Gas Prices -- the Cause

[Seatacus]

Bobbie,



What I should be hearing FIRST, are complaints that the FIRST digit is a "3" !

Sad, very Sad !

My complaint is not about the first digit but the last ones. You know that silly little 9/10 at the end of the price. What is up with that? Can't we just round up for simplicity sake? That would be two cents on twenty gallons........sheesh :blink:

 

[KCFlyer]

My complaint is not about the first digit but the last ones. You know that silly little 9/10 at the end of the price. What is up with that? Can't we just round up for simplicity sake? That would be two cents on twenty gallons........sheesh :blink:

It's called "marketing". When you see $3.99, it looks a lot better than $4.

 

[cooper43]

If we are obligated to carry auto insurance, shouldnt our leaders (gov) be obligated to trying to supply us with jobs or work in our nation that afford us the ability to buy auto insurance? I know that most will say that the government doesnt owe us anything ...bla...bla ....bla. However I blieve that is not true. We elect the government to do the peoples work and they are not doing it. They are doing the corporations work. Using our hard earned tax dollars to give tax breaks to the oil companies, also letting corporations reap the benefits of our infrastructure while they pay almost no taxes and send our jobs overseas. As far as gas prices go, it is all a game. They have learned a new game. Next summer gas prices will hit over $5+ a gallon and in the fall will come back down to around $4.50 a gallon.

 

[Seatacus]

If we are obligated to carry auto insurance, shouldnt our leaders (gov) be obligated to trying to supply us with jobs or work in our nation that afford us the ability to buy auto insurance? I

No

 

[Bobbie]

If we are obligated to carry auto insurance, shouldnt our leaders (gov) be obligated to trying to supply us with jobs or work in our nation that afford us the ability to buy auto insurance?

No. That would be socialism. The United States is a constitutional republic. In that system of government, the government exists to govern according to the laws laid out by that Constitution. Our Constitution mentions nothing of any such obligation and, as such, they're obligated to do nothing.

 

[cooper43]

No. That would be socialism. The United States is a constitutional republic. In that system of government, the government exists to govern according to the laws laid out by that Constitution. Our Constitution mentions nothing of any such obligation and, as such, they're obligated to do nothing.

Wrong. Our Constitution says nothing about gas prices or auto insurance. That is what our legislators are there to do. They pass laws that are relevant to the present times which have to be constitutinal. It is not unconstitutional for our legislators to pass laws that require that the "people" not be required to carry auto insurance when they do not have a job to pay for it. This is what is wrong with our republic IMHO. If a person is doing their best working paying for a house and car, and then thier job is taken away thru no fault of thier own, then how should they have to pay for auto insurance. They still need to have thier car in order to find a new job. There is not enough of a safety net IMO here for people caught in the changing times of our economic world. If globalization is inevitable then we have a responsibility to help our people transition to a new paridgm. That is why we should be investing in renewable fuel sources and new technology, that could bring many new jobs to market. If we spend our tax dollars on more drilling then we are just spinning our wheels. This is why I am excited about the possibility of electing Obama as POTUS. I think he embodies the most likely chance of the two candidates of obtaining real change.

 

[Bobbie]

Wrong.

I'm not wrong. You are wrong. I'm not saying that what you're saying wouldn't be nice and what not but it's simply not going to happen.

You are looking for a socialist welfare state. Our Constitution makes that very difficult to achieve. This country can not enact major social change quickly because of the enormous, intentional difficulty of amending the Constitution. Socialist Welfare states don't have things like the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, assembly, etc. that are as iron-clad as they are in the United States. Enacting social change of this magnitude would require many rights to be done away with or at least suspended for an extended period of time in order to quash any opposition that might pop up. You see, large governments don't like people opposing them. Our country guarantees many rights that make change difficult to achieve.

Perhaps you should stage a Constitutional Convention and attempt to overthrow the government.

There is still a sizable number of people who do NOT have cars nor do they need them. Driving is a luxury. Anyone can lead a car-free life if they're committed to it. I've made is abundantly clear that I'm not.

 

[delldude]

I'm not wrong. You are wrong. I'm not saying that what you're saying wouldn't be nice and what not but it's simply not going to happen.

You are looking for a socialist welfare state. Our Constitution makes that very difficult to achieve. This country can not enact major social change quickly because of the enormous, intentional difficulty of amending the Constitution. Socialist Welfare states don't have things like the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, assembly, etc. that are as iron-clad as they are in the United States. Enacting social change of this magnitude would require many rights to be done away with or at least suspended for an extended period of time in order to quash any opposition that might pop up. You see, large governments don't like people opposing them. Our country guarantees many rights that make change difficult to achieve.

Perhaps you should stage a Constitutional Convention and attempt to overthrow the government.

There is still a sizable number of people who do NOT have cars nor do they need them. Driving is a luxury. Anyone can lead a car-free life if they're committed to it. I've made is abundantly clear that I'm not.

You are right Bobbie....funny how everything you just mentioned as to the socialist welfare state falls right in line with the liberal agenda doesn't it?

 

[Bobbie]

You are right Bobbie....funny how everything you just mentioned as to the socialist welfare state falls right in line with the liberal agenda doesn't it?

They don't like to use that word, but it's the absolute truth. The Democratic Party platform is explicit in its goals for the country and many, but not all, of them are Socialist. Even so, what the Democratic Party desires is pseudo-socialism at best because of the Constitutional issues that will come up when trying to enact some of those changes. They're pro-speech but anti-gun. Their anti-gun stance is unconstitutional and the unconstitutionality of that was just affirmed by the supreme court.

Party Platforms are the vision for where the party wants to take us, allegedly. I'm a fan of neither party because they both disregard the Constitution in one way or another.

