Last night, CBS "Evening News" and ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" hyped rising gas prices, saying that the national average price was "just two cents short of the record."
Too bad they were both wrong because they didn't factor in inflation. The national average on May 7 was actually 17 cents below the inflation adjusted record high price from March 1981: $3.22 per gallon.
Anthony Mason's CBS report also proved he needs a calculator and possibly a math tutor.
Mason interviewed Mike Gorgia of Staten Island who regularly tracks his area's gas prices for GasBuddy.com. Mason said Gorgia saves a whopping $500 a year by shopping around for his gasoline.
Hold on -- $500? That doesn't exactly sound like a representative example.
The average American uses 500 gallons of gas each year, according to the Energy Information Administration. So if Gorgia is an "average American" he must be saving a full dollar on every gallon of gasoline.
But he's not according to Mason's report, which mentioned only a 30 cent difference in price. So Gorgia has to be driving more than three times the national average of 12,000 miles per year in order to save $500.
Gorgia's work commute is only 10 miles roundtrip. So to do the quick math that Mason clearly did not do: Gorgia drives roughly 2,600 miles back and forth to work in a year. To save as much as he claimed, he’d have to drive about 34,900 extra miles in his free time. That’s the rough equivalent to driving back and forth from New York City to Los Angeles 14 times.
Next time Mason should do the math and hold the hype.
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
CBS hasn't been viewed in m
May 8, 2007 - 14:24 ET by dabalCBS hasn't been viewed in my household since we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam.
They haven't even accidentally said the truth since then, from what I gather from sites like this.
The moment they gave a voice to our enemies, they should have lost their broadcast license.
You joke Julia - but they r
May 8, 2007 - 14:30 ET by Dee BunkYou joke Julia - but they really do need tutors. If they did their job right in the first place they wouldn't need them because they should be reporting what experts say, not making their own stories with bogus interpretations and findings that have no relation to reality.
I'm so sick of people here a
May 8, 2007 - 14:56 ET by InsufficientContextI'm so sick of people here always assuming that the msm are wrong or incompetent. Did any of you ever stop to think that maybe you are the ones that are wrong, that maybe, just maybe, you lack any semblance of critical thinking, hmmm?
Did you consider his vehicle choice for instance? That would have a definite impact on the amount of fuel he uses. Like, maybe he drives a...uh...umm..a MONSTER TRUCK!!! Yeah! Those get like 100ft to the gallon, so now it seems entirely possible that ABC had it right all along! HA!
Losers....
......I suck and I don't know how to make my link work.... www.channel4.com/sport/microsites/M/monsterjam/numbercrunching.html
Yeah...do the math...the repu
May 8, 2007 - 15:37 ET by fenderteleYeah...do the math...the republicans would have you think that with gas at $3.35 a gallon, Americans are actually making money everytime we fill our tanks. We're just too stupid to realize it.
Republicans don't care about you. Everytime you go to fill your tank, if you can afford to, you're bending over for the republican party. You can rationalize rising gas prices all you want with lies, but the truth is the oil companies are making BILLIONS of dollars in profits. And heaven forbid developing an electric car because that might make Arab oil obsolete.
Damn that "Capitalism&
May 8, 2007 - 15:39 ET by MightyMouthDamn that "Capitalism" again!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Wrong again. It's called "pr
May 8, 2007 - 15:45 ET by fenderteleWrong again. It's called "price gouging".
Then "revolt" as
May 8, 2007 - 15:48 ET by MightyMouthThen "revolt" as a consumer and don't buy it.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I commute on (God forbid) pub
May 8, 2007 - 16:02 ET by fenderteleI commute on (God forbid) public transportation and only use the car locally. I can do all I need on roughly forty bucks a month, but others aren't as fortunate.
Why do you like paying high gas prices? Do think it's patriotic?
Two questions:1) if you com
May 8, 2007 - 16:07 ET by MightyMouthTwo questions:
1) if you commute, what are you bitchin about?
2) Did you know the government makes more on a gallon of gas (taxes) than the oil company does?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
without the risk or sacrifice
May 8, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Conservative Voicewithout the risk or sacrifice, all the while dictating how the oil companies should run their business. Want to lower prices? Lower the gas prices, allow the oil companies do their job with less hassle. Milk is more expensive per gallon, yet is less complicated and risky to bring to the market...by comparison I salute American oil companies for keeping the price competitive and relatively cheap.
