gas prices too high or too low?

I just don't understand why someone making hundreds of thousands of dollars
a year for 20 years off the Oil company they own, then, when times are
toughest for all Americans, we go to war (which we are paying for) so that
they can make even more money from their oil companies and all they can
think about is raising the price of the gasoline so that they can keep
making the same profit, if not more. To me it would be, should be, more
American to take a personal hit for the good of less fortunate Americans and
let the economy thrive. I wanted to say Bush instead of "the rich" in my
original email, but didn't want this to end up in a political battle.


"Veronica Thomas" > wrote in message
...
> Dave,
>
> You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line EVERYTHING.
> A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle comes
> out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
> around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self satisfying,
> "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
week,
> next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
>
> Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
> today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
>
> Have a great day.
>
>
> "Dave Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > > you're just talking out of your ass.
> >
> > Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
not
> > practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> > within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
> > supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a
> lot
> > of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not,
> this
> > country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
personal
> > vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
> whether
> > it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
> >
> > Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we
> were
> > willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
> miles.
> > Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
> > thing.
> >
> > Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> > accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
> SUV's.
> > I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them
> as
> > often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine
most
> of
> > the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> > environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
> their
> > share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
> > there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
and
> > I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
> > doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

I already spend as little as possible. I have an average house, nothing
huge. My husband and I have had one car for the last 3 years, which by the
way, gets about 32 miles per gallon. It is a 1999, which we bought new,
only because our 1988 was totaled by an idiot in a corvette while talking on
his cell phone. Most everything I buy, I buy at a discount and there aren't
many luxuries. I'm not talking the talk and not walking the walk. I agree
with you about working on ourselves as citizens and not as a nation. I
think were trying to make the same point on that issue. But why do I need
to send my money to AFRICA? What about helping AMERICA?

"Veronica Thomas" > wrote in message
...
> I just don't understand why someone making hundreds of thousands of
dollars
> a year for 20 years off the Oil company they own, then, when times are
> toughest for all Americans, we go to war (which we are paying for) so that
> they can make even more money from their oil companies and all they can
> think about is raising the price of the gasoline so that they can keep
> making the same profit, if not more. To me it would be, should be, more
> American to take a personal hit for the good of less fortunate Americans
and
> let the economy thrive. I wanted to say Bush instead of "the rich" in my
> original email, but didn't want this to end up in a political battle.
>
>
> "Veronica Thomas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave,
> >
> > You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line
EVERYTHING.
> > A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle
comes
> > out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
> > around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self
satisfying,
> > "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
> week,
> > next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
> >
> > Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
> > today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
> >
> > Have a great day.
> >
> >
> > "Dave Hill" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus
pass
> > > > you're just talking out of your ass.
> > >
> > > Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
> not
> > > practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> > > within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even
basic
> > > supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for
a
> > lot
> > > of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or
not,
> > this
> > > country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
> personal
> > > vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
> > whether
> > > it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
> > >
> > > Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s,
we
> > were
> > > willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
> > miles.
> > > Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a
good
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> > > accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
> > SUV's.
> > > I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive)
them
> > as
> > > often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine
> most
> > of
> > > the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> > > environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
> > their
> > > share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do.
If
> > > there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
> and
> > > I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in
general
> > > doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> >
>
>

I already spend as little as possible. I have an average house, nothing
huge. My husband and I have had one car for the last 3 years, which by the
way, gets about 32 miles per gallon. It is a 1999, which we bought new,
only because our 1988 was totaled by an idiot in a corvette while talking on
his cell phone. Most everything I buy, I buy at a discount and there aren't
many luxuries. I'm not talking the talk and not walking the walk. I agree
with you about working on ourselves as citizens and not as a nation. I
think were trying to make the same point on that issue. But why do I need
to send my money to AFRICA? What about helping AMERICA?

