Ok, this isn't really off topic as the bulk of the boating discussed
on this group is by boats dependent on fuel.

I can't say I'm happy about either parties energy policy.

Bush? Clearly in the pocket of the oil interests.

Kerry? Open up the strategic oil reserves to lower prices. That
sounds just a bit like pandering for votes rather than facing the
issue. I've heard much whining about Kerry's vote for increased fuel
taxes. Well, if we'd begun ratcheting up the cost of fuel gradually
over they years to make conservation make sense, we wouldn't be in
this jamb, and the budget wouldn't be nearly as out of whack.

How about some long term plan to solve a problem that clearly isn't
going away. As much as people like to trash Carter, he at least had
the balls to do what was in the best interest of the country afa
energy policy goes.

You want to fight middle east supported terrorism? Severely
restricting the flow of cash to that region would be a good start.
We, as a country, have decided it's our right to have 90# women
driving SUVs the size of school buses. As long as we don't have any
will power when it comes to energy use, we'll have our citizens
fighting and dying to preserve our wasteful ways.

bb

We, as a country, have decided it's our right to have 90# women
driving SUVs the size of school buses.

And as long as that 90-pound woman doesn't insist on buying 92 octane gas at
$1.19 a gallon, there isn't a problem.

When the 90-pound woman says, "Let's screw up the whole world drilling willy
nilly everywhere there might a few million barrells of oil to help preserve my
$1.19 premium," that's a problem.

200 years from now, when our great great grandkids are still alive, people will
find it quaint that we used petroleum for transportation- but they would still
be living with the effects of irresponsible drilling.

The Republicans are always hollering for free markets. Let the price of gas
seek its place in the market and we'll see a lot fewer SUV's. Yes, driving an
SUV, (or owning a boat), is a choice that we should be free to make----but we
shouldn't expect any guarantees about what the ultimate personal costs of that
decision could be.

I believe the actual cost of providing the energy should be passed along to the
final consumers of the energy. (that'd be you and me) Part of the cost of
energy as of now and probably into the foreseeable future will be a large US
military force in the middle East. We need to inspire the Arabs to continue
selling to us, and to discourage them from further consideration
of switching to the Euro as the standard currency of trade.

Unless you blow around under sail, it's pretty tough for a boater to get
cranked up about fuel efficiency. Even a super-efficient power boat won't do
much better than 3-4 nmpg.

From a resource efficiency standpoint, most boaters live in a glass house and
better not throw many rocks in the debate over oil supply and priorities of
use.

In article ,
says...
Ok, this isn't really off topic as the bulk of the boating discussed
on this group is by boats dependent on fuel.

I can't say I'm happy about either parties energy policy.

Bush? Clearly in the pocket of the oil interests.

Kerry? Open up the strategic oil reserves to lower prices. That
sounds just a bit like pandering for votes rather than facing the
issue.

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

jps

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has
been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him
advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.


A big part of the problem is the countless formulas required by the EPA
for cities around the country.......the economies of scale are lost thanks
to guvmint regs.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.


Calif Bill wrote:
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

You're right, but you miss the point totally. What *should* have been
happening all along is that the price of gas rises with inflation. But
then the economy would not have had it's booms dependent on ridiculously
cheap transportation and the explosion of personal credit.

The price of gas is very low, considering inflation... that's why
everybody thinks SUVs are stylin'. But it is foolish policy that got us
here, and foolish consumerism that leads some people to the conclusion
that we should fight wars (against the whole world, if necessary) to
keep gas cheap.

And, as 'bb' rightly points out, our deadliest enemies are profiting
from our foolishness.

DSK

On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:52:02 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.

Ok, who said anything about $10 a gallon gas? It's down to either you
or the strawman.

bb

"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.


Calif Bill wrote:
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

You're right, but you miss the point totally. What *should* have been
happening all along is that the price of gas rises with inflation. But
then the economy would not have had it's booms dependent on ridiculously
cheap transportation and the explosion of personal credit.

The price of gas is very low, considering inflation... that's why
everybody thinks SUVs are stylin'. But it is foolish policy that got us
here, and foolish consumerism that leads some people to the conclusion
that we should fight wars (against the whole world, if necessary) to
keep gas cheap.

And, as 'bb' rightly points out, our deadliest enemies are profiting
from our foolishness.

DSK


You miss the point totally! If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.