I don't know where you live,
May 8, 2007 - 16:57 ET by fenderteleI don't know where you live, but I pay $1.99 a gallon for milk. Gas is getting close to twice that. When you say the oil companies are keeping the price competitive with whom do they compete with? The oil industry is a cartel run by OPEC who raise and lower the price of oil based on production quotas. The ironic thing is that you salute the oil companies for raising the price, yet condemn the government for taxing it. I'd be in favor of keeping the price of gas where it currently is even as the price of oil drops and make up the difference in taxes to cover the rising cost of infrastructure. Use the taxes for highway improvements to alleviate congestion and to improve mass transit.
in hawaii, its about $6 a gal
May 8, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Conservative Voicein hawaii, its about $6 a gallon (milk). OPEC isn't under America, its the middle east. Nor does OPEC own all the oil companies. Oil companies compete with themselves. Here is another example...bottle water, even easier than milk. a pint of water is a buck (if its on sale). So thats $8 bucks a gallon.
I will salute the company for raising prices so that they can stay in business, and will condemn the government for taxing it for more than what the company earns by profit because the government doesn't own the company. The taxes and regulations are unAmerican. Here is the thing, taxes on gas already goes to roads and bridges, yet it isn't enough. It is never enough. When a business is as sloppy as the government is on how it manages its money, they are out of business. If their price is too high, they are out of business. Where is the competition for the government? What risks to they have in not bringing gas to the pump? None! With government I get one vote, that I can use after so many years! With business I vote with my dollars on a daily basis. So tell me which one is more responsive to the consumer? Here is the other thing, mister put my faith in government research for new energy sources...the gas companies are in a better position to do research and development due to market forces than government.
Do you have an ulcer on other companies, or just oil?
About four dollars here in Mo
May 8, 2007 - 17:33 ET by bigtimerAbout four dollars here in Montana for milk a gallon....anyway, where I live.
My wife informed me that when
May 8, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Conservative VoiceMy wife informed me that when it is on sale, its around $4 as well. Its close to gas prices, without the risk or hassle from the government.
Yeah CV,It would be interesti
May 8, 2007 - 19:55 ET by bigtimerYeah CV,
It would be interesting to know where fender lives or if he does his own shopping...or better yet a...
POLITICIAN.
Not saying it isn't cheaper elsewhere...but heck fender, just where do you live you pay that price for a gallon of milk for...bet you have had time to get a link...hehheee.
Praising big business' role i
May 8, 2007 - 17:52 ET by fendertelePraising big business' role in screwing the citizen is nothing less than fascism. If you think gas companies are going to fund research to make their product obsolete you are living in a dream world and I suggest you wake up.
You do not have a clue what f
May 8, 2007 - 17:59 ET by Conservative VoiceYou do not have a clue what facism is. I promote capitalism. If the markets showed that they would garner a bigger profit with less effort or risk, you better believe they would use their money to invest in those areas. I put more faith in the average person knowing what is in their best interest than any think-tank elitists such as yourself.
Liberals are more facists tha
May 8, 2007 - 18:02 ET by Conservative VoiceLiberals are more facists than most conservatives, have more hate and are more likely to be racist. Give me a break...giving praise or faith to an American company does not make anyone a facist.
Idea CV
May 8, 2007 - 18:15 ET by acumenPerhaps our confused friend might prefer to have Saddam back so he could properly be "informed" on fascism while enjoying the benefits of cheaper gas.
Of course, very few Iraqis would agree with having Saddam back. In the largest poll ever to be published, despite violence only 26% of Iraqi adults preferred life under Saddam with half - 49% - preferring life under the current political system.
No mystery why that poll hasn't been published by the demedia. But our confused friend is a perfect example of why it should be.
You can't even spell fascism,
May 8, 2007 - 18:26 ET by fenderteleYou can't even spell fascism, let alone define it.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as "a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." Fascism is synonymous with corporatism.
The government enables the supremacy of a few over the majority of it's citizens.
So sorry. You must have an old dictionary
May 8, 2007 - 18:34 ET by RJSo sorry. You must have an old dictionary...or you're lying. The on-line American Heritage Dictionary says the following:
fas·cism
n.
(Of course, your making fascism synonymous with corporatism is a lie, too.)
fender, First rule of NB post
May 8, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Blondefender,
First rule of NB posting.
If you criticize grammar, or spelling, you lose. YOU JUST LOST.
Too bad, get over yourself, grow up, and try again.
