Noticed Gas prices in Hillsboro up 8 cents a gallon since Election Day.

Just think how much worse it would have been for the righties if they didn't drop by a dollar a gallon over the past few months.

Maybe the gasoline industry thought that the GOP would pull it out with the lowering of gas prices. But after 6 years of the admininstrations lies the people woke up and voted them out knowing the gas prices would go up after election day.

So Herb, Wayner and gang please explain why it's justified to increase prices becasue your side lost the election?

I don't believe in the Gas Price Conspiracy, just like I don't believe in the Voting Machine Conspiracy. Just one question: why did gas prices fall last year after Labor Day as well when there was no election on? Could it perhaps have just a little more to do with the peak summer demand than a conspiracy to influence the elections?

Andrew

Excuse me? In the past gasoline prices began to rise when the demand for heating oil increased.

Lets see the increased demand due to the early cold winter is... none!!!! The winter forecast is for a warmer winter this year. Also Andrew I guess you got caught in the right wing lying ring. Last year after Labor day prices went up and up because of Katrina which happened on August 30th. Prices stayed up until October of 2005.

So Andrew stop listening to the righties and listen to the truth, the market is easy to be manipulated and the people have voted over whelming to stop it. So join us and stop the drive up of prices or enjoy the Koolaid. Lars serves it up daily.

I don't listen to the righties - I think for myself. (Why are YOU listening to the left-wing media, ha ha ha?)

So you admit that prices did fall last year, right? In Oregon, prices were pretty stable right after Katrina as I remember - they did not skyrocket here like they did back east because our gas isn't supplied from the Gulf region. Certainly the fact that a Katrina event happened last year and not this one should help explain why it took an extra month for nationwide prices to fall, shouldn't it?

Why did gas prices fall at all in late 2005 if the only reason they fell in 2006 was for political manipulation? Why wouldn't they have simply remained at $3.00/gallon until after labor day 2006?

Andrew

They fell both times due to poltical manipulation. The prices did not come down last fall. After Katrina the prices went up by 25 cents a gallon immediately and really never came down.

There have been postings on many web sites that when Bush's numbers went down gas prices would drop for the numbers to go up. The numbers have been tracked for the past two years and the evidence is perfectly clear.

You might think for yourself. Now try to read and do research then you will find the truth.

If you think gas prices "really never came down" last fall, then you are the one who needs to do some research. I paid $1.85/gallon around Jan-Feb of 2006.

Don't believe me? Here's some research for you:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page. html

See how steeply gas prices fell in October of 2005? The national average hit around $2.15/gallon and stayed 20 cents from that for several months - not long after Katrina. In the NW, gas prices were even less.

I have some of my gas receipts from last fall/winter if you think it's all a big government conspiracy.

Where is your evidence that the oil companies artifically manipulated prices for the election season?

Andrew

There is no gas conspiracy.

Another opinion from cnn.com today...

A Democratic-controlled Congress could mean both oil and gasoline prices will ease in the near future.

As a result of major investment in ethanol the last two years, supported by both parties, more of the corn-based fuel will be coming online next summer, according to Tom Kloza, an analyst at Oil Price Information Service. And the increase in supply should help ease prices.

As I understand it, Paul, Ethanol currently costs more than gasoline to make, even with recent gas prices. Government subsidies help farmers but aren't cost effective. Maybe when gasoline tops $5/gallion the equation will change...

Andrew

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGUwNWI1OGU3YjAwZTY4MDRkYWM3MzNmZDliMGUxYjM =

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=257

Here you go, in both articles one from 2005 and the other from 2006 Bush's ratings were falling and near 49% disapproval were just due to high gas prices. With in one month gas prices fell as your publications show.

However let's really compare when the price of gasoline was at $1.15 per gallon a berrel of oil was $30 a barrel. So when oil went up to $3.00 a gallon a price for a barrel would have to be $78 a barrel. Did oil ever get to $78 a barrel? No it didn't.

So now you're saying the oil companies artificially manipulate the gas prices to try to boost Bush's approval ratings? Where's your evidence of that? (At least you admit you were wrong, that gas prices did indeed go down last fall, not went up 25 cents and stayed there.)

Coorelation is not casuation. Everyone is aware of gas prices rising/falling, and they tend to blame the government for that in part, right or wrong. It's not surprising that Bush's approval rating changes when the gas prices change. But there's not a shred of evidence that the oil companies INTENTIONALLY raise/lower prices to manipulate Bush's approval ratings. That's nothing but pure speculation and conspiracy thinking.

