who do i have to vote for

[HomeTeamFamily]

in 2008 to get gas prices down

seriously folks, its like 2.70 here in charleston wv....thats rediculous

[zwergel88]

I would say, that there is probably not much any politician will do to get prices down, but I would vote for the person who has the least interest or involvement with the oil companies. It is mostly the consumers though who have the control. We have to demand cars that use alternative energy, and better public transportation.

Anyone who used to work for an oil company is bad though.

[zabbazooey]

Gas is almost 3 bucks a gallon here...............

[Christie_M]

it's MORE then $3 here in some places here

[zabbazooey]

Boooo

[zwergel88]

that smells of elderberries, I think it's only like 2.60 here. I have a little less than half a tank left in my car, but when it runs out I refuse to buy more. I will either walk or my mama will have to drive me.

[Tony]

Pedro ?

[zwergel88]

what?

[StColette]

It's 2.70 something here

[let_go_let_God]

2.599 in northern minnesota

God bless-
LGLG

[morostheos]

2.49 down here in the boonies of VA - gotta love living in the Shenandoah Valley

[zwergel88]

A year ago, I would have rather died than pay 2.49 a gallon, but now that seems like a good price. Isn't that sad?

[morostheos]

Yeah, it is sad.

Back when I was in high school there were gas wars near me and gas went down to $0.40 a gallon - crazy!!!!

[morostheos]

That was in 2000 by the way........

[Christie_M]

:bugeyes:

[zwergel88]

I remember when gas was 89 cents a gallon. Those were the days....

[Christie_M]

I remember when it was $1.19!! that was alot!

Hey!! Deja Vue!!!!

[zwergel88]

If it ever goes down to less than about 1.50, I am going to take as many fifty gallon Rubbermain containers as I can find, fill them up, and store them in my gargage so that I can have cheap gas when the prices rise.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Aug 20 2005, 12:07 PM']I would say, that there is probably not much any politician will do to get prices down, but I would vote for the person who has the least interest or involvement with the oil companies.  It is mostly the consumers though who have the control. We have to demand cars that use alternative energy, and  better public transportation.

Anyone who used to work for an oil company is bad though.
[right][snapback]691854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree that a candidate with an interest in the success of an oil company is bad.

I paid $2.67 last time.

How about someone who will give me a job when I'm out of school?

We have some alternative energy technology in existance today, but the political will does not exist enough to get it reasonably to the consumer. What is available is still so expensive, like hybrid electric cars. I've heard that some companies (unspecified kind) don't want to invest in more environmentally efficient ways of doing things because it would cost them more money. Some Canadian companies did that and found that there were actually more economically efficient ways as well so they saved money in the long run. Rather than halting consumer activities to require that of companies and they could do it assuming they had the funds, we could do like the Canadian government did and have tax incentives to companies who invest more in that, that way also the consumer won't be forced to pay the cost.

This would take away from the government tax income and possibly require some more auditing stuff to monitor, but it will be worthwhile in the long run. Things like medicare may actually save money if an environmentally efficient alternative energy becomes the norm in cars because fewer people would remain as exposed to that degree of chemicals which do effect health although this may be overlooked as the already somewhat exposed babyboomers grow old and face a wide range of health issues. If we can have more of the manufacturing of new technology here in the US, then more good paying jobs can be created.

Right now a significant amount of manufacturing for goods sold in the US actually happens elsewhere while the new jobs that are being created in service industry are not as likely to be ones that you can retire after. Many other richer western Eurpean and possibly other countries have government departments of some kind that focus on the growth of manufacturing technology in their countries. Instead of that, the US companies ship their manufacturing to other places where they don't have to pay the kind of minimum wage that the US requires. While manufacturing in the US may cost more money and cause some increase in prices, more quality consistency might be expected, the economy in general can have more money moving in it if more jobs that are available are better paying jobs. Companies at least could save a few dollars on shipping and if we as a country can begin to create better quality products before the global demand booms more, our companies can help feed a growing international consumer market with US goods, bringing money back to us.

If we can become better prepared in a fashion realistic and affordable to the consumer, then smaller costs endured in that will help ease the birth pains of alternative technology to which we as a nation will one day be forced as a result of limited natural resources. This will give us more freedom and control in what we as a nation do and while prices may seem high for a time, they will be lessened with improving technology rather than merely delaying the inevitable increases from limited supply and possible political tensions.

Edited August 20, 2005 by Light and Truth

[journeyman]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Aug 20 2005, 04:53 PM']That was in 2000 by the way........
[right][snapback]692149[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think I missed that gas war . . . either that or my short term memory is fading fast

I do remember gas wars when I was in high school . . . $.26 per gallon . . . on Thursday it went from $2.43 on the way into work to $2.49 after work - unfortunately, I didn't have any cash in the morning, could have saved almost a dollar