Man have you been brainwashed
May 8, 2007 - 18:38 ET by Conservative VoiceMan have you been brainwashed. If anyone is a facist here it is you. People who link it to the extreme right don't tell you they are talking about the real extreme right...so extreme they believe in big government, tyranical rule, to achieve their goals ( wow so extreme they are liberal). I am a conservative capitalist, which means I believe in limited government, and support freedom...which is the opposite of the tyrant loving, racist liberals who try to silence their opposition through force and intimidation. No, they misuse "extreme right", President Bush to them is extreme right, so give me a break.
President Bush is no conser
May 8, 2007 - 18:41 ET by BlameTheMediaPresident Bush is no conservative capitalist... he is no fiscal conservative. He is only conservative in the sense that he cut taxes and plays to the religious right... but he is all about big government and man, can he spend.
My children will be screwed trying to pay off this tab he's run up.
But of course, you will all
May 8, 2007 - 18:43 ET by BlameTheMediaBut of course, you will all blame it on the democrats some how when the next president is a democrat and has to clean up bush's mess. It will be a lose lose situation trying to get the country's debt back in order.
Hey Blame
May 8, 2007 - 18:45 ET by JimboHey Blame - you are responding to your own posts. How many personalities do you have? Good stuff!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Already setting up the blame defenses, Blamer?
May 8, 2007 - 18:46 ET by RJAlready setting up the blame defenses, I see, Blamer.
No, I just forgot to state
May 8, 2007 - 18:57 ET by BlameTheMediaNo, I just forgot to state the obvious.
Well, of course it's obvious, Blamer
May 8, 2007 - 19:06 ET by RJWell, of course it's obvious, Blamer....that's what the Democrats do, blame everyone but themselves...just like Governor stuck-on-stupid Sebelius.
If the democrats actually cut
May 8, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Conservative VoiceIf the democrats actually cut back spending to maintain a healthy budget, I will be the first to praise them. It won't happen. Their idea of fair is to rob from the rich, take 80% for themselves, and then demand thanks from the poor for having heart, all the while keep them poor. I believe it was Thomas Sowell who said, a thief has more morals than a congressman...because he doesn't expect a thankyou after robbing you.
I don't think a politician
May 8, 2007 - 18:55 ET by BlameTheMediaI don't think a politician has to belong to a certain party to be a thief. There are criminals galore on both sides of the aisle.
Yep, your right, both parties
May 8, 2007 - 18:59 ET by Conservative VoiceYep, your right, both parties are guilty of stealing from the cookie jar.
What mess?
May 8, 2007 - 19:01 ET by acumenWith all due respect; what mess?
acumen,Poor little Blame fail
May 8, 2007 - 19:06 ET by Blondeacumen,
Poor little Blame failed to read the memo wherein the deficit was reduced to $150B about four years sooner than it was supposed to have reached that level.
You know, those evil Bush tax cuts, fueled the growth in the economy.
Silly conservative, that mess!
Blonde
May 8, 2007 - 19:47 ET by acumenAnd Congress was just an innocent observer to all of "Bush's" spending Blonde.
It's astonishing how easily the name Bush just rolls off the tongue of some when it comes to discussing a mess or blame.
I just don't understand how one can make the comment; "There are criminals galore on both sides of the aisle" and then shortly after state "...has to clean up bush's mess". Certainly Bush is complicit with some of the problems in America but it never ceases to amaze me how to some, Bush seems to always be the only one that is named. I just don't understand the thought-process. That was the reason for my question. I was hoping Blamethemedia could explain....
But I'm tired of waiting so I'm calling it a night. God willin' I'll check back tomorrow.... G'night Blonde
acumen,Me too...about out, I
May 8, 2007 - 19:58 ET by Blondeacumen,
Me too...about out, I mean.
We'll be waiting until hell freezes over, even in this day and age of ManBearPig's Global Warming, before one liberal troll bothers to stick around and make a salient point.
Nighto, ac....sleep tight!
“It will be a lose lose sit
May 8, 2007 - 19:04 ET by Jimbo“It will be a lose lose situation trying to get the country's debt back in order.”
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Much of the debt is the result of the war on terror. How much do you think it would cost to get the country back in order after a suitcase nuke was detonated in NY’s financial district?
