Now
Mostly Cloudy and Breezy
35°
High
36°
Low
13°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters 2/11: Gas costs cause problems

Comments 57 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Monday, Feb 11, 2008 - 12:24:45 am CST

I am outraged at the recent report of Exxon reaping more than $40 billion in profits. Rising gas prices are the single factor influencing the reduction of my consumer spending.

My “fun” budget was gone in May. In September I began cutting into my food and clothing budgets to pay for gas. I make a decent living, yet I find myself drowning financially. As gas prices continue to rise, so does the cost of everything else. In my little town, the price of groceries has more than doubled.  Clothing costs have increased.

Does anyone really think the oil companies would suffer if they only made $30 billion in profits?

A year or so ago there was talk of an investigation into price gouging by the oil companies — an investigation that never materialized, and all such talk quietly faded. 

The government’s plan to stimulate the economy by throwing a few hundred bucks at everyone is ridiculous. It’s a Band-Aid on a gushing wound. I am no economist, but if gas went back to about $1.50 a gallon, I’d sure be increasing my consumer spending.

Come on, people. Make a little noise. Our government is permitting the oil companies to bankrupt us. Apparently the oil lobbyists are more important to the people we elected than we are.

Carolyn Olesen, Tecumseh

Satterfield needs to study up

As a former academic person, Leon Satterfield ought to know better than to so readily believe everything he reads in the newspapers. Intellectuals are exhorted to think critically and get beyond headlines, something Satterfield fails to do in regard to his criticism of President Bush (“Feeling sorry for the prez,” LJS, Jan. 28), in which he accomplishes little more than carrying water for a flawed study that, it turns out, was financed by the world’s leading Bush-hater George Soros, through the highly partisan groups “Center for Public Integrity” and the “Fund for Independence in Journalism.”

Satterfield reports as news articles that fail to reveal the connections of these organizations to Soros, a publicly sworn enemy of Bush. One might just as well accept a study of the Clinton administration financed by Rush Limbaugh.

But one does not have to follow the money trail of the study to understand its flawed and dishonest nature. All one really has to do is a little research. The claims that President Bush made concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq continued the perspectives of the country’s leaders that preceded his administration and represented what was believed by just about every intelligence agency in the world. Are we really to believe that Bush was the only person in the world to know the truth, enabling him to be the only liar on the issue, while previous leaders had been exhorting for years that Saddam was a great threat because of WMDs? The idea is quite absurd.

It is astonishing that these facts, which are easily accessed matters of public record, are so little known or recognized. It is discouraging to know that a professor like Satterfield cannot see beyond the extraordinary hatred of Bush that is greasing the skids of The War Card study.

Richard Terrell, Lincoln

Don’t generalize education

On Jan. 27, in the Lincoln Journal Star article “Testing proposed for home schoolers,” it was reported that Sen. DiAnna Schimek has introduced a bill (LB1141) that would require standardized testing of home-schooled children. This bill has been introduced with the concern that home-schooled children are not being properly educated.  

In my personal experience, as a child in a family of five, I have received a fine education. I graduated early at the age of 16 and went  to college at 17. I feel that I am not any less educated than someone in the public school system.

Had I been given a standardized test while being home-schooled, I might have failed. There is a lot of pressure placed on someone who isn’t used to such testing. So what happens when a home-schooled child takes this annual test and fails, not because he or she is undereducated, but because the child isn’t familiar with this sort of testing? Schimek proposes to then send the child to public school for a “proper” education. Who is to say that the child wasn’t already getting a proper education? 

Unfortunately, it seems like all that’s seen are the troubled cases where home-schooling hasn’t worked out for a child, but I have known many cases of home-schooling to work out very well. It would be speculating for me to say that all home-educated children are getting the proper education that they should receive, but it would also be an assumption for someone else to say that home-schooled children are not getting a competent education.

Elizabeth Fayman, Lincoln

Appreciate what you have

Concerning the article on establishing a trust fund to increase teachers’ pay (LJS, Feb. 1), I say let them earn it through accountability and professionalism. Pooh on comparisons with surrounding states; this is the “good life” state, so take what you have.

By the way, Jan. 31 was a school day, so what were the 150 educators’ students doing while the educators were in Lincoln lobbying for more pay?

Harry Hesnault, Lincoln

All life needs to be valued

I read the Jan. 28 article on proposed Medicaid cuts with great interest. As I read, I could not help but be reminded of the warnings of the Old Testament prophets regarding the manner in which society treats its poorest and most vulnerable members.

For example, Jeremiah writes of God, “For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me. Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of my poor people not been restored?” (Jeremiah 8:21-22). In Ezekiel 16:49, the prophet warns, “This is the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” And one of the most famous of the prophets, Amos, quite bluntly states: “Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Amos 5:11).

It is truly astounding that even though a majority of Nebraskans profess Judeo-Christian values, we seem to be acting no differently today than did our early ancestors in the faith. Why, when the public coffers dwindle, do we look to reduce programs that benefit the poor and most vulnerable first? 

Our Judeo-Christian roots urge us to seek “Shalom,” which can best be described as striving for a world that operates as God intended. We cannot treat the poor as proposed and claim to be striving for “Shalom” at the same time.

