How will fuel prices change your shopping?

[Chuck]

How will current feul prices change the way you spend you income?

This is a Multiple Choice Survey. You can have more than 1 answer.

[navywife]

Gas prices here haven't really changed and after living in maysville they are quite cheap lol ---I pay 2.69 -2.73 a gallon here --they have stayed at that price since I moved here 2 weeks ago ...can't complain about steady pricing .....

[TheMan]

I can complain about anything... Just give me a chance... ; )

[Chuck]

Actually it is the Balance of inflation that hurts. It takes 3 years to achieve a structure of balance when inflation happens this way.

You can track this by looking at how it happened in the early 70's. Nixon tried to freeze inflation but it backfired. At the point he froze prices and salaries fuel (But not only fuel) was at a record high. It put the average family in a position that they had to start making other family members work.

The economy stagnated for the next few Presidents after Nixon as they were afraid to make the necessary changes to adjust for it. (Slowly pour money into the economy).

Reagan poured The cash into the economy but did this by increasing the Nation Debt. x 4. With no plan in place to pay it back. A simple quick fix. The Russians did this in the 1950's and 60's.

Bush Sr. just did more of the same Reagan-omics except I feel he found away to bring the Saudis in on the constant cash flow that in turn fill the Bush family bank account.

(Now the comment that causes the debt's)
Clinton was the man that found the balance. He got us on track to finding stability and balance.

Bush Jr. or "Double ewe" as I like to call him, just doesn't get it. We can argue about it all 3 years we have left of this goober and we will get nowhere but bankrupt. Not one person including Double ewe himself can tell you where this country will be financially next year at this time. Clinton could and did.

So yes,, start complaining and let them allow the re-election of Bill Clinton, or someone like him.

[kdown]

Chuck, I totally disagree. Clinton benefited from the Reagan years.

Here are the facts.

Conservatives think it is odd that economic growth when a conservative is president is called "greed," while economic growth when a liberal is president is called "prosperity."

Nonetheless, here are facts about the 1980s:

From 1982 through 1989, the years President Reagan's economic policies were in effect, corporate contributions to charities grew an average of 10 percent per year, outstripping inflation by over 6 percent.

Throughout the 1980s, the average income of all economic segments of the American population rose: the poorest fifth by 10.4 percent, the second poorest fifth by 9.5 percent, the middle fifth by 11.7 percent, the second-wealthiest fifth by 12.2 percent and the top fifth by 13.6 percent. Poverty fell by 1.1 percent.

Reagan's tax cuts did not enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Federal income taxes fell by 9 percent for the top fifth, by about 10 percent for the middle three-fifths, and by 275 percent for the bottom fifth (amount is over 100 percent for illustrative purposes -- many poor families not only were excused from liability for all federal taxes, but received federal funds through an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit).

Between the fourth quarter of 1982 and the fourth quarter of 1988, 16.7 million new jobs were created. 32 percent of those jobs went to blacks and Hispanics, although blacks and Hispanics at the time together constituted only about 19 percent of the labor force.

Unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics in 1989 were 11.4 percent and 8 percent respectively, down from 20.4 percent and 15.3 percent at the end of 1982. Between 1982 and 1990, black unemployment dropped by 9 percentage points and Hispanic unemployment by 7.3 percentage points while white unemployment dropped by 4.9 percentage points.

Between 1982 and 1987, the number of black-owned business firms increased by 38 percent, while the number of firms in the U.S. in total rose by 14 percent. Receipts by black-owned firms rose 105 percent during 1982-87, while the average inflation rate was 4 percent per annum.


Source: David Ridenour, "Talking Points on the Economy: Historical Perspectives #1 & 2," The National Center for Public Policy Research, September 12, 1991

[Chuck]

Nice little bit of work there Ken. I have an explanation to why it looks like those figures would be correct.

1st off I'd like to say that the statement about Clinton benefited from Reagan was pretty funny.

That would be like me saying Reagen benefited Carter. Or wait, Reagan did benefit from Carter.

Reagan-nomics, as I said, flooded the USA with borrowed cash. Not cash from any GDP or repayable source. It was all the banks money that we have to pay back. Between Reagan and Bush Sr. it amounted to about 5 trillion dollars in loans.

