Sign Now to Lower Gas Prices

[Jarhead]

It's worth a shot: http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-2...41415--,00.html (http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-22080-141415--,00.html)

[calvynandhobbs]

I just sent my petition in. Like you said Jarhead, it's worth a shot.

Roger

[WhiteRhino]

I heard an interesting discussion on the radio about this. Currently, based upon a sales price of $3.00 per gallon, the gas companies profit about $0.09 per gallon. That is about a 3% profit. The average target for most manufacturing companies it 10% to 25%. The gas companies have huge profit dollars ONLY because they sell huge volumes.

Conversly, the state of Michigan taxes us $0.39 per gallon.

So, who is gouging the public? Maybe the petition should be for our governor to lower our taxes! :thumb-up:

[Zookeeper]

Before everyone signs that petition the governor has started, you might consider this:

1. Government intervention in the price of gasoline has never done anything but lead to fuel shortages and long lines because, once again, the government needs to keep its dirty fingers out of the free-market system. :WhiteRhino:

2. Gasoline is a prime example of a commodity and price driven by supply and demand. If supplies are down and demand is up, the prices will rise. The only way to keep prices low is to increase the supply and lower the demand. :stole-it:

3. Once you sign the petition, your name and address will end up in a database that the governor's campaign people will use to flood you with propaganda on why you should re-elect her. :kb8ymf:

*Steps down off of soapbox*

[cc]

I'll copy/paste my response to this, just like I have the last 10 times I have seen this posted.

Supply/demand, free economy, your hosed.

deal.

Do I have to get into how a free market works again? For those who never took any type of elementary level economics:

If something is in high demand , the supply will eventually run down.
As it is running down, the prices go higher.

As prices go higher, demand goes down, and so does the price

Eventually the market will settle at what price people are willing to pay to drive an automobile, or fill up their lawn mower.

THERE IS NO WAY TO ESCAPE THIS. DEMAND CANNOT BE HIGH WITH A LOW PRICE. ONCE DEMAND IS GONE, AS IN THE PRICE IS HIGHER THEN WHAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY, THE MARKET WILL MAKE THE PRICE COME BACK DOWN..


If you really want to try and make a difference, stop driving as much. Your extra 10 gallons a week you stop using will make a difference. Imagine if 10million people cut back 10 gallons per week.. Wow, that adds up quick, huh?

So if we cut 100 million gallons per week, oil reserves go higher.. This makes the price drop..

While you are paying $2.95 a gallon, you should be thinking about how nice it is to be in a free economy, where you are not handed 5 gallon ration stamps per week like in a communist country..


Another idea to increase supply (which lowers prices) is to get dem's and tree huggers to let us drill for oil in places we aren't allowed to now.

Instead of signing a petition to W to alter the freemarket, you should be writing to your congressmen telling him we should be able to drill for oil in alaska.


And on another side note, if you think gas prices will continue to go up, you should purchase some energy stocks.

If you would of dumped 10k in exon 7 years ago, you would be retired.
__________________
Save Michigan, Get rid of granholm and her Single Business Tax that has destroyed this states economy.
Vote DeVos For Governor
http://www.devosforgovernor.com/

[oneeightyyourmom]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ClarkstonCracker @ Apr 25 2006, 06:23 PM) 13535</div>

Instead of signing a petition to W to alter the freemarket, you should be writing to your congressmen telling him we should be able to drill for oil in alaska.

[/b]

leave alaska out of this. have you been there? it's gorgeous. probably the last wild place in the US. i'm not a "tree hugger" but damn it i love the wilderness. i'd rather pay $3 a gallon and leave alaska free.

oh and exxon dropped 11 million gallons along the alaska coast in 1989. add up the wildlife, ecosystems, etc etc. that the spill messed up. 15 years later i bet you could still find people that are being effected by it. sounds like a company worth investing in to me. might as well invest in hitler.

if you haven't noticed the rest of the world is paying upwards of $2/a liter. do the math. we're getting off cheap beside the middle east but they own us anyway in a sense.

suck it up and pay it or drive less.

[cc]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(oneeightyyourmom @ Apr 25 2006, 07:22 PM) 13536</div>

leave alaska out of this. have you been there? it's gorgeous. probably the last wild place in the US. i'm not a "tree hugger" but damn it i love the wilderness. i'd rather pay $3 a gallon and leave alaska free.
[/b]

Whens the last time you heard about an oil spill in the gulf of mexico?