I could produce graphs showing that there are more cars on the road when the sun is shining than when it is dark. Can I then conclude that the Sun God is manipulating drivers to go out and drive during the day?

Andrew

from zfact.com:

Why are gas prices so high?
"Crude oil rose to a 26-month high yesterday after President Bush said that the United Nations Security Council must enforce its resolution on disarming Iraq." That was Feb. 7, 2003, a month and a half before the Iraq war, when the price of gas was $1.75. Since then the oil market's fears have been replaced by the reality of depressed Iraqi oil production, and more recently by fears of an Iranian oil disruption if the U.S. attacks Iran. This is only one of several reasons for high gas prices, but it is the one under our control.

Andrew do you make it up as you go. Corn Ethanol (E85) sells for less than gasoline. However Sugar Ethanol as Brazil produces costs even less than E85. It was on 60 minutes earlier this year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/04/60minutes/main1588659_page2.shtml

I don't care how much E85 sells for - I care how much it COSTS TO MAKE. It has largely been produced with government subsidies i.e. our tax money. Take away the government subsidy and E85 would cost more than gasoline to buy.

Check this out:

http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

This same site is apparently very anti-Bush so I fail to see how their dismissal of E85 could be some right-wing conspiracy.

Andrew

So if there is no conspiracy, why won't Cheney reveal who was at his secret energy meetings? Answer that one.

And don't sling any bull about "to protect the sanctity of the office of the V.P."

Even Chris Matthews says "Everything Cheney has said has turned out to be a lie."

Cheney is secretive by nature. Just because he won't reveal who was at his secret meetings doesn't mean the oil companies manipulate the price of oil to help Bush's approval ratings.

There's still NO EVIDENCE that the oil companies manipulate oil prices for Bush's benefit. Without evidence, I must assume it has not occurred - innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Andrew

E85 is a bailout for the red states in the Midwest and their corn. I agree to that as it uses up 5 times the energy as Sugar Ethonal.

However as I stated above Sugar Ethonal without subsidies costs less, you hear that, less than gasoline.

OK, you've admitted you were wrong about E85 and wrong about gas prices not going down last fall.

Let's get back to the original assertion: WHERE is your evidence that the oil companies have manipulated gas prices to help Bush's approval ratings and his party's chances in the mid-term elections? Will you simply admit it is nothing more than speculation?

Andrew

I have to admit the evidence for gasoline price manipulation is weak although I've a hunch something is up, but what, I can't say. However, the Bush admin's tendency to "hide" things is not good. It seems to me that if they could be open, they would, so something's up.

Saveitnow>> So Andrew stop listening to the righties... ...enjoy the Koolaid. Lars serves it up daily.

Saveitnow, you won't score any points coming on here as a newbie and attacking a poster whose overall views you know little or nothing about.

I have long suspected oil companies favor the re-election of Republicans and would alter prices accordingly, but I have no proof.

I never said I was wrong about ethanol, I said that sugar ethonal was cheaper and better. So where do you find a lot of sugar. Of that's right Cuba.

Now you understand why sugar ethonal isn't being developed.

"I never said I was wrong about ethanol, I said that sugar ethonal was cheaper and better. So where do you find a lot of sugar. Of that's right Cuba."

A tremendous amount of sugar is made here in the US, both from sugarcane and the sugar beet.

I saw the same 60 minutes report and it was great how Brazil does it. It shocked and saddened me how Brazil is the only country in the world that has thought forward enough about this to make it mandatory. Every new car sold there has a switch, either gasoline or ethanol, and it simply adjusts the timing slightly to adjust for the fuel (ethanol burns hotter). Good for the economy, good for the farmers, good for weaning off foreign dependence (Brazil, a country that produces next to no oil, doesn't import any at all!), and it's better for the environment.

Seems like a no-brainer to me!

on the other hand brazil has this deforestation thing going on so they're not really "forward thinking" as they seem to be. at best, they're trading trees for sugar -- I think the planet would object to that decision.

"on the other hand brazil has this deforestation thing going on so they're not really "forward thinking" as they seem to be. at best, they're trading trees for sugar -- I think the planet would object to that decision."

I couldn't agree with you more ... I guess my point is, if Brazil, hardly the most modern nation on the planet, can do this in regards to its fuel situation, why can't the rest of us? Hell let BP and ExxonMobil and the big oil conglomerates buy millions of acres of sugar cane and sugar beets and refine THOSE and profit off of them.

Yeah right ...