This money was used in circulation. It was a very false recovery that has not caught up with us yet. (We have to pay it back or file bankruptcy on the loans.)

The more the Govt. goes into debt the more the people can barrow. Explains our personal debt. Greenspan had said as long as the Govt. barrow big bucks the interest rate to the people will be low. When we start paying it back the interest rate will rise to you and me.

Clinton actually reduced the waste in his 1st 4 years and had the budget balanced in his second 4 years. Bush Jr. really trashed it since then.

Look at the charts I an posting. They are from Federal Govt. information. It is real data.

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

Under Clinton people made more money and got a balanced budget. Clinton benefited from his own hard work.

In 2008 Hilliary will have her work cut out for her.

[canaco]

Nice graph, very compelling argument. Most Republicans are seeing this and pull support from President Bush.

[kdown]

Nice try Chuck, but the facts are as follows:

As far as the economy is concerned, presidents and Congress have little power to do good, but immense power to do evil. To the extent it can be said that a president and a congress are doing good for the economy, that "good" is they are not doing evil.

An example of not doing evil, which explains part of today's prosperity, is Clinton's failure to get Congress to go along with his early efforts to nationalize our health-care system -- an agenda that would have put one-seventh of our economy under government control. Another example is the Clinton administration's failure to get Congress to enact a BTU tax -- a measure that would have raised the cost of production and made us as non-competitive as Europe. In other words, it's the failure of the Clinton administration to get Congress to enact much of his big-government agenda that accounts for our prosperity.

Clinton says he's responsible for balancing the budget, which contributes to our prosperity. That's a lie, aided and abetted by the public's constitutional ignorance. The United States Constitution grants only Congress authority to tax and spend. The president can propose or veto tax and spending measures, but he cannot tax or spend one dime that Congress does not first appropriate.

[Chuck]

Nice try Chuck, but the facts are as follows:
Clinton says he's responsible for balancing the budget, which contributes to our prosperity. That's a lie, aided and abetted by the public's constitutional ignorance. The United States Constitution grants only Congress authority to tax and spend. The president can propose or veto tax and spending measures, but he cannot tax or spend one dime that Congress does not first appropriate.

So true and you prove my above point with this statement. The graph shows who spent the money.

The Pres, has power over direct cause and effect. 2.5 years ago Little George removed an import tax that made it easier for other countries to bring in their goods for us to but cheaper. He did this without congress.

This has caused what we Dem's like to call the "Outsourcing of American Jobs".

More jobs go overseas and we collect less income in the form of taxes to pay the bills. Which means that someday, someone has to come along and raise taxes to make up the loss.

Our current administration feels that this won't have to happen. They expect everyone to get 100,000 dollar a year jobs to pay the difference.

Basic facts.
1. Barrow money, pay it back.
2. If you cut your income (Tax Cuts) and barrow more money you will go broke someday.
3. If you take away people that are helping you make money you are just crazy. You need more people to be in your employee to make more money.

If the Congress and the Pres. are not responsible or are not the ones that are controlling this country,,, then who is and how do we fired them?

[kdown]

Whew !!!!!!!!!

A good Democrat never lets the facts get in the way of the truth.

I give up !!!!!!!!

[MichaelB]

Don't give up Ken. I'll help you out. The President whomever "he" is has little or nothing to do, directly, with the economy. Mr. Clinton took credit, as any good politician does, but he had nothing to do with it. The only thing the government (Congress, State, and Local) can do is increase or decrease the money suppy available to families and individuals through their tax policies. The free market economy is driven by individual businesses and their ability to deliver goods and services to the market and the market's ability to pay for these goods and services. It's simply not political!

To prove the point, I would submit that the economy which Chuck touts was on the rise about 3 full quarters before Bush 41 left office and was in decline about 5 full quarters before Clinton left office. Bill Clinton is a master politician, maybe the greatest the world has ever seen but he didn't "fix the economy" nor has any other president or politician with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.

Finally, God help us if Hillary Clinton becomes President. It's a scary thought in deed that we may become a "village"!

[kdown]

I now know why I've always liked you. I just never knew you are so smart.

[Chuck]

You typing but I am not seeing you prove you point only support mine.


The free market economy is driven by individual businesses and their ability to deliver goods and services to the market and the market's ability to pay for these goods and services. It's simply not political!