Oil drilling doesn't cause snow to go away, nor does it cause elk to die.

[oneeightyyourmom]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ClarkstonCracker @ Apr 25 2006, 11:21 PM) 13545</div>

Whens the last time you heard about an oil spill in the gulf of mexico?

Oil drilling doesn't cause snow to go away, nor does it cause elk to die.
[/b]


try hurricane katrina and rita last year. hurricanes destroy lots of oil platforms in the gulf every year. the trans-alaska pipeline sprung a leak early march of this year destroying habitats for animals like elk and caribou. destroyed ecosystem ---> destroyed animals. oh, and oil drilling does cause snow to go away: global warming as a result of CO2 and other green house gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.

if you get boarded sometime try Google Images (http://images.google.com/) for some lovely pictures of oil spills in alaska and elsewhere. oil spills happen all the time, not always on the same magnitude of exxon valdez and not always top story on the nightly news, but they happen and every gallon spilled is precious $$$ lost and they are required to clean the area wasting additional $$$.

besides, tapping oil reserves in alaska requires thousands of miles of transportation (both across alaska and by barge to refineries) before it's even suitable for use. those transportation costs alone could be used to fund an alternate, renewable resource; for instance ethanol made from corn. if you're a nazi capitalist and all you care about is money how about this: ethanol is actually cheaper ($/gallon) than gasoline and for the "tree huggers" it burns much cleaner. the US could reduce its dependence on middle eastern oil by growing corn on their own turf. seems like everyone wins...

if you have question and don't feel like polluting glfwda's forums with debates about oil, alaska, elk, and nazi capitalists, drop me an email, cookja@mit.edu, i check it often.

[WhiteRhino]

Exon Valdez? Seems to me it was the fault of a sea captain. Not the oil company.

Global warming? Yes, the globe is warming some because of burning fossil fuels. But, from what I remember in school, where I am sitting right now used to be covered with ice. Every major river in Alaska has been running for thousands of years from ice melting from the glaciers. So, why is it a sudden suprise to everyone that the ice caps are melting? If we stopped burning fossil fuels right now, the ice woud continue to melt and the globe will continue to warm.

Animals dieing? Animals have died and become extinct before we started to drill for oil.

Are all of these things sad? Absolutely! But the reality is that we will continue to use fossil fuels. And, if we use alternative fuels, (which I support) they will also emit emmissions and continue to add to global warming.

So, the real issue is not whether we will eventually drill for oil in Alaska, or deeper in the gulf of Mexico (which has not been mentioned) but rather how to do it as safely as possible.

[joe_jeep]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(oneeightyyourmom @ Apr 25 2006, 07:22 PM) 13536</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ClarkstonCracker @ Apr 25 2006, 06:23 PM) 13535

Instead of signing a petition to W to alter the freemarket, you should be writing to your congressmen telling him we should be able to drill for oil in alaska.

[/b]

leave alaska out of this. have you been there? it's gorgeous. probably the last wild place in the US. i'm not a "tree hugger" but damn it i love the wilderness. i'd rather pay $3 a gallon and leave alaska free.

oh and exxon dropped 11 million gallons along the alaska coast in 1989. add up the wildlife, ecosystems, etc etc. that the spill messed up. 15 years later i bet you could still find people that are being effected by it. sounds like a company worth investing in to me. might as well invest in hitler.

if you haven't noticed the rest of the world is paying upwards of $2/a liter. do the math. we're getting off cheap beside the middle east but they own us anyway in a sense.

suck it up and pay it or drive less.
[/b][/quote]


.25 cents a gallon in venisula!!! and i bet theres good wheelin there!!!! and i bet that i wont get ticketed for being over 50 inches wide!!! drill alaska, drill costal california, drill anywhere!! i dont think it will make prices go down, but at least thats less oil we buy from unfriendly countries!! buy american, burn our own oil!!


google search "abiotic oil" an interesting point of view!! will a solar yellow wrangler go slower on a cloudy day?????

i hate to sign anything that has granholms name on it!!!!! :doah:

[95geo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(oneeightyyourmom @ Apr 26 2006, 01:12 AM) 13547</div>
and all you care about is money how about this: ethanol is actually cheaper ($/gallon) than gasoline and for the "tree huggers" it burns much cleaner. the US could reduce its dependence on middle eastern oil by growing corn on their own turf. seems like everyone wins...