"Veronica Thomas" > wrote in message
...
> I just don't understand why someone making hundreds of thousands of
dollars
> a year for 20 years off the Oil company they own, then, when times are
> toughest for all Americans, we go to war (which we are paying for) so that
> they can make even more money from their oil companies and all they can
> think about is raising the price of the gasoline so that they can keep
> making the same profit, if not more. To me it would be, should be, more
> American to take a personal hit for the good of less fortunate Americans
and
> let the economy thrive. I wanted to say Bush instead of "the rich" in my
> original email, but didn't want this to end up in a political battle.
>
>
> "Veronica Thomas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave,
> >
> > You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line
EVERYTHING.
> > A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle
comes
> > out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
> > around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self
satisfying,
> > "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
> week,
> > next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
> >
> > Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
> > today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
> >
> > Have a great day.
> >
> >
> > "Dave Hill" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus
pass
> > > > you're just talking out of your ass.
> > >
> > > Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
> not
> > > practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> > > within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even
basic
> > > supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for
a
> > lot
> > > of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or
not,
> > this
> > > country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
> personal
> > > vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
> > whether
> > > it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
> > >
> > > Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s,
we
> > were
> > > willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
> > miles.
> > > Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a
good
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> > > accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
> > SUV's.
> > > I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive)
them
> > as
> > > often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine
> most
> > of
> > > the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> > > environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
> > their
> > > share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do.
If
> > > there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
> and
> > > I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in
general
> > > doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> >
>
>

"Veronica Thomas" > wrote in
:

> I already spend as little as possible. I have an average house,
> nothing huge. My husband and I have had one car for the last 3 years,
> which by the way, gets about 32 miles per gallon. It is a 1999, which
> we bought new, only because our 1988 was totaled by an idiot in a
> corvette while talking on his cell phone. Most everything I buy, I
> buy at a discount and there aren't many luxuries. I'm not talking the
> talk and not walking the walk. I agree with you about working on
> ourselves as citizens and not as a nation. I think were trying to
> make the same point on that issue. But why do I need to send my money
> to AFRICA? What about helping AMERICA?

I love my life.

I live in a singlewide 1974 trailer, my friend lives in a 1993 econoline
conversion van parked in front of walmart, if we have to get around the
city - we ride our bikes or walk - longer trips we take his van. I buy
from the salvation army and ebay if I HAVE to buy, sometimes walmart,
often times I go into the mall and if someone has bought this huge meal
and only ate a few bites of it and then want to throw the rest away I
either ask if I can have it or wait til they leave and eat off thier
plate. I go to the produce market and buy sweet potatoes and eat them -
natures perfect vegetable - sometimes I eat from my small garden outside
the trailer - sometimes I see dumpsters around my city filled with
things I need - I get them. You and your husband probably consider this
beneath you. I used to work at IBM in high levels of corporate power,
now I work at a library stocking book shelves and am much happier not
worrying about who is gunning for me or trying to stab me in the back to
get my big paying job. I watch a lot of tv, listen to a lot of music,
read a lot of books and try to comprehend a lot of news. You say why do
you need to send your money to africa - what about helping America but
then say lets all love each other beyond the concept of NATION STATE -
the 2 do not go together - why should you send money to africa?? Why
should bush and the other rich send money to you?? Open your mind. If
you are going to be selfish - don't blame Bush for being that way too.
Quit thinking in terms of MONEY - start thinking in terms of HAPPINESS -
if bill gates has 50 billion and is MISERABLE and stressed out - and I
have 2 dollars and am happy - who really is doing better? I am seeing a
lot of hate and misery on this board - life is too short for that.
Money only has the power over you that you give it - money stopped
determining my happiness many years ago.

My friend, he used to install corian counter tops - so many families
would put them in thier new big homes - I think for social status - some
of these people were happy, some weren't - but they were all pretty RICH
- money does not determine happiness.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/happy.html

A pretty good article by one of the worlds top economists, but I have
been unemployed several times, and I was still very happy - I could
still do the things important to my happiness - go to the library and
read a book - listen to some cd's, surf the internet, talk on discussion
groups with other citizens. Job advancement stopped mattering to my
happiness.

"Veronica Thomas" > wrote in
:

> I already spend as little as possible. I have an average house,
> nothing huge. My husband and I have had one car for the last 3 years,
> which by the way, gets about 32 miles per gallon. It is a 1999, which
> we bought new, only because our 1988 was totaled by an idiot in a
> corvette while talking on his cell phone. Most everything I buy, I
> buy at a discount and there aren't many luxuries. I'm not talking the
> talk and not walking the walk. I agree with you about working on
> ourselves as citizens and not as a nation. I think were trying to
> make the same point on that issue. But why do I need to send my money
> to AFRICA? What about helping AMERICA?

I love my life.

