OH NOESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! I violated the TOS on an interwebz message board. Smite me oh mighty smiter!!!!!!

I'm sure you can easily find a list of petroleum by-products. It's more than just plastics. I'm not arguing that oil is going to run out, I'm saying that crude production won't be "obsolete" in the amount of time you first indicated. Regardless, oil and gas companies are moving away from focusing primarily on crude production anyways.

Are you trying to say that oil companies blatantly create high gas prices for their personal gain knowing that the country has to pay for it?? Just asking....I kind of sense that from the "cartels" and "fixing prices" remarks.

Brother, I think that is something that is sitting in the very back of many peoples minds. Along with the Bush family connections to gas/oil companies.
Not saying that it is true/correct, just that the thought is there. Perhaps "wonder" may be closer to correct term.

And I think many people have a section of their brain that many of those "wonders" stay filed away in.

Oh I agree totally. It's easy for people to think that...no doubt. Is it true? No, especially if you know and understand how oil and gas companies make their money.....which a lot of people don't really have a clue. It isn't coming from the gasoline that you have to put in your car, I'll tell you that much.

Also, oil and gas companies don't set the prices for oil and gasoline. Very common misconception, as evidenced already by AKAMonet's thoughts on "cartels" "fixing prices". I'll put it this way. The largest oil and gas company in the United States controls around 4-5% of the world's oil. You honestly think they are the ones "fixing" the price here? No. I mean good lord......our country is importing 75% of its energy. If you don't think distributors in other countries have a large hand in these high prices then I don't know what to tell you.

A gazillion things use petroleum. You'd be surprised.

ETA: some photos of things made with/from petroleum

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...e_balloons.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...eroad/road.JPG

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...de_spray1a.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...film_reels.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...Paint_Pots.gif

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...aspirin325.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...toothpaste.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...Pillows_MN.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...oint-pen-l.jpg

I don't want to be a dick here, but this line illustrates the full magnitude of just how little you understand the topic. While the year-2000 budget showed a small surplus for that year, the overall US debt was still in the trillions - in fact, it was nearly $6 trillion. Every other year of Clinton's presidency showed an increase in the deficit, indicating that the year-2000 surplus was likely a "gimmick" heading into a contentious election cycle.

Here's the actual data:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/U...s/image001.jpg

Bush shows a strong deficit increase throughout his terms, but it is actually fairly similar to the Reaganomics boom era, and this by itself shouldn't be considered damning (read up on why nations engage in deficit spending if you'd like to continue along these lines).

Your points are disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation.

Brother;
You might enjoy this:
Our Own Oil Cartel
Terrence Jeffreyhttp://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif 6/4/2008
Contemplate this the next time you spend $60 or more filling up your tinny little car with gasoline made from imported oil: The U.S. government knows where it can get its hands on more untapped petroleum than exists in the proven reserves of Iran or Iraq, which have 136 billion barrels and 115 billion barrels, respectively.

This unexploited stock of crude is greater than what the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports is in the proven reserves of Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (41.5 billion barrels) and Nigeria (36.2 billion barrels) combined.

It is more than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela has (80 billion barrels).

It is more than is now known to sit beneath the waters and sands of Kuwait (101.5 billion barrels) or the United Arab Emirates (97.6 billion barrels).

So, where is all this oil? And why aren't they pumping it?...............
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=6622&pg=1


And would like to know what you think of this:
At $4, Everybody Gets Rational
Charles Krauthammerhttp://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif 6/6/2008
This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.......................
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=6664&pg=2

I don't know you well enough to suggest your reading style, but to let you know something about me, I am a lot older than you think and pretty well-traveled. So first, the US does not allow cartels in its country, it fails to promote "free-trade" and capitalism. So that means foreign countries and possible governments have cartels--pretty much like drug cartels--the same with crude oil/gas. As such, they (namely OPEC) can charge whatever they want for oil. That is what I read, heard and saw in all the latest media. Our oil companies are being held hostage to whatever prices these fools charge us--thus they are passing onto the consumer...

The other issue was read in Science Magazine last year sometime that all ACCESSIBLE oil within environmental treaties is low overall. Now there are inaccessible fields and then there is environmentally destructive fields. But, I dunno? Shouldn't our R&D money be spent on better energy production uses? Maybe our cars won't be able to go as fast as a hydrocarbon vehicle, but there will be plentiful fuel using something different. And steam was going somewhere at the turn of the 19th century--who says it cannot be revisited with newer technologies? Also there are other forms of carbon based fuels--coal and organics (CH4 and EtOH) and even H2/He gases that can be better contained.

R&D is different now, given enough money--like the Gates Grand Challenge--with Warren Buffet $$$ many things can be accomplished. The company that makes it happen first, MIGHT be the most successful... Whatever happen to the Ansari [sp?] Prize?

Jon--dude may be right, but, the damage to the environment is so destructive that it would NOT be worth to drill this oil up. Yes, $4 a gallon. Should we be leaving a Carbon footprint that large when something other fuel source is on the cusp of discovery? I would rather make it "Mother Necessity of Invention"--and guess what, to be competitive, I think the US brain power is intelligent enough to make it a necessity to change how we all, globally use fuel...