[/b]

E85 is not as good as everyone thinks it is.... itll probably cost more to run it than unleaded

"For example, an existing pre-2003 model year FFV vehicle that normally achieves, say, 30 MPG on pure gasoline will typically achieve about 20 MPG, or slightly better, on E85 (summer blend.) When operated on E85 winter blend, which is actually E70 (70% ethanol, 30% gasoline), fuel economy will be even better than when operating on the summer blend."


however it also says that some cars only see a 5-15% reduction but that wont help you much because you just bought a new car to run a different fuel and maybe save money on gas (just until the price on E85 goes up too) :doah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

[oneeightyyourmom]

I'm not denying that the earth goes in glacial cycles. heck that's where we got the great lakes. and the earth apparently is becoming warmer. but even the best scientists in the world agree that fossil fuels are increasing world temperatures faster than normal climate change permits. that seems scary to me because elevation cities like miami, new orleans, even boston where i live are sea level or slightly higher. melting ice caps cause ocean levels to rise and look at the potential damage that would be caused by a few feet rise of ocean levels: devistation if you live on the coast where some 20% of the population does.

yes blah blah blah E85 gets poorer gas milage but 70 years ago cars were still getting the same fuel economy that nearly every car on the road today is getting. 100 years of combustion technology and we can't increase fuel economy more than a few percent? yes i realize that we've increased hp and torque 120000% or the model A. seriously though do we need 900hp grocery getters? sometimes you need to take a step back to take a step forward. farmers realize this by running a crop rotation. you can't yield a good corn crop for 10 years in a row, every 2 or 3 years you need to take a step back and grow soy beans.

i think most of us agree that granholm is kind of a washout. i'm not signing the petition and i hope you would consider looking for alternative fuel sources before pledging to drill in alaska. as 4x4 folk you should have at least some appreciation for wilderness and the environment. why else would you support tread lightly? you wonder why there is so much opposition to four wheelers...

someday we need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels the sooner the better.

[Tab]

Whats your deal with Nazi Germany, and whats it got to do with oil? Ethanol takes considerable fossil fuels to produce and it cannot be transported in long pipelines due to its corrosiveness. It would have to be primarily trucked everywhere using even more fossil fuels. Also, how would transporting oil from Alaska be any worse than getting it from the middle east? Alaska is much closer and at least its OURS and the local economies would get some jobs and the profits could be kept closer to home.

[lgottler]

I'll just do my part. Don't take so many long trips. Don't drive if I don't have to. Walk to get lunch instead of driving. Do 2 or 3 things a trip instead of one. Take the car with the best MPG.

I guess its just doing things I aught to do anyways! I kinda think I'm rather efficient as a user myself, could I do better, yes!

Considering I just bought a new used Suburban with a 454 in it, I'm concerned about gas prices, but going 5 miles to work doesn't kill my wallet.

Lucas

[Zookeeper]

Just thought I'd post this so I can say, "I told you so" to everyone who signed the governor's gas-price petition and is now going to be inundated with political crap e-mails! :P


Anuzis To Guv: 'Stop Using Office For Campaign'

Michigan Republican Party (MRP) Chair Saul ANUZIS accused the Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM campaign today of using state resources for her re-election campaign.

According to Anuzis, Granholm used government resources to collect signatures for her petition drive to protest high gas prices and then used the same list for her campaign.

Granholm held an online petition drive at taxpayers' expense to collect signatures to send to President George W. BUSH complaining of high gas prices. Then, even though the solicitation of the signatures included a disclaimer that the process would not be used for partisan political purposes, the list was used by the Granholm campaign to try to solicit donations.

"Michigan's Capitol belongs to the people, not to the Granholm for Governor campaign,"

Anuzis said. "The Governor said the online petition protesting gas prices hosted on the state's own Web site was intended to send a message to Washington. Instead, it was just a crass ploy to use the resources of the state to fund the activities of her political campaign."

Meanwhile, the Granholm campaign doesn't deny using the petition list, it simply states it went through proper channels to get the list.

