Gasoline prices up again

SchmuckofNI · Post by **SchmuckofNI** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:56 am

Its terrible, I mean we need to start opening up the alaskan pipeline very soon... Or find another alternative fuel source.

OneThirty8 · Post by **OneThirty8** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:55 am

This is what I think is the best idea.

SchmuckofNI wrote:Its terrible, I mean we need to ... find another alternative fuel source.

Oil is a finite resource, and one which under the current system leaves us dependant on foreign interests for our economic survival. Our economy would be crushed very easilly if the supply of foreign oil were cut off. This is not to say that foreign trade is necessarilly bad, but when we can't do without a particular comodity from outside our own country it does leave us very vulnerable. If we find a viable alternative to petroleum, we could then utilize what we have for manufactured goods or simply export it to other countries still utilizing it for fuel.

Jeeba Jabba · Post by **Jeeba Jabba** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:02 am

Butters wrote:
SuperMegatron wrote:
Butters wrote:
curt_grymala wrote:Yeah - I heard on the news a little while ago that experts are predicting prices will go up by $0.25/gal this weekend.

I still remember when gas was less than $0.80 per gallon.
You also remember when 20 oz. cokes were $.75 and candy bars were $.40. Inflation is a bitch.
20 oz cokes were never $.75 that was 16 oz ones the price went from 75-79 then they introduced 20 oz ones at .99. Candy bars are still 3 for a dollars and most gas stations So they arent good examples of inflation car prices are the best thing to site. 1980 cars ran about 3500 now they are 13,000 for the low end.
Actually when the 20 oz cokes debuted here they sold for $.50 for several months before the price went up. Candy bar prices have stayed the same but the size of the bar has decreased. Inflation effects all things, not just expensive items, though they are the most noticable examples.

At the Wal-Mart in which I work, 20 oz. Cokes are .75 cents from the vending machine. They're $1.09 from the cooler.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:46 pm

SchmuckofNI wrote:Its terrible, I mean we need to start opening up the alaskan pipeline very soon... Or find another alternative fuel source.

I have my doubts about the Alaskan pipeline reducing the price of gas much.

I also think people bitch way too much about gas prices. In 1990, gas cost over $1 a gallon, national average.. We're not talking that gigantic of a raise for a 15 year period.

TreyDay · Post by **TreyDay** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:50 pm

I remember gas was under $1 when I turned 16. Then two months later when I got a car, they were like $1.74. This was a few years ago.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:12 pm

TreyDay wrote:I remember gas was under $1 when I turned 16. Then two months later when I got a car, they were like $1.74. This was a few years ago.

Yeah, there was a sharp drop in the late 90s for some reason. Anyone got a clue what was up with that?

OldSkoolGamer · Post by **OldSkoolGamer** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:37 am

In my town it went from $1.98 to $2.13.

arrowhead · Post by **arrowhead** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:07 am

2.32 for 87 regular here

curt_grymala · Post by **curt_grymala** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:13 pm

Lartrak wrote:
TreyDay wrote:I remember gas was under $1 when I turned 16. Then two months later when I got a car, they were like $1.74. This was a few years ago.
Yeah, there was a sharp drop in the late 90s for some reason. Anyone got a clue what was up with that?

Not really, but it's all objective anyway. The cost of crude oil doesn't really effect the cost of gasoline or fuel oil, and it absolutely does not effect those prices right away. The prices of gasoline and fuel oil are actually regulated, and the fluctuating costs of crude oil are always balanced out over a long period of time. The merchants selling the gasoline and fuel oil simply use news of that sort to raise their prices. There is no other real rhyme or reason behind it, but everyone's got accustomed to the fact that they do so, and so we naturally blame the high cost of crude oil.

Orange_Ribbon · Post by **Orange_Ribbon** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:22 pm

I have an odd idea, why not tax people who drive insanly large vehicles per mile, and get the goverment hands out of it. I know in NJ there is a 22% gas tax. Why not tax the people that are using more for driving up the cost. Just don't tax vehicles used for comercial or govt use.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:39 pm

Orange_Ribbon wrote:I have an odd idea, why not tax people who drive insanly large vehicles per mile, and get the goverment hands out of it. I know in NJ there is a 22% gas tax. Why not tax the people that are using more for driving up the cost. Just don't tax vehicles used for comercial or govt use.

I remember in California, I think it was, they were considering taxing people by the mile - thereby punishing people for driving lower mileage vehicles, in a roundabout sort of way (well, not exactly, but the increase in gas mileage of vehicles was the reason they proposed it). Of course, this new system did not take into account the size or weight of vehicles (which it should, since heavier vehicles damage the road more).

InvisixIsLeet · Post by **InvisixIsLeet** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:50 pm

arrowhead wrote:I miss 2.11 per gallon. Today I paid 2.27 for 87 friggin octane. I am thanking God that my vehicle doesnt need 91 supreme.

No car that i'm aware of requires higher octane than 87.

racketboy · Post by **racketboy** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:55 pm

I'm glad I got out of California -- gas prices are extra-bad out there

btm4k · Post by **btm4k** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:08 pm

Invisix wrote:
arrowhead wrote:I miss 2.11 per gallon. Today I paid 2.27 for 87 friggin octane. I am thanking God that my vehicle doesnt need 91 supreme.
No car that i'm aware of requires higher octane than 87.

Unless you're cool and your car is chipped.

butters · Post by **butters** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:18 pm

btm4k wrote:
Invisix wrote:
arrowhead wrote:I miss 2.11 per gallon. Today I paid 2.27 for 87 friggin octane. I am thanking God that my vehicle doesnt need 91 supreme.
No car that i'm aware of requires higher octane than 87.
Unless you're cool and your car is chipped.

Don't forget the wings and flames, they make it need better gas.

hearld500 · Post by **hearld500** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:51 pm

btm4k wrote:
Invisix wrote:
arrowhead wrote:I miss 2.11 per gallon. Today I paid 2.27 for 87 friggin octane. I am thanking God that my vehicle doesnt need 91 supreme.
No car that i'm aware of requires higher octane than 87.
Unless you're cool and your car is chipped.

Or you have a luxury or performance car.
All the new lincolns need it and so does lexus, and some acuras I beleive.

curt_grymala · Post by **curt_grymala** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:44 am

hearld500 wrote:
btm4k wrote:
Invisix wrote:
arrowhead wrote:I miss 2.11 per gallon. Today I paid 2.27 for 87 friggin octane. I am thanking God that my vehicle doesnt need 91 supreme.
No car that i'm aware of requires higher octane than 87.
Unless you're cool and your car is chipped.
Or you have a luxury or performance car.
All the new lincolns need it and so does lexus, and some acuras I beleive.

A lot of higher-end cars require more than 87, as do a lot of light trucks. They might not require[/it it, as they will run on 87, but they'll make a hell of a lot of noise, and won't last nearly as long.

I have an odd idea, why not tax people who drive insanly large vehicles per mile, and get the goverment hands out of it. I know in NJ there is a 22% gas tax. Why not tax the people that are using more for driving up the cost. Just don't tax vehicles used for comercial or govt use.

They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)

hearld500 · Post by **hearld500** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:51 pm

curt_grymala wrote: They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)

I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.

Post by **Roofus** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:00 pm

Never mind. I re-read the post.

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:27 am

hearld500 wrote:
curt_grymala wrote: They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)
I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.

Because they damage the roads more. Plain and simple.