I think it's reasonable to assume that since the GOP controlled congress is more friendly to big oil, that big oil would take steps to help the GOP retain power. Large scale price manipulation is hard to prove, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little bit of manipulation going on. To assume there is absolutely none is a tad naive if you ask me.

But DUHbya said so. So it MUST be gospel.....

Pete, I have no doubt that the oil companies are first and foremost driven by profit and business needs. I also realize they know their Republican buddies will do more for them than the Democrats (who are not exactly immune to lobbyists' charms). While there could be a little bit of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours," manipulation of gas prices specifically to help Bush's popularity is a tall order and a serious charge, not the kind of thing that would be entered into lightly. It would hardly be impossible to prove, either. Business executives at rival companies are not always a happy family - people get into disputes, get ousted from power in consolidations, etc. - and invariably someone talks. Also, people engaged in fixing gas prices would be more likely to step into other crimes that could eventually bring them down - and get those indicted talking to save themselves, like Jack Abramoff.

I guess the reason this is a hot button issue for me is that I worry especially now that the unproven conspiracy theories of the "looney left" will tarnish the new Democratic leadership if the theories are taken too seriously. There's a fringe element on the left side of the Democratic Party that buys into all of this stuff: that all the voting machines are rigged (except last Tuesday I guess), that 9/11 was an "inside job," etc. The American Public at large doesn't buy this crap, and to hear it taken seriously undermines the credibilty of the Democrats nationally. The Republicans have the same problem whenever Pat Robertson opens his mouth. Anyway, I would prefer that people stick to what they can prove and not make wild accusations that sound looney to some of us.

Andrew

I thought it was the Rightys who thought that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's not that the voting machines *are* rigged (although I'm not saying they ain't), it's that they can easily *be* rigged. They are inherently insecure, which is a Really Bad Thing.

I tended to poopoo the gas price conspiracy until what the prices have done recently.

Today the price of oil dropped below $58 a barrel. Price of gasoline in Hillsboro up another 6 cents.

Now Andrew please explain why you are not yet convinced. Were you a member of the OJ Jury?

circumstancial evidence. Our oil comes from AK -- this could explain why we're never on track with "reality".

we need a Smoking Gun. Find it and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

Convinced of WHAT, Saveitnow? Bush's approval ratings just hit 31% in the latest poll, a low point, yet you're claiming that the oil companies are now raising gas prices? WHY? Shouldn't they be lowering prices to the floor to try to prop up Bush's worst-ever approval ratings? They ought to be below $1 now given how low his approval rating is.

I was going to say that there is still no evidence to support your price fixing conspiracy theory, but as I said, I'm not quite sure what your theory is now?

Andrew

Gee Andrew give up. They don't want to prop up Bush now because on Tuesday he became a lame duck. So they have to make hay while the sun shines and Bush sets back and does nothing. Any new change in tax laws that were passed to benefit oil companies can not be reversed until at least 2007.

So you have now fallen into the new Theory, it's called the Forest Gump Theory. I think you know what that means. But I could be wrong.

As to Skeptical only the Pacific Northwest comes from Alaska. The Pipeline trouble was back in August and yet prices went down in September.

What this seems to be is many of you can't believe that oil and this govenment could be this corrupt. Please wake up over half the nation has and the Democrats are now in control.

Give up on WHAT? What exactly are you claiming I haven't "given up" on? All you've done is try to change the subject slightly when you are unable to produce any proof and can't answer my assertions.

You originally said that the oil companies were manipulating the gas prices to boost chances for the Republican Congress's re-election - and the supposed "proof" is that gas prices were up until just before the election, when they came down (never fell after Katrina you said)...except that they went down last fall, too. So much for that "proof."

Then you claimed that the oil companies manipulated the gas prices to prop up Bush's approval ratings; gas prices would be artificially lowered to try to boost Bush's approval ratings. Again, absolutely no proof, just your wild speculation and certainty as if that were fact. The fact that Bush's approval rises when gas prices fall and vice versa is disputed by no one. That doesn't begin to prove that someone is intentionally manipulating the prices to influence approval rating. It's like saying that I am manipulating the sun because I want it to warm up in the morning, and the fact that the sun rising does indeed warm the earth proves that I must have some magical control over the sun.

And now you toss out this supposedly self evident stat that gas prices are (you say) going up while Bush's approval has continued to decline, even though that contradicts what you were saying before? Sorry, that makes no sense at all and doesn't shake my belief that there is ZERO PROOF of manipulation of the gas prices to influence approval rating or election results - it's completely irrelevant.