Much of the debt is the resul
May 8, 2007 - 19:09 ET byMuch of the debt is the result of the war on terror
And 911 with its financial consequences, and the dot com bust, and the Enron et al.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
actually this isn't true. S
May 8, 2007 - 19:09 ET by Conservative Voiceactually this isn't true. Social spending has gone through the roof, and the republicans are just as guilty as the democrats, the main reason why they lost last election.
Actually
May 8, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Mr. BishopActually, his statement was perfectly accurate. While I agree what social spending has gone through the roof, and that it is too high, his statement concerned "much of the debt", not all of it. Much of the debt can be attributed to the War on Terror.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Much of the debt can be att
May 8, 2007 - 19:25 ET by Free StinkerMuch of the debt can be attributed to the War on Terror.
Money well spent.
Amen.
May 8, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Conservative VoiceAmen.
Agreed
May 8, 2007 - 19:39 ET by Mr. BishopI agree completely, it has been money well spent. I don't care what any lunatic on the left thinks -- our military fighting against terrorists in Iraq, is far better then our military sitting back here waiting to be targets, along with civilians.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Irony
May 9, 2007 - 05:39 ET by UnsaneNothing says irony like a Leftist, who cannot wait to see the government coddle, spoil, nanny, and pamper them and their children, bitch and moan about the debt. The only reason you don't like the debt is because it isn't being run up to give you and every other American freebies.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Never said he was, I said I w
May 8, 2007 - 18:45 ET by Conservative VoiceNever said he was, I said I was. President Bush is a big disappointment to me, he should be liberals best friend, really. I was making a point about the term "extreme right", (yet one never sees extreme left in the media) used to define people who aren't even conservative.
Hey CV,I'd say W has disappoi
May 8, 2007 - 18:52 ET byHey CV,
I'd say W has disappointed in areas but has done well in areas. His spending and lack of border security are disappointments. His attempt at security is mixed but he has attempted to do things. His SCOTUS turned out well so far.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
He has done fairly well in so
May 8, 2007 - 18:57 ET by Conservative VoiceHe has done fairly well in some areas...like John Bolton. He is disappointing because he had a majority, yet Reagan with no help from Congress did more. By far he is better than Gore and Kerry, but disappointing nonetheless.
Your point is apt, if in eith
May 8, 2007 - 18:59 ET byYour point is apt, if in either election the party of opposition had won it would be much worse
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
As I read these blogs... th
May 8, 2007 - 18:53 ET by BlameTheMediaAs I read these blogs... the ones that really pertain to liberal media biased, I understand the points about how skewed the media really is. I do see the biased, and have actually found it quite disturbing, especially GMA. I also find it distressing that so many people in these different blogs, left and right, think it is bias when they (or I) just disagree with the facts presented. Sometimes I think party loyalty fogs what is fact and what is bias.
As a so called "troll" I hate to admit that I see the bias... but I do. I do not, however, agree with the skewed, hateful venting that goes on in here by some.
I appreciate that you can say your feelings about Bush that are contrary to the group think. That is some original thought.
Blame...Is there a meaning be
May 8, 2007 - 18:58 ET by Clear thinkerBlame...
Is there a meaning behind your handle of BlameTheMedia?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
fash iz em
May 8, 2007 - 18:03 ET by acumenfas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. often Fascism
1 - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2 - A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Nope, nothing about "praising big business' role in screwing the citizen" to be found in my dictionary. I'm starting to think you just might have an agenda....
Wrong
May 8, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Mr. BishopPrice gouging only covers price increases that are above "fair market value", outside of civic emergencies. In the instance of the price of a gallon of gasoline, while I object to the prices being as they are, they are not above "fair market value", unless you can somehow prove the supply is is more then currently reported, or the demand has decreased more then currently being shown. Since you can show neither, you are wrong, until you prove yourself correct.
The price of a gallon of gasoline where I live, hit $3.14/ga. over the weekend (don't know what it is right now, since I haven't filled up since then). While I would much rather have it at the price of $1.99/ga it was in January for a week (before we had our massive cold blast here), it is a far cry from what it could be.
Now, for anyone to actually believe the oil companies are ripping you off at the pump, it is just ridiculousness. They want to believe it, however, so there is no changing their minds, no matter what the facts are that are placed before them (it seems, including you).
If you want to decrease the price of gasoline, we should invade Iran for their oil, since they are living on some of the largest reserves on the planet. Of course, many lunatics would say that is what we did in Iraq. There is a problem -- if we had invaded Iraq for oil, then the price of oil would go down. In either case, the price of gasoline would slide slightly, and won't actually drop until we allow a refinery to be built in this country to process the oil into gasoline, etc. Until that is done, there is not going to be any drop in price of gasoline.