Chuck Bentjen, Beatrice, director, Justice and Advocacy Ministries, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America-Nebraska

News lacks objectivity

Throughout the year I have not seen any mention of Ron Paul’s name. When I opened the paper to the News Extra on Jan. 31, I was appalled when it implied that Nebraska voters were only to pick from four candidates.

Not only are you ignoring Paul, but you are ignoring the people behind his message and denying the rest of Lincoln an educated decision. We the people have the right to an objective local newspaper. 

Kathryn Lewandowski, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Thank You Carol wrote on February 11, 2008 1:33 am:
" and see it didn't take an oil lobbyist to figure out this economic growth potential. She is so true. When oil prices rise, so does everything else which does not stimulate economy but dilute it. I feel like I work only to fill my gas tank so I can go back to work. Two years ago I could put back for car taxes, go to a movie once in a while, maybe have more than hamburger. Not today. The higher gas prices increase everything we do, it controls us. "

 Kathryn.... wrote on February 11, 2008 3:02 am:
" It's probably because Dr. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in you know where of winning. Face it already...he's low on money and he's not doing well at all in the primaries and caucuses. His best bet is to go 3rd party, but he has even said himself that he will not do so, that he will remain on the Republican ticket. Heck, Mickey Mouse will probably get more votes in the General Election than Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. I once supported the man, but he's just too loony, and his ideas aren't very sound when you really study up on them, plus there is no way he could accomplish his tasks as both parties would block his agenda. "

 Western Nebraskan wrote on February 11, 2008 6:13 am:
" Elizabeth Fayman's reasoning while complaining about potential testing of home schooled students has two major flaws.

First, she must realize that tests are stressful for everyone. To say that home schoolers would be stressed because they're "not familiar with this sort of testing", and therefore shouldn't be tested doesn't make sense. These young people are going to spend a lifetime taking tests that they're not familiar with the form--driver's lisense, job applications, college entrance tests, etc. Being able to adapt to a test form must be part of their education.

Her second missed point points out the very reason for the test. Senator Schimek's intent is not an assumption that all home schooled students are not getting a good education, it is to find and identify those that are not, and give them help before it's too late. The senator would be the first to give a loud round of applause for those that are receiving a great education, and would say RIGHT ON,AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! "

 Comman Sense wrote on February 11, 2008 6:32 am:
" Gasoline prices, and familiy budgets, no, the true issue is America's spending habits. While stationed in Germany in the 80's I paid @$3.00 per gallon for gasoline (had to be bought by the liter). Difference was and still is every German does not own a car, and have to allways drive 1 person 1 block to the convienience store. And Germany, as well as Europe, has an excellant public transportation system. American spending habits are excessive, we create our own financial monsters, then try to blame others for our shortfall, but the individual makes the decesions. Why doesn't America have a good Inter-City rails system anymore, railroads were up to WW2 the primary long distance mover, efficient and inexpensive, good inner city bus or street car systems, all disappeared due to the change in American spending habits after WW2 and now we get to pay for our folly, but we must blame someone else, thats how America works.
And if you owned a company, where would you find the cut off point to where your profits were excessive, $.01 or $40billion, depends on whose pocket the profits go into. And when is Nebraska going to build a good ICE train from Omaha to Lincoln, great train station a few blocks from memorial stadium, would ease game day traffic and more money for overpriced stadium food. It is a matter of personal choice, not profit margins. "

 Doug wrote on February 11, 2008 7:05 am:
" Sorry Kathryn, but Ron Paul hasn't had a very newsworthy campaign other than some of the distasteful tactics by his campaigners and Paul has been running at the rear of Republicans almost from the get-go. The only "RIGHT" you have in regard to the newspaper is the right to decide patronize it or not. You do not have the right to demand they cover YOUR candidate? The newspaper is going to cover what’s newsworthy, since Ron Paul is being left behind in the polls and primaries, this isn't exactly making his campaign newsworthy. "

 Um... wrote on February 11, 2008 7:24 am:
" That's great, Elizabeth, that you "feel" just as educated as public school stuents. But if you actually had taken a standardized test, you could definitively say so - since you wouldn't be relying on grades your own mother gave you. Also, parents aren't being blindsided by this test, they'd know about it ahead of time and could familiarize the student with the format, etc. to assuage fears. Not teaching to the test, just making sure students themselves were aware, so the idea that those students on grade level would fail doesn't make much sense. "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on February 11, 2008 7:53 am:
" Mr. Terrell says that the study (reported by Leon Satterfield) showing lies and deceptions by the Bush administration was "flawed". He doesn't tell us what the flaws were, but instead uses an ad hominem argument against the people who made the study . . The Bush people kept repeating the wrong information about "weapons of mass destruction" well after they should have known that their information was wrong. "

 oil oil oil wrote on February 11, 2008 8:20 am:
" If Congress was really serious about fixing our energy problem, they would let us build more refineries and drill OUR own oil! We have tons of oil just waiting to be tapped. Using that oil would get us off the middle east stuff and allow us time to advance our technology and eventually switch to efficient forms of renewable energy.