Not saying dude is wrong, but I disagree with his tactic. I don't want any more platforms off California's coast... And you definitely won't get them off Washington state's coast--too many Greenpeace/ELF lunatics...

From the same source you lifted the chart from (without providing any attribution,) here's the clarification of the chart -


"This is a study of the spending habits of our presidents since 1938. It shows that Conservative Presidents out borrow and spend Democratic Presidents almost 3 to 1. Just looking at the graph at the beginning of the study tells a powerful story: In the last 30 years, if you wanted a President to be fiscally responsible, you had better vote for a Democrat. Admittedly this study has the bias of a deficit hawk, but here are the facts, you can draw your own conclusions (the link points to an Excel spreadsheet, obviously if you do not have Excel this link will not work)."

"Most of the negative feedback received on the original paper concerned the lack of the comparison of the GDP to the national debt. To correct this oversight the last update added a section on this topic. The most recent dismal debt data was added and the percentages and analysis adjusted accordingly. "

"Addressed in the latest version is the role of Congress in the amassing of our debt. Both the right and the left may be surprised by the facts here.
I was shocked to see how far this document has spread. If you do a Yahoo or Google search for "United States National Debt" (with the quote marks) this study comes up on the first page. I am guessing that is why it is referenced on dozens of other web sites. Both professors and students have used the graphs in colleges across the county. I should have copy righted this one." - Steve McGourty

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Bush_opinion.htm

Which of my points, specifically, are "disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation" and why, specifically, do you feel that way?

First, that the national debt is directly related to the President - there are external factors that will force the nation's hand, even while realizing that conservative policies have followed a much more Keynesian-aligned deficit spending policy since Reagan. You're misunderstanding which is the horse and which is the cart, giving us a causation/correlation dilemma.

Second, the inference that Clinton's (nearly worthless) balanced budget was somehow an indictment of Bush is specious at best and intentionally misleading at worst. In context, that "balanced budget" shows innumerable problems, including context that indicates it was more parlor trick than the actual best thing for the nation (hence, disingenuous). Additionally, Clinton ran a deficit every other year - and one that does not seem out of line with any other time in history, especially accounting for inflation.

Third, assuming that running a national deficit is implicitly a negative without accounting for the reasons why a nation like the US often has to run a deficit, without any argument about why this particular deficit is worse than, say, 1982 (when accounting for inflation and different world events) again gives a specious argument rooted in emotion rather than logic.

We could continue if you'd like, but I think this is more than enough - no one is arguing the specifics of the debt, nor that Republicans have often utilized deficit spending to stimulate the economy and promote US interests abroad (not war, either - rather, shaping the world economy). However, you've provided no reasons why these are bad.

"Fiscal responsibility" does not mean "balanced budget" implicitly - there are other complex economic factors that state a balanced budget might be a net negative. You're missing that point, or avoiding it.

To get back on topic (not that seeing RC bitch slap somebody isn't entertaining) as of right now, no, we're not feeling the pinch. However, we have been working on our budget and savings and trying to get into the habit of being more economical due to factors that are coming up at the end of the year (new baby, new vehicle, house expenses, etc...) I know for sure at that time we'll be feeling it.

Bitchslapping? No. He was merely trying to crawl out from an embarrassing place since the chart that he posted clearly demonstrated the exact opposite of the point he was trying to make.

And back on topic, we're feeling the pinch in three areas. Our commuting costs have nearly doubled due to the high gasoline prices, our grocery bills have been significantly higher, and our stock portfolio has taken a huge hit.

I understand that you are older....definitely know that from being around here for a while. I thought you were referring to oil companies here as cartels...trying to be snarky or what have you. My mistake. You are right though. They are charging us whatever they want. Do you blame them? We are relying on them for 3/4 of our energy and are too stupid to do anything about it.

I'd like to read the article you are referring to, it sounds good. Hell, it's probably written by someone that is close to oil and gas...I dunno though. Some of the geologists hired by big oil are the best in the world at what they do. I tend to believe them. The last study that I have seen personally by the USGS estimates that the ultimate recoverable resources of conventional oil, including natural gas liquids is at more than 3.3 trillion barrels. Of these, less than 2/3 have been consumed to date, with around 2.4 trillion barrels yet to be produced. Now, there are also vast resources of what O&G companies like to call "non-conventional" oil - possibly as much as 7 trillion barrels. This, however, is what will require advanced technology to produce....largely because it is inaccessible with current drilling techniques and would require great changes to the environment.

Now, I am fairly "unlearned" when it comes to the financial side of oil and gas, especially money allocations for R&D and such (I'll leave that to analysts, finance guys, accountants, etc)....but I do know that, collectively, the largest companies will spend upwards of 20$ trillion dollars over the next 25 years, roughly 3000$ for every person on earth with the hopes of developing clean, affordable, and abundant energy sources. You can check those figures with the IEA I'm pretty sure, the International Energy Agency.

It clearly shows the deficit increased exponentially under Clinton, just as it did under Bush. That's my point - that you're twisting one "fact" to fit an argument that doesn't exist.

Now, by avoiding the topic entirely, you're clearly hiding from the light of reason - keep crawling under the rock though.