So, get over it.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Wasn't that the reason we inv
May 8, 2007 - 17:14 ET by fenderteleWasn't that the reason we invaded Iraq? Remember when Rummy said the war would pay for itself in oil? What happened to that?
good question, since we don't
May 8, 2007 - 17:26 ET by Conservative Voicegood question, since we don't harvest any oil for our own use from Iraq. Next!
(oh and nevermind the threat to national security at the time we invaded)
A little Rum(my) with that oil?
May 8, 2007 - 17:31 ET by acumenRemember when Rummy said the war would pay for itself in oil?
No, I don't remember "when Rummy said the war would pay for itself in oil".
Possibly because Rummy made no such comment. It was in fact, Paul Wolfowitz that stated; "Iraq will pay for itself".
Thanks for the correction. I
May 8, 2007 - 17:47 ET by fenderteleThanks for the correction. It was Wolfy. Here's more:
Iraq is devouring resources at an unprecedented pace and producing nothing in return. There’s no more “happy talk” from officials in the Bush administration about how “Iraq will pay for itself” through oil revenues as Paul Wolfowitz foolishly stated prior to the invasion. Iraq has become a black-hole swallowing up boatloads of cash that otherwise would have been earmarked for education, health care, infrastructure and security. The war is bankrupting the nation while grooming the next generation’s terrorists. This is the very definition of failure.
Your welcome
May 8, 2007 - 17:51 ET by acumenYour welcome. But why do you really think I would now believe anything else you have to offer?
Comrad, do you think those ea
May 8, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Conservative VoiceComrad, do you think those earmarks are suffering? Wrong, they haven't had any budget cuts, in fact the size of spending has increased dramatically...George Bush should be your hero.
And so you are wrong again
May 8, 2007 - 19:37 ET by Mr. BishopNo... the war is not grooming the "next generation's terrorists", not at all. The "next generation's terrorists" were being "groomed" long before Iraq ever came to light. At the moment Al Qaeda scattered in Afghanistan, and the world saw that the US was serious in their war on terrorism, the "next generation terrorist" was formed. Iraq has been irrelevant in this war on terrorism, as it pertains to the "next generation terrorist".
Also, the war is not "bankrupting the nation". That is the same nonsensical argument the liberals used during the last years of the Cold War, in their attempts to get us to "co-exist" with the Soviet Union, and no longer view them as the enemy. It's a stupid thought to consider the country going bankrupt, when the deficit is projected several years out... not ever a tangible number in the now. Clinton's "surplus" of money, was not real, it was projected, and it was based largely on a fake economy, that collapsed shortly before 9-11. That economy has been rebuilt, and tax revenues have increased by leaps and bounds since the cutting of taxes in the last few years.
Boatloads of cash earmarked for education, health care, blah blah blah. The public education system is a failure. If you want the "definition of failure", look to the public school systems, you don't have to look outside the country. Why dump more money into a system that is a proven failure? Instead, change the system, and abolish the teachers' unions -- they're worthless.
Health care in this country is always available. Health insurance is also available to everyone, they just have to pay for it. I know it is a foreign concept to a liberal, that a citizen might have to actually pay for something they receive, since they are bent on the welfare state, as much as humanly possible, but it just goes to show you, that you guys only care about laziness, instead of productivity.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
My Socialist friend, the only
May 9, 2007 - 05:53 ET by UnsaneMy Socialist friend, the only reason you are upset at the alleged "bankrupting" of the country is the same reason BTM is also: you wouldn't be crying about the debt if you were being pampered and babied by the government as you'd like, in the fashion of some rotting EU Nanny State.
And since you are the latest to whine about "grooming the next generation's terrorists"...why don't we just end the United States right now? That's what it will take to make damn sure the United States has absolutely no enemies in the future. But then, you can't support that, for who would be there to coddle, pamper, and change you?
Besides, if we really were making more terrorists, following your logic:
1) Why isn't Bill White holding a press conference later on today to announce that since the Houston Police Department is only grooming more criminals, that he will completely disband them?
2) Why isn't the city of Houston shuttering the HFD to crack down on arson? After all, the HFD is only breeding more arsonists...
3) How come the deployment of Pershing 2s and GLCMs to Europe in the 1980s did not lead to Communist takeovers of Western European governments?