I live in a singlewide 1974 trailer, my friend lives in a 1993 econoline
conversion van parked in front of walmart, if we have to get around the
city - we ride our bikes or walk - longer trips we take his van. I buy
from the salvation army and ebay if I HAVE to buy, sometimes walmart,
often times I go into the mall and if someone has bought this huge meal
and only ate a few bites of it and then want to throw the rest away I
either ask if I can have it or wait til they leave and eat off thier
plate. I go to the produce market and buy sweet potatoes and eat them -
natures perfect vegetable - sometimes I eat from my small garden outside
the trailer - sometimes I see dumpsters around my city filled with
things I need - I get them. You and your husband probably consider this
beneath you. I used to work at IBM in high levels of corporate power,
now I work at a library stocking book shelves and am much happier not
worrying about who is gunning for me or trying to stab me in the back to
get my big paying job. I watch a lot of tv, listen to a lot of music,
read a lot of books and try to comprehend a lot of news. You say why do
you need to send your money to africa - what about helping America but
then say lets all love each other beyond the concept of NATION STATE -
the 2 do not go together - why should you send money to africa?? Why
should bush and the other rich send money to you?? Open your mind. If
you are going to be selfish - don't blame Bush for being that way too.
Quit thinking in terms of MONEY - start thinking in terms of HAPPINESS -
if bill gates has 50 billion and is MISERABLE and stressed out - and I
have 2 dollars and am happy - who really is doing better? I am seeing a
lot of hate and misery on this board - life is too short for that.
Money only has the power over you that you give it - money stopped
determining my happiness many years ago.

My friend, he used to install corian counter tops - so many families
would put them in thier new big homes - I think for social status - some
of these people were happy, some weren't - but they were all pretty RICH
- money does not determine happiness.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/happy.html

A pretty good article by one of the worlds top economists, but I have
been unemployed several times, and I was still very happy - I could
still do the things important to my happiness - go to the library and
read a book - listen to some cd's, surf the internet, talk on discussion
groups with other citizens. Job advancement stopped mattering to my
happiness.

never driven a mini van, but have been in a few (like the grand
caravan, which I thought as a passenger had a pretty nice ride and
pretty comfy), just like any other car or station wagon.

To me the rules governing light trucks are a joke, a contractor would
never use a PT Cruiser as a work truck (where the hell would ya put
lumber, gas pipes, chop saws, etc....)

The PT cruiser for example uses a loop hole to get around CAFE
standards, I've been around more than my fare share of lumber yards,
plumbing supply stores, glass shops, etc. and never once have I seen a
PT cruiser used as a work truck (even thought ya say it looks like one
of them old ones).

I just think that the laws as written are used by auto makers to try
and sell the public that trucks (i.e. SUVs are tough), when in reality
it seems that in a majority of cases SUVs are used are passanger
vehicles, and car makers like to classify as many vehicles as light
trucks in order to avoid a gas guzzler tax, safety regs, etc.).

in my book I consider my own 80 series land cruiser, as just another
a car (with a specialized purpose), same with jeeps. The astro is a
van, a pick up w/ lumber racks in my book is a bare min of a vehicle
in the truck class and if ya want to talk trucks I kind of start out
thinking MOG

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&...859-1&q=unimog

which could eat an astro for breakfast and still have room to haul the
carcass of an H2 "hummer" if ya ever get a chance check one out cause
those things are beasts......






xenman > wrote in message >. ..
> I hate to tell ya but minivans are also considered trucks. Ever
> ridden in a Ford Aerostar or a Chevy Astro? Definitely a truck.
>
> SUV and station wagons are alike because they are both not
> sedans, they are both more utilitarian than sedans, they both
> have an enclosed cargo area accessible from the passenger
> area. They both come in 2WD and 4WD, althought most SUVs
> are either 2WD or 4WD, while some station wagons are only
> 2WD and other station wagons are only 4WD. On average
> SUVs are larger than station wagons, but not always.
>
> So is a PT Cruiser an SUV? Is it a station wagon? Is it a truck?
> It looks like a delivery truck from a few generations in the past.
>
>
> On 12 Jun 2004 20:10:00 -0700, (ben) wrote:
>
> >hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
> >wagons because they are considered trucks....
> >
> >a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
> >and safety standards as a passanger car
> >
> >"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
> >post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
> >(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
> >27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
> >given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
> >will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."
> >
> >http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...1&article=6769
> >
> >(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....
> >
> >the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$
> >
> >
> >