Do you truly have a point in all of this?

Andrew

smoking gun, saveit, find a smoking gun.

Andrew-

At least you admit that there is a corelation between Bush's Rating and gas prices.

I did not change the subject, it's still the same, it's just worse now. I never thought that the Oil Industry would be so blatent in rasing their prices that having been falling before the election.

After their buddy Bush became a lame duck they could have allowed their prices to raise slightly. Instead prices in Hillsboro have risen by 14 cents a gallon in one week.

Federal reports are reporting gasoline surpluses and oil prices having been falling for a month.

Now as to OJ they had the DNA and in this case we have gasoline prices rising for absolute no market price reason other than greed before the Democrats take control of Congress.

How much more of a smoking gun do you want. Look at the pharmaceutical stock which have dropped by more than 5% since election day. Why, because the Democrats have stated that they want Medicare to have the same buying power as the Veterans ADministration has which will effect the drug companies stock value.

Oh I guess that's a to obvious smoking gun. In addition the Democratic Congress have stated that they plan on rolling back the oil company tax breaks that were placed in the 2006 energy bill.

Looks like the oil companies are firing back by raising prices now before the lame duck lands in January.

Admitting that people get pissed when they have to pay more for gas and simply blame the president (corelation) has nothing to do with your fantasy about oil executives fixing prices to help Bush. Corelation, not causation. Two completely different things. It's dangerous to confuse the two.

Your "smoking gun" is nothing more than a self-fulfilling suspicion. You hate Bush, you hate the oil companies, gas prices are going up, they must be in league together. Case solved, no evidence needed. Why not simply admit it?

I am no fan of the greedy oil companies. They may well be engaged in some sort of illegal monopoly. Who knows? But unlike you, I'm not going to engage in wild speculation without evidence. If there's a crime being committed, someone will get caught, someone will talk, they always do. Until then, I'll stick to what I can prove.

Andrew

Is it a crime for oil companies to raise their prices when they feel like it? They can charge whatever they want, and as long as the market continues to consume it, it's all good.

It's going to be hard to prove a "smoking gun" when it comes to something like this, but I don't think it's out of the question to look at the rundown in prices pre-election and the post election price hikes with a suspicious eye.

IMHO, it's pretty simple on the gas prices.

The oil companies are not well regulated. We cannot regulate them to the degree necessary to properly address the problem because the resources are not located here.

(We can and should at least collect proper royalties and taxes though.)

We are not in a position to demand much at all, given the strong growth of other nations. So they earn what they earn and we deal until we develop or evolve alternatives.

The government could educate the public on these matters however. That would put some pressure on the companies to at least moderate their feeding from the trough.

Yeah, Pete, a "suspicious eye" is one thing but actual proof is another. I don't think people should be announcing as fact things they only suspect. I'll bet the oil companies are engaged in some monopolistic practices and would love to see them investigated for real (maybe Ron Wyden will finally get a chance to push that!). But I'm not going to claim it prior to some sort of proof.

Andrew

Cheney's Energy policy meeting was attended by a list of people that only Congress can Subpoena. The GOP were not going to subpoena there kind, however the Denocrats have said they will.

Missing_kskd has it correct that all oil companies have off shore corporation entities. After 2006 most of the income will stay there.

Gordon Smith helped past a tax break in 2003 that was suppose to create 10 million jobs by allowing off shore profits to be returned to US Shores at a 5% tax rate versus the usual corporate rate of 35%.

Since 2003 only 6 million jobs have been created, and I would venture to say that not all of the 6 million created were from the above listed tax break. Therefore the tax break ended up shorting the treasury of bilions of dollars and never accomplishing the goal of creating 10 million jobs. I will love to see Gordon Smith explain this when he runs for the Senate in 2008.

The 5% tax ends this year, so all excess profits from 2007 will begin collecting funds again offshore until some future decade when they will again have GOP control of the Executive and Congressional Branches.

So when the Democrats find the smoking gun there will be no way to impound the funds as they will rest with off shore foreign corporations.

Or Congress could change international tax code to impound the funds, but I looked outside and realized that "hell hasn't frozen over."

"So when the Democrats find the smoking gun there will be no way to impound the funds as they will rest with off shore foreign corporations."

So you think we ought to make arrests before we have evidence?

They did in Iraq.

And you think the Bush administration's approach in 2003 to going to war in Iraq was a good one we should continue to follow?

Andrew

"They" is why I want a smoking gun. I don't want to hear a speech like the one Bush made 4 years later: "we weren't able to find any WMDs . . .'