Just to be clear, that thing about a frog is not true.
For the love of God, please nobody ask “Cite?”.
No doubt, but it is a good metaphor. I suffered through months of meetings with change consultants at a previous job, and my mind has never been the same.
Ironically, one of the problems of the rapid rise in fuel costs is that transit districts are talking about reducing service to stay within their budgets.
Oh . . . yeh . . . buses run on fossil fuels too . . .
At least light rail’s electric. But you have to build it first.
Not only that, but supposedly a lot of the money for public transportation comes from gas taxes.
Are gas taxes a fixed rate per gallon, or a percentage of the price, like sales tax? If the latter, revenue should be booming.
And much of the nation’s electricity is generated using fossil fuels – coal, oil, natural gas…
The federal gas tax is a fixed number, I believe around 18.5 cents per gallon.
Here’s how I characterized it … “Basically Obama said that the high gas prices weren’t so bad but the shock of such a swift increase was what was bad.”
Here’s what he said in response to whether high gas prices could help us use less oil… “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.”
Please explain his nuances to me… you know us bitter clingers are pretty dense.
As for “out of touch” are you folks telling me that the average american is happy to pay higher gas prices ???
He didn’t say they were happy to do so. What he said is that a more gradual change would have been preferred to an abrupt one-- ie, it would have allowed people to more easily make adjustments. I’m not sure if that’s true or not, but I don’t see anything weird or noteworthy about that statement.
More gradual increase is preferred but he basically doesn’t have a problem with the price… is that it?
No, he never said he doesn’t have a problem with the price. Read for comprehension.
Yes… I agree with him if your goal is to reduce oil consumption regardless of how. So maybe he should run on increasing the gas tax so that we have $5 or $6 gas.
Just for the record…would you characterize my Wright position for us. Then everyone can see how pathetic I am.
My reading with the context is that the price is a problem, but it would not have been as much of a problem for people as it actually is now had the change been a gradual one.
I really, really wish this thread was in The Pit so I could explain it to you the way I feel you deserve. It’s been explained multiple times in this thread already- if you’re not seeing it, it’s either because you’re as dense as you claim to be, or you’re just itching for a fight. Which is it?
For the record, here we go again- Obama said that gas prices would’ve been a lot more tolerable if they hadn’t gone up as fast as they did. Yes, it would still hurt, but if it had happened over the course of, say a decade, we would’ve had time to adapt and you “bitter clingers” wouldn’t have been hit as hard, as infrastructure would’ve had time to adjust. There- is that difficult?
Read the first part of the full quote in post 2. He says that supplies aren’t infinite. Do you agree? Given that, isn’t conservation necessary to delay the time when it becomes a real crisis, hopefully long enough to get alternative sources? Do you agree?
Given the supply tightness now, wouldn’t it have been nice to have started conserving some time ago instead of doing nothing for 7 years. That’s what he meant by no energy policy. Isn’t the increase in conservation measures and awareness we’re seeing now better than if if had waited until we got to $8 gallon gas?
I assume you have no problem with the position that a slow increase spurring conservation would have better than this shock. What I asked above is whether a slow increase would have done it. I’m not sure.
Misinterpretation of post responded to. Down the memory hole it goes.
Well, at least now you’re not attributing to him the stuff you’re making up. I know for a fact it’s possible to disagree with Obama without misattributing stuff like this. Your entire OP revolves around interpreting “I would have preferred” as “I am okay with this situation,” which is patently ridiculous.
Not even close.
He said the swiftness was bad, but did not dismiss the high prices as a problem. He did appear to acknowledge that the increase was inevitable, which, personally, I think is fair. I know you know what he was saying. I’m not sure why I need to explain it.
Option A) Gas prices stay cheap.
Option B) Gas prices rise gradually.
Option C) Gas prices rise sharply.
A is better than B is better than C. A is not a feasible option, therefore if we must choose between B and C, B is the better option.
This does not mean one is an advocate for option B.