4) Why has the Korean Worker's Party not won an election in South Korea? The presence of American troops there is only grooming the next generation of Korean communists, right?
5) Why didn't Overlord result in a Third Reich victory over the Allies, by breeding a brand new crop of Nazis?
6) Why are we not part of Britain? Surely, the actions of Gen Washington and his Continental Army only created more Tories...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You answered your own question
May 8, 2007 - 19:28 ET by Mr. BishopNo, we never once said that we were invading Iraq for oil. The only people to think that, have been the left-wing conspiracy nuts, that think that is all that is on someone's mind in the White House. Iraq has not now, nor has it ever been, about oil.
As for what Rumsfeld said concerning "the war pay(ing) for itself in oil," I'd have to actually look up his actual comments on the subject, and not take the word of translation from any liberal on the subject -- so no comment on it at this time. However, what I do know, is that the war was about Saddam Hussein and his removal from power, as well as WMD location -- not for oil. The oil argument has always been debunked since we never see a dime in oil revenues from Iraq, as that is what Iraqis pay for everything with. If I recall correctly, the oil comment, from Rumsfeld, referred to the rebuilding of Iraq, and their source of revenue. The billions of dollars that have gone to Iraq, have been nothing to compare to the amount of money the Iraqis have spent on rebuilding from their own oil revenues.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
And such a stupid inefficient
May 8, 2007 - 19:35 ET byAnd such a stupid inefficient conspiracy, if "they" wanted to conspire then taking out a couple of lib senate leaders and drilling ANWR would have been the ticket. Money all around neat clean efficient
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
On oil
May 9, 2007 - 05:41 ET by UnsaneIf it was all about oil, then why aren't we sending the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions to Edmonton? Why aren't tanks rolling through Calgary?
Why is Hugo Chavez still breathing?
Why aren't we expropriating Mexican oil fields?
Why aren't Colombia, Ecuador, and Nigeria American protectorates?
Well?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
So, in other words, you are c
May 9, 2007 - 05:36 ET by UnsaneSo, in other words, you are completely enraged that one would dare make money off of gasoline? Heaven forbid that the gasoline isn't produced by a magic wand by alchemists at stations all across America, rather than drilled with expensive machinery and labor after being found by high-paid geologists, and THEN must be moved to another location (typically) for refinement, which may or may not be gasoline, and which may mor may not be the grade required in your area, and THEN must be shipped AGAIN...
I paid $2.79 for unleaded the other day. Why was it worth that? Because that is what I paid for it. I could have gone just down the street and paid $2.88, or $2.93 elsewhere, but I was smart and shopped for it at $2.79.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
For a kleptocrat
May 9, 2007 - 05:44 ET by UnsaneDon't worry. Just vote Democrat so you can have the government do what you yourself lack the guts to do: violently punish the successful, and steal from successful organizations and corporations.
Why the Leftists cannot wait to turn the most successful, advanced economy in the world into a big kleptocracy is beyond me.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
As always, it's America's f
May 8, 2007 - 16:50 ET by JDWAs always, it's America's fault.
Why isn't news media focusing of the huge donations big oil is laying on the dems?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
milage prices -- not gas prices
May 9, 2007 - 06:16 ET by JimOA comment on 'gas prices' -- it's a misdirecting term, because nobody buys gas
to own gas, they buy gas to transport things, such as themselves. So the true figure for
comparing current and past prices is not the 'gas price; but the 'mile price'.
You gotta adjust for inflation, too, of course -- it's appalling how many media stories
omit even that basic adjustment.
Now to the mile price -- when you compare prices now with, say, 1980, you have to
adjust for improved passenger vehicle mile per gallon. The average value, I believe is
about twice the value it was -- so by that metric, cost of motion is HALF what it peaked
at under Carter.
One more adjustment. You're not trading a stack of stashed dollars for miles, you're
trading work time for miles traveled. The amount of time worked for dollars earned
has also significantly improved from 1977, say, to 2007 -- by what exact factor
I don't know (I'm guessing 20%).
The result? Time/effort expended to move yourself over the ground is on average
less than half what ot was during the Carter years -- even as the news media
is ready to shriek over 'record high gas prices'.
People seem to intuitively realize that, since the 'high prices' don't seem to be
acting as the expected brake on personal travel. Maybe the instincts of the
consumers are again better judges of reality than screaming headlines and
banners.