I really like what Ron Paul has to say on the matter. I also like Dennis Kucinich and a few of the more independent-minded politicians we have out there. I think there is plenty of intelligence and respect for the Constitution to go around. The trick is convincing the average American, who has never read the Constitution, to get involved and learn more.

More to the topic at hand, our country is going to have a difficult time "controlling" this gas problem with the limitations placed on the government. I, for one, favor less power to our current government. They'd have to demonstrate a level of competence I haven't seen in quite a while for me to trust them to start increasing regulation on what they purport to be free markets, etc.

 

[Cosworth]

Why is it every time the left advocates that the federal government take over some task that the right disagrees with it's 'socialism'. Yet when the right sticks it's nose into people lives and tries to control it it's never fascism? Very curious indeed. N one seems to complain about the national highway system, the National military, National parks and the list goes on.

I believe that as a nation, we have a social responsibility to each other. I do not believe that the life of the person who pick up our garbage is any less deserving of top notch medical care than the CEO of some multi national corporation. I do not believe that the person who cleans the office of that CEO at night when everyone else is gone is any less deserving of affordable decent, safe housing than the CEO who's office they clean. By the very definition as long as there is a top of the food chain, there will always be the bottom. Those at the bottom are human and deserve to be able to live with dignity. So long as they work and are a productive member of society, they deserve to have access to certain minimum standards. No one should be turned away from medical care because they cannot afford $1 million for a heart bypass operation or a transplant. A persons status in life should have no bearing on the quality of medical care that a person receives. If that s what the right believes, then there are issues far beyond politics than need to be dealt with.

Anyway, given some of the stellar decisions of the USSC (Separate but Equal anyone?) I am not so sure I would hang my hat on the infallibility of the USSC. They are a political branch of the US government just as Congress and the Executive save for the fact that they have a life time appointment and are accountable to no one. The fact that this particular court voted one way or the other does not make the decision right or wrong, merely the decision of the day. I believe that their decision on gun control was an incorrect interpretation of the second amendment. I believe it was a political interpretation of the second amendment based on the political climate in this country today. Just as the "Separate but Equal" decision was a reflection of the climate at that time. Given the embedded concept of gun ownership in this nation, the decision of the court in my opinion was never in question.

 

[Seatacus]

If we spend our tax dollars on more drilling then we are just spinning our wheels.

I didn't know the government paid for drilling...............

 

[Garfield]

just what we need the government in the car insurance business 🙄 how long to abuse that ? ala food stamps , welfare? what's next ? buy them a car too?

 

[JS]

Why is it every time the left advocates that the federal government take over some task that the right disagrees with it's 'socialism'. Yet when the right sticks it's nose into people lives and tries to control it it's never fascism? Very curious indeed. N one seems to complain about the national highway system, the National military, National parks and the list goes on.

Your argument makes zero sense. The power to create a military is one of the few things that Congress is explicitly given by the Constitution. As there are no private businesses that build highways or national parks (or the military, for that matter), I fail to see how that is "sticking its nose into people's lives".

I believe that as a nation, we have a social responsibility to each other. I do not believe that the life of the person who pick up our garbage is any less deserving of top notch medical care than the CEO of some multi national corporation. I do not believe that the person who cleans the office of that CEO at night when everyone else is gone is any less deserving of affordable decent, safe housing than the CEO who's office they clean. By the very definition as long as there is a top of the food chain, there will always be the bottom. Those at the bottom are human and deserve to be able to live with dignity. So long as they work and are a productive member of society, they deserve to have access to certain minimum standards. No one should be turned away from medical care because they cannot afford $1 million for a heart bypass operation or a transplant. A persons status in life should have no bearing on the quality of medical care that a person receives. If that s what the right believes, then there are issues far beyond politics than need to be dealt with.

Anyway, given some of the stellar decisions of the USSC (Separate but Equal anyone?) I am not so sure I would hang my hat on the infallibility of the USSC. They are a political branch of the US government just as Congress and the Executive save for the fact that they have a life time appointment and are accountable to no one. The fact that this particular court voted one way or the other does not make the decision right or wrong, merely the decision of the day. I believe that their decision on gun control was an incorrect interpretation of the second amendment. I believe it was a political interpretation of the second amendment based on the political climate in this country today. Just as the "Separate but Equal" decision was a reflection of the climate at that time. Given the embedded concept of gun ownership in this nation, the decision of the court in my opinion was never in question.

OK, you're a socialist. Thank goodness the Constitution and most voters aren't.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

There is still a sizable number of people who do NOT have cars nor do they need them. Driving is a luxury. Anyone can lead a car-free life if they're committed to it. I've made is abundantly clear that I'm not.

You certainly are growing on me, Bobbie. I was born & raised in southern california, and spent my early adult life there. I remember the impractacality of the public transportation system as it then stood in CA. I also remember driving (idiling) on the 60. Since then, I have moved to Chicago... and am very close to leading that car-free life of which you speak. I just filled-up my gas tank this weekend. If my memory serves me correctly, it is only the 4th time I have had to get gas this year. It would be nice if California could develop a better public transportation system, but the infrastructure just hasn't been developed there yet.

 

[KCFlyer]

Your argument makes zero sense. The power to create a military is one of the few things that Congress is explicitly given by the Constitution. As there are no private businesses that build highways or national parks (or the military, for that matter), I fail to see how that is "sticking its nose into people's lives".

Let's see....they want to ban abortion....they want to "define" marriage...That's not the government's business

OK, you're a socialist. Thank goodness the Constitution and most voters aren't.

No, the Constitution isn't socialist. It doesn't really promote a dictatorship either. The constitution explicitly spells out the procedures for amending it. This administration has worked overtime "amending" it on their terms. Bush was supposed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" He has changed it to suit his needs instead. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have to say about that. Why...they might feel that it was grounds for impeachment.