In my statement above I said that an export law was removed that made it more favorable for company's to move out of this country and ship there product to us.

The current administration did this.


To prove the point, I would submit that the economy which Chuck touts was on the rise about 3 full quarters before Bush 41 left office and was in decline about 5 full quarters before Clinton left office.

My chart shows that we were coming into balance during Clinton. The GDP and the National Debt was getting to a point of stability. My numbers come from the federal govt. not something I heard on CNN.



I now know why I've always liked you. I just never knew you are so smart.


Both you 2 are extremely smart individuals and I enjoy chatting with you both on the topic, however I will cease this debate as you are taking it personal. My objective it to not make enemies.

[MichaelB]

Thanks Ken and Chuck it's not personal at all and I don't disgree with everything you say. Further, I enjoy an inteligent debate about such subjects and respect opposing opinions as long as they are based upon facts and you do a good job presenting your feelings. My basic assumption is this: there are only so many resources on the planet e.g., a finite number and so many consumers again, a finite number. How these resources are distributed and to whom is where we seem to differ. I believe government's role in this process should be very, very limited because "wealth redistribution" is a flawed theory. I sincerely believe we can all spend our money better than the government can and economies survive, thrive, or fall based upon it's inate ability to adapt and react to the changing marketplace. The USA is the greatest economic incubator the world has ever known and if we can keep the politicians out of our way we will continue to dominate the economic world. I feel that if we could only get the federal government to concentrate on their two (2) basic tasks; interstate transportation and national defense, instead of the self perpetuating programs they sponsor, everyone would be better off.

Finally, on the CNN news comment I find it insulting that "all" of the news organizations force feed their "spin" on every issue. Give me the information, I can make my own assumptions.

[kdown]

Come on Chuck. I assure you that Mike and I aren't taking it personal. Years ago Mike and I didn't agree on hardly anything, but have remained friends over the years. We've never seen an argument we didn't like........LOL

[Chuck]

Keel, A good debate makes me happy. I just get concerned when people give up on them. There is always good truth in both sides of any argument. Finding these truths is just fun.

Realistically I am not 100% that Reaganomics where a complete bad thing. It did help the country recover from a recession. At that time. I don't believe the Democrat idea that we should have rode it out. I think that would have been a bad choice.

I do believe we have came well past those days. I am concerned the current use of spending will be our demise.

[tkcomer]

It’s hard for us to cut back since we don’t really go out that much. Kim is an excellent cook. And loves to do it. I just do the dishes. And eat. I do try to consolidate trips. One thing that is helping out right now is I have a gas tank that I filled last spring at around 2 bucks a gallon. I budget five gallons a week for the small engines that I run, but with the drought, they didn’t see much time. Plus, I bought a small diesel tractor to do a lot of the small chores around the farm, including mowing the yard. I’m now tapping that gas for my vehicles, but it is about gone. I do a lot of online shopping for the things I can’t find in this town. And I do a lot of research before I drive out to look at something. But I did that before gas shot up in price. I think the high cost of gas will eventually be a strain on the economy. People grumble about that extra 20 or 30 bucks a week, but go on. Eventually, they will cut back somewhere else. What really worries me is the cost of heating one’s home. If you have natural gas, the shock of the bill will cause a lot of people to cut back immediately. Restaurants and movies will probably get hit quick. But then, people will cut back on spending also.

[navywife]

Just to give you a little push on this topic My father in Law (who lives in OK) called yesterday and proceeded to tell us that his gas there is 2.26 a gallon....Now my question is why is it 2.26 in OK and in Maysville it is what 2.89+ (haven't been there in a month) and in WA it is 2.69-2.79 .....This pricing is not making sense how the average is 2.89......Help me out here on why the major difference

[darkangelsblade]

I know gas prices being high makes it hard for a working person who delivers the paper. But God always seems to find a way to be able to get the money we need for it so we can keep delivering. I just hope the customers really appreciate the paper carriers for being able to get the papers to them. God bless everyone and things will get better.

[mark]

Keel, A good debate makes me happy. I just get concerned when people give up on them. There is always good truth in both sides of any argument. Finding these truths is just fun.

Realistically I am not 100% that Reaganomics where a complete bad thing. It did help the country recover from a recession. At that time. I don't believe the Democrat idea that we should have rode it out. I think that would have been a bad choice.

