• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biden Administration Grasping At Straws

esmith

Veteran Member
Sheesh, no wonder republicans are against critical thinking.

Your math = 50 million barrel's ~ 50 million gallons of petroleum

Did I get that right?
No

50 million barrels of oil X 45 gallons of petroleum per barrel = 2.25 Billion gallons of petroleum

From your source, the US uses 18 million gallons of PETROLEUM per day.

2,250,000,000 gallons of petroleum / 18,000,000 per day = 125 days.

No the US used approximatley 20 million barrels of oil per day. See below:
How much oil is consumed in the United States?
In 2020, the United States consumed approximately 20.54 million barrels of oil daily. Between 1998 and 2020, figures increased by roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil per day. According to the source, consumption refers to inland demand plus international aviation and marine bunkers and refinery fuel and loss; biogasoline (such as ethanol), biodiesel and derivatives of coal and natural gas are also included.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The price of gas has dropped about 20 cents over the last few weeks here in the midwest USA. It's under $3 now.
I haven't bought any lately.
But perhaps today I'll head out for some.
I need some "rec gas", which is gasoline without that damnable
ethanol, which is corrosive on older engines, & ***** up even
small engines, especially if stored seasonally.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The pandemic hit us while Trump was in office, and was way worse then it might have been due directly to his idiocy.
That doesn't support your claim that the problem
of Trump "...throwing money at the rich..."
Fed tax revenue increased during Trump's entire
administration. The deficit increased in the year
Covid struck, with consequent massive increased
spending.

I provided evidence. You provided unsupported claims.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Transient seems irrelevant now givin the hostility democrats show towards fossil fuels.

instead: ... given the understanding of climate science impacting how Democrats view the increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I haven't bought any lately.
But perhaps today I'll head out for some.
I need some "rec gas", which is gasoline without that damnable
ethanol, which is corrosive on older engines, & ***** up even
small engines, especially if stored seasonally.

Ethanol - give away to corn farmers.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I like positive change resulting from individual
choices in a free market. Go green!

People as a whole will never be personally responsible enough to do what is best for the largest number of people. External regulation is necessary.

If positive change from individual choices worked. We wouldn't be where we are today.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
People as a whole will never be personally responsible enough to do what is best for the largest number of people. External regulation is necessary.

If positive change from individual choices worked. We wouldn't be where we are today.
Perhaps you've missed my general
philosophy about such things...
A measure to improve things is useful,
even if it won't by itself solve the problem.
I don't at all rule out other partial solutions.
Perfect is the enemy of good - Wikipedia
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because the previous republican administration drove the economy into the ditch throwing money at the rich?
Yep, but to the pseudo-conservative Trumpettes that's all fine & dandy with them.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I thought supply was lower than usual due to OPEP country's deciding to stranglehold production and keep reserves as to kickstart their own economic recovery following COVID lockdowns and recession.
That's exactly what has happened as they're trying to recover losses during the pandemic, thus the situation is that oil prices per barrel have dropped very recently but this has yet to be passed on to today's consumer.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Conservatives typically want the free market to do whatever it does, regardless of the consequences, and government should stay out of it.
Not the Trumpettes though as they are neither fiscal conservatives nor political conservatives. Instead, they will only be what Trump says they must be in order to kiss his ring.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Price stabilization isn't necessary.
Moreover, it has a benefit when it rises over time.
This causes people to think & act more about
conservation. Stability does the opposite, ie,
people become inured to the price, & resume
their wanton ways.
I'm too lazy to search for sources that I recall.
That reminds me of the "I'll quit when the price for a pack of smokes hit x-amount." I see no real correlation to this hypothesis that a price tag or higher prices primes better behaviors in regards to conservation. People who can afford it will continue. Those who can't will just go without.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That reminds me of the "I'll quit when the price for a pack of smokes hit x-amount." I see no real correlation to this hypothesis that a price tag or higher prices primes better behaviors in regards to conservation. People who can afford it will continue. Those who can't will just go without.
When prices are fairly low & affordable, that is true.
But I advocate steady increases.
Back when I've seen them, people gravitated towards
smaller fuel efficient cars. But when stable, they're
back to driving road boats.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
One thing of note. With my PEV, a charge of electricity even at peak (time-of-day pricing) is significantly less than gas currently. And at night I'm paying on the order of $1.50/gallon equivalent.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I support any change that reduces fossil fuel consumption. I prefer to see money going to green technologies rather than be consumed in higher consumer prices for petrochemical products and retail products whose prices are tied to fuel costs, and fully support the Biden administration's effort to divert public funds toward green technology, but whatever makes burning gasoline more prohibitive or more difficult is a move in the right direction in my estimation, whether that be less expensive green alternatives, or inflation, gasoline taxes, or gasoline shortages making the cost of fuel prohibitive.

Yes, heating and air conditioning will be more expensive, but that's an incentive to become independent of the utilities and generate your own power. People where I live are complaining about propane prices going up, but our propane consumption dropped 75% when we went solar, and our electricity has been free since the system paid for itself four years ago. With the price of these systems falling and the price of power going up, the incentive to go solar increases, and the number of homes that become relatively fossil fuel independent goes up. If rising fuel costs facilitate such transformations, then that is a good thing.
It always ends up with people taking advantage and create new venues of price gouging and capital cronyism.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
When prices are fairly low & affordable, that is true.
But I advocate steady increases.
Back when I've seen them, people gravitated towards
smaller fuel efficient cars. But when stable, they're
back to driving road boats.
"Low" and "affordable" are highly relative and very subjective. Like the tunners I hear roaring and racing around here. That makes driving even more expensive than it already is. And it still happens despite the recent spike in gas prices. Because there's also an issue of what people are willing to pay. Those who can afford will continue to do so while those who can't will go without.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
One thing of note. With my PEV, a charge of electricity even at peak (time-of-day pricing) is significantly less than gas currently. And at night I'm paying on the order of $1.50/gallon equivalent.
The guy on the other side of the road from me lives in what's effectively a natural wind tunnel. It's windy there pretty much every day (my house is back up in the woods). So I suggested that he invest in a home-sized wind turbine and I said if he were really ambitious, not only could he likely power his whole house (just him and his wife live there) he could possibly even set up a charging station, buy an electric car, and basically drive for free. There's even a company nearby that sells all that, and our state gives out some very generous tax incentives for the equipment and installation.

He laughed and said no....no way in hell would he ever do anything like that. Why? Because that would be "green" and he associates anything "green" with "democrats" and "democrats" with "communism". o_O

IOW, he'll give his money away rather than do anything democrats might like. I just shrugged my shoulders, said "Okay", and changed the subject.

It reminds me of how the city commissioners in the nearby town absolutely refuse to synchronize their traffic lights. When I went to a meeting and asked why, they said it's because synced lights fall under the category of "sustainable development" and that's "part of UN Agenda 21", and by God they will not be part of a One World Government!

So every time I go into town I get to spend an extra 10-15 minutes sitting at traffic lights. Sigh.....:facepalm:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Low" and "affordable" are highly relative and very subjective. Like the tunners I hear roaring and racing around here. That makes driving even more expensive than it already is. And it still happens despite the recent spike in gas prices. Because there's also an issue of what people are willing to pay. Those who can afford will continue to do so while those who can't will go without.
Of course higher prices won't affect the behavior
of some. But there'll still be a positive effect.
Don't let "perfect" defeat "useful".
 
Top