I have been turning off lights; turning down the thermostat; eating out of a cereal box; putting on pots of beans; and, yes, even eating the heals of the loaves of bread for dozens of years.

I didn't realize that I could have been a TV star just by pointing this out to an MSM newsreader!

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Give me a break.Gee I am saveing all kinds of money.I dont eat breakfast except coffee.Some nights I fix what would be considered a breakfast meal.Scramble eggs with jalepenos.That wouldnt cost me 4 bucks.A bowl of cereal and toast will not cost you 4 bucks.What did she do eat out?

I didn't realize that's why I'm able to afford gas. I haven't eaten breakfast for years!

One of the reasons those poor Minnesotans are sitting in the dark is the asinine global warming legislator zealots in St. Paul passing expensive renewable electric mandates and adamantly opposing affordable coal-burning power plants.  But, then again, folks in the Hinterland have a lot to fear about global warming ... like two or three fewer days of ice fishing.

Here's how Minnesota Power recently explained the need to raise electric rates: 

"In addition to higher expenses for general operation and maintenance, the costs of complying with regulatory changes and legislative mandates have also risen."

So let's pass more renewable mandates, bow down before renewable fuels and tax the heck out of those unholy oil companies .... so energy prices can continue to climb and our economy can steepen the angle of its downward spiral.

These stories are great, I love them.  I hope the Republican Congressional Campain committee is saving them for future use.  Just repeat the story, about this poor woman, and then go back to her, explain about supply and demand and how the Democrats refuse to let us become energy independent and ask her to say a few words, such as: "Thank You Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats for not allowing us to control our own energy resources."  I'd keep hammering that into people day in and day out.  Someone has to hold these turkey's responsible for what they've done.  

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

She spent 4 bucks a day on breakfast? What was she eating, a scone and latte from Starbucks every morning?

Listen lady, I have a simple solution for you...go to your local grocery store. Buy a pack of coffee grounds for 2 bucks. Buy a box of pop tarts for 2 bucks. You'll have breakfast every morning for more than a week.

Eight for $1.00.

Here's Investor's Business Daily Thomas Sowell's (a black man, by the way) take on it:

Reason For High Oil Is (Unsatisfyingly) Simple

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Some people think the reason the public misunderstands so many issues is that these issues are too "complex" for most voters.

But is that really so?

With all the commotion in the media and in politics about the high price of gasoline, is there really some terribly complex explanation?

Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries — India and China — having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations eight times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world's oil supply?

The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.

It is clear that many people prefer to blame President Bush. Others prefer to blame the oil companies, who have long been the favorite villains of the left.

Politicians understand that. Numerous times they have summoned the heads of oil companies before Congressional committees to be denounced on nationwide television for "greed," with the politicians calling for a federal investigation to "get to the bottom of this!"

Now that is emotionally satisfying. Which is the whole point. By the time yet another federal investigation is completed — and turns up nothing to substantiate the villainy that is supposed to be the reason for high gasoline prices — most people's attention will have turned to something else.

Newspapers that carried the original inflammatory charges with banner headlines on page 1 will carry the story of the completed investigation that turned up nothing as a small item deep inside the paper.

This has happened at least a dozen times over the past few decades, and it probably will happen again.

What about those "obscene" oil company profits we hear so much about? An economist might ask, "Obscene compared to what?" Compared to the investments made? Compared to the new investments required to find, extract and process additional oil supplies?

Asking questions like these are among the many reasons why economists have never been very popular. They frustrate people's desires for emotionally satisfying explanations.

If corporate "greed" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the government's taxes not an even bigger sign of "greed" on the part of politicians — since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do?

Whatever the merits or demerits of Sen. John McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies' profits. But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Sen. Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies. How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes — and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.

You have heard of the cavalry to the rescue. But have you ever heard of economists to the rescue?

While economists are talking supply and demand, politicians are talking compassion, "change" and being on the side of the angels — and against drilling for our own oil.

Has any economist ever attracted the kinds of cheering crowds that Barack Obama has — or even the crowds attracted by Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

If you want cheering crowds, don't bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear — and they don't want to hear about supply and demand.

No, supply and demand is not too "complex." It is just not very emotionally satisfying.

The latest idea for relief from dems(and some repubs) is that we should stop putting 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the national strategic oil reserves. These folks tell us it will bring great relief to the American people, reducing gas by 75-80 cents a gallon. Sounds plausible. Funny thing is, these are the same people who tell us that pumping a million barrels of oil from ANWR and our coastal waters isn't enough, won't solve the problem, and will only reduce the price by a penny.

So, 70,000 barrels good, a million barrels bad. 70,000 extra barrels will reduce price by 80 cents a gallon at the pump, but a million extra barrels will only reduce it a penny. That's our liberal math lesson of the day.

Gov Martin O'Money has been raising taxes as well. We had a billion dollar surplus when the sheeple of Md threw out our terrific governor and before O'Money was sworn in he was talking deficits and tax hikes. We' don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

What do you want to bet she is driving around on underinflated tires too!! Where's the in depth reporting to bring us that scoop! Can you imagine telling her she can go back to eating breakfast if she just puts more air in her tires? {cue Home Simpson's "DOH!!"}

To quote Jim Bunning:

SUCK. IT. UP.