I do believe we have came well past those days. I am concerned the current use of spending will be our demise.


..................Oh my, I love it!!! I just found this post. Chuck, you & I are in total agreement on this one!!!! ....................see ya mark

[annieap]

I was in Lexington Sunday...filled up my car at $2.29 a gallon. I dont understand why our prices are 22 cents higher.
If only one station here would venture out and lower their prices by 20 cents, all the others would follow. Thats a given.

[kdown]

A lot of the time the station owner has no choice in the price of a gallon of gasoline


Squeezed at the Pump

High Oil Prices Are Tough on Gas-Station Owners, Too


By Thaddeus Herrick
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

Think your local gas station is making a killing off today's $3-plus-per-gallon prices? Wrong.

The soaring demand and supply disruptions that have pushed oil prices above $70 a barrel and produced record profits for oil companies and refiners has been bad news for the businesses that actually sell gasoline to motorists, which are paying higher wholesale prices and absorbing some of the increase themselves. Some experts say considerably higher oil prices could push mom-and-pop gasoline retailers out of business altogether.


Tough to Predict

Big oil companies already are exiting the gas-station business, discouraged by low profits and logistical headaches. In the past year, oil giants Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil have all sold off stations. Royal Dutch/Shell has trimmed its U.S. network to 16,000 gas stations, none of which are owned and operated by the company. That's down from a total of 22,000 stations in 2001, when 800 were Shell-owned and operated. Overall, the number of company-operated stores in the U.S. declined to just over 10% of retailers in 2003 from almost 15% in 1999, according to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

"The return on investment is just not that attractive," says Dan Gilligan, president of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, which represents independent gas-station owners. What the major companies do well "is find oil and deliver it to refineries."

The economics of selling gas can be tough to untangle and predict. Over the summer, service-station profits improved when the price of oil dipped slightly. Just as retailers are slow to move their prices up when wholesale prices climb, analysts say, they are also slow to bring them down. Still, service-station profits remain thin compared with most other retail businesses.

While independent gas-station owners are under pressure, sales and profits are looking better for another category of gas retailers: big-box retailers, supermarkets and large megachains that also sell gasoline on the street. These high-volume stores, such as Wal-Mart Stores and Costco Wholesale, tend to sell gasoline for about three to seven cents a gallon less than regular gas stations. Big-box discounters and grocers such as Kroger and Randalls are expanding their market share at a rate of about 20% a year, according to one estimate.

But retailers hoping to stimulate overall sales with competitive gas prices face something of a Catch-22: While they're winning a bigger share of gas receipts, high gasoline prices are eroding sales of other goods, as motorists find themselves with less disposable income to spend on groceries or a snack. Wal-Mart, for instance, blamed its disappointing first-quarter results on higher gasoline prices, among other factors. Sheetz, meanwhile, said high gasoline prices slowed its sales growth of in-store items to 3.5%, down from company expectations of 5.5% for the six-month period ended in March.

Consumers readily acknowledge that they are indeed holding back. Sher Linlui, who put $10 of gas in her Buick Century recently at a Diamond Shamrock station in Houston, says higher gasoline prices translate to fewer purchases of sodas and chips at the station's convenience store. "I start my diet instead," she says.


Credit-Card Cuts

Gasoline retailers are also getting squeezed by the increasing tendency of Americans to use credit cards to pay for their sky-high fuel bills. The credit-card issuers charge merchants fees of as much as 3%, or six cents on a $2 gallon of gas. Those tariffs alone can cut the profit margin of sale in half for a service station.

Adding insult to injury: Gasoline retailers say drivers routinely accuse them of price gouging, especially in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. "Sure they complain," says Baltasar Cordoba, assistant manager at a Shell station in Houston that usually keeps its prices higher than the Mobil station across the street.

[kdown]

Exxon Mobil Profit, Sales Soar to Records

By STEVE QUINN



DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. rewrote the corporate record books Thursday as the oil company's third-quarter earnings soared to almost $10 billion and it became the first public company ever with quarterly sales topping $100 billion. Anglo-Dutch competitor Royal Dutch Shell PLC wasn't far behind, posting a profit of $9 billion for the quarter.

[mark]

...................this is the best proof that the oil companies are totally ripping off the American public!! .................see ya mark