refined, more capable of rational and considered thought than the common man. And we're "progressives." :eyes:

I am one of the brainless much of the time. Maybe I should have said greedy. Or better, irresponsible. Or maybe just lazy. I think lazy sums up my sentiment pretty well. I'm referring to those who don't think, but just jump in their car. That kind of brainless. Don't assume I think I'm any smarter. I'm not. But I care, and I am vigilant. Most just don't give a crap. I want to treat this planet like it's special. Like it's fragile. And in that respect, I am one of a limited few.

It's the "cut off your nose to spite your face" party.

I've driven cars that get great gasoline mileage for the past 20 plus years, and wouldn't dream of owning anything that can't average 24 mpg. But I have enough sense to know that my groceries aren't arriving by magic. They're driven here, and the cost of moving them is mainly the price of fuel. Higher fuel prices means higher consumer costs for those who can least afford it. And those same folks on the lowest rung can't afford to drive to work to make minimum wage when gasoline is $4 a gallon and they live 30 miles from their job.

I have been scorned for having an SUV for nearly 1 1/2 years. It's not a big SUV, but it's still a gas-guzzling SUV in some eyes. I am probably using less gas a week than any fuel-efficient commuters.

You drive more in one day than I drive in a week. Higher gas prices are going to hurt those in SUVs as well as those who commute to work in small fuel efficient cars...and unless you grow your own food, bicycle riders and walkers and horseback riders will also eventually feel the heat with the over-inflated prices on goods and food, all in the name of higher prices on gas. Be careful what you wish for people.

when I have to fill my tank, hoping it will be less than the last time.

Cheer? Not a chance.

The people who cheer high gas prices are out of touch. I live in northern Virginia, but not close to the core due to expenses. I work in the DC metro region. I live with my parents, and am currently trying to save to get a place of my own. I don't like to drive since I'm kind of afraid too, so I carpool with my mom and dad and take public transportation the rest of the way.

Well anyway my point is the DC metro area is one of the most expensive areas in the country. If have to be well off to be able to life in a nice part of the core part of the DC metro area. If you don't you either live in a ghetto area or commute from out side the area. I live about 45 miles away from my job, but I know people who commute from West Virginia to where I work, McLean VA.

Higher gas prices hurt the least well off the most. I'm beginning to realize I have to get over my fear of driving, if I want to move to a price that I can afford.

we're getting higher prices whether we wish for them or not

I'm also at a loss as to what the fuck else is gonna cure us of our horsepower-worship.

Must have stock in an oil company or two?

The real problems are going to be the sky rocketing factor costs are going to tear through the economy. I can take a bus, ride a bike, or walk. My food can't take the bus to my stores. My electricity can't ride a bike to my house.

money.