"Once again Saul is long on rhetoric and short on facts," said Granholm Spokesman Chris DeWITT. "The campaign filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request on the list. As a matter of fact, I believe if you check it out, the Republican Party did so as well so there are a few pertinent facts Saul didn't mention."

But MRP Spokeswoman Sarah ANDERSON said the whole FOIA "excuse" was disingenuous.

"So they're saying that a legislator could use state funds to create a list like this, and then turn around and have his or her campaign FOIA his office for?" Anderson said. "I want to see a copy of that FOIA. I'd like to see if it even exists."

Anderson said MRP filed a FOIA request with the Executive Office and the list was withheld based on "executive privilege." Then the MRP issued a FOIA to the pertinent department, the Department of Information and Technology (DIT), and received a computer disk with just first and last names on it, without e-mail addresses.

According to Anderson the situation seems to be that the Executive Office is not required to respond to FOIA, but it opted to comply with the FOIA request from the Granholm campaign. Meanwhile the MRP had to turn to DIT, and has so far received only a list of names.

It should be noted, however, that FOIA laws require somewhat specific requests and involve a variety of timetables and extensions for responding.

Granholm Press Secretary Liz BOYD said all FOIA requests are being responded to.

"State government has responded to, or is in the process of responding to all of the FOIA requests," Boyd said. "The Governor asked for citizens to participate in a petition drive to ask President George W. Bush to do something about high gas prices. The larger issue here, while we're paying about $3 a gallon, is why he hasn't done anything to cap gas prices."

In addition, Boyd said those who signed the petition should have known the list could be made public.

"When people sign up for something like this they know it is public information," Boyd said."

Rich ROBINSON, of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network (MCFN), said the idea of an officeholder basically using their office to create a list of names and addresses on the government's dime, and then the campaign obtaining it through a FOIA was new to him, but it sounded legal. And when asked about the same scenario being applied to legislators, he said that it would probably be just as legal.

"It sounds like it's true," Robinson said. "I think what it will actually do is make people more reluctant to interact with the government. I think that's too bad."

Anuzis made his statement this morning at a press conference on the south steps of the Capitol building. Prior to the event, party workers put up a large photo of the Capitol, doctored so that a Granholm campaign sign was draped across the front, above the portico. With this as a backdrop, Anuzis addressed reporters.

"The Governor has been misusing the public trust," Anuzis said. "We think she's violated Michigan campaign finance laws. The Michigan Republicans will be filing complaints with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. This is the Capitol . . . it's the people's building. The Granholm campaign is located across the street. She keeps confusing that fact. She's got to realize that there's a line. She keeps crossing it."

The Republicans claim they have signed affidavits from several people who signed the rising gasoline price petition and then received an e-mail solicitation from Lt. Gov. John CHERRY, sent from the Granholm campaign.

Anuzis said the Governor's office denied requests to release the names and e-mail addresses of the petition signors, citing "Executive Privilege."

"Republicans were right to question the Governor's motives when she announced the taxpayer-sponsored petition drive," Anuzis said. "Not only did the Governor violate state's online policies, she very likely violated Michigan law by sending the list of signors from the Executive Office to the campaign office."

Following today's news conference, MIRS asked Anuzis if Granholm should have simply done the petition drive as part of her campaign.

"That would have been different," Anuzis said. "I mean we looked it from the beginning as a political stunt. Here she takes price gouging, which is a hot button issue, and ends up using it for her own political benefit. She keeps hoodwinking the people of Michigan."

According to Anuzis, Granholm has displayed a pattern of abuse of office. Other examples, according to him, include use of taxpayer dollars for private use (trips to basketball games, etc) and Granholm's unmonitored Partners for Progress Fund.

The fund really seems to rankle the GOP chair.

"No candidate has ever had one (a fund not subject to disclosure) like that before," Anuzis said.

However, a reporter corrected him, by pointing out that in 2002, Democratic gubernatorial primary candidate David BONIOR had one.

"OK then, no Republican candidate has had one before," Anuzis said. "It's a loophole in the law. If a Republican Governor did it you guys (the news media) would . . ."

"Is it liberal media bias?" a reporter suggested.

"You're the one who just said that," Anuzis quipped.

MIRS asked Anuzis if the petition name list might involve privacy issues.

"I think that is one of the big issues out there," Anuzis responded. "You might see more on that later."

###