The oil companies are not to blame for the way prices are. The government is dragging its feet and holding this country back. Business creates solutions...government creates problems. "

 Blocked wrote on February 11, 2008 8:39 am:
" If a candidates ideas are going to be blocked, then none are any better than another. Paul's ideas are actually the best - we have a constitution, lets uphold it. We don't have to go to war, etc. Get an IRS reality check April 15. Please don't be so negavtive, try to think outside the box and help enable change. "

 Josh wrote on February 11, 2008 9:11 am:
" Sure, bush wasn't the only liar regarding the failed invation of Iraq. But, as Bush so eloquently stated, "I am the decider." When you are the decider, you must take the blame. If he hadn't surrounded himself with hawks and actually listened to dissenting views, we might not be in this quagmire. The decider decided and we are paying the price. "

 Supply & Demand wrote on February 11, 2008 9:17 am:
" While I agree with Carolyn on the impact high fuel prices have on my weekly budget, I disagree that there needs to be an inquiry into Big Oil's profiteering. The current price you pay at the pump is simply the result of supply and demand. This situation has been percolating for years. No new refinery capacity, government regulations and EPA fuel additives, HUGE GAS GUZZLERS from Detroit. Simply put, if you want lower fuel prices, USE LESS FUEL. Walk or ride a bike for that loaf of bread. Drive a fuel efficient vehicle. Turn off the lights that aren't necessary. You are in control of your own destiny regarding fuel costs. Don't blame others. "

 Danny wrote on February 11, 2008 9:41 am:
" Carol, you don't think we've created our own mess? If you were selling a commodity (or anything) which was in great demand, and you knew you would run out of sooner than later, you wouldn't try and get all you could for it? If you want the price to go down, don't buy it! Create less demand! Find an alternative. Gas isn't a basic necessity (like food, water, shelter.) Of course I ride a bicycle 98% of the time so not only am I smarter than most everyone else, I also don't complain about fuel prices. "

 JP wrote on February 11, 2008 9:44 am:
" OK folks, the price of oil is set by the futures market, not the oil companies. If I had a company dependent on commodities, I'd be very happy to see the price of my product rise by 100%. It's called business. They are doing records sales, which should equate to record profits. Let's say they are running 15% profit. I'm pretty sure ANY business is not going to lower their profit margin, it's just not good business. We as Americans need to ween ourselves off of oil dependency to improve the situation. Easiest way, drive vehicles with better gas mileage. Problem: the US auto industry is still stuck in the 80s and 90s of gas guzzlers so we have to buy foreign cars. "

 Colleen wrote on February 11, 2008 10:21 am:
" One thing not being considered about oil/gas prices...if you really need to spend a huge portion of your income on gas--you must (a) drive an inefficient car/truck or (b) drive a lot, or (c) both. I haven't appreciated high gas prices either, but I live close to where I work, I limit my driving behavior, and I drive an efficient vehicle. While I think prices are suspiciously high, most people have a lot of choices in terms of how much they spend for gas. The fact of that matter is that we as citizens are the problem. Cutting back on gas expenses is as simple as having a more fuel efficient car that you drive less. The smaller more efficient cars are also less expensive than the guzzlers.The government, if it really was looking out for us financially (and our national security interests) would be insisting that we cut back on our oil consumption to make us less dependent on other countries. As far as our oil reserves--they are not the solution, conservation is--sacrifice is. The reserves are a short term solution that does not address our addiction to oil and driving. There was a time when people knew that sacrifice was the way to make a better country--now people feel entitled to drive enormous vehicles and not have to pay for it. In reality, you have to pay for it, and we all have to pay for it by being vulnerable to price increases instead of using less and needing less. "

 Reply to JP wrote on February 11, 2008 10:30 am:
" OPEC has a large say in oil prices. They pump oil at a rate that keeps oil prices where they want them. What is OPEC, it is an organization of countries that either have state owned oil companies or they are "in bed" with big oil. So yes, in a way oil prices are set by the companies by limiting supply and increasing demand. "

 Jody P. wrote on February 11, 2008 10:41 am:
" Mr. Terrell letter does an admirable job of presenting right-wing talking points. Unfortunately it's all form and no substance. It is true that most people assumed that Iraq had some kind of WMD. However most intelligent people also knew that this was all based on evidence that was years out of date, and that there was no new hard evidence about Iraq as of 2003. An unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003 demanded HARD evidence that Iraq did in fact have WMD in 2003. And that is where the Bush administration lies began. They knowingly and deliberately presented questionable evidence as if it were fact, and they intentionally did not tell us about the strong doubts about their supposedly solid "evidence". Such as they were relying heavily on a drunken Iraqi source code-named Curveball, who the Germans had warned us was unreliable at best. Most world leaders had the judgement to realize that there was no hard new evidence of Iraqi WMD in 2003, and that the U.N. inspectors should be allowed to make any such determination. However even though Hans Blix was not finding any WMD at the places we told him to look in early 2003, Cheney ridiculed Blix's efforts, and Bush kicked the inspectors out to go ahead with his invasion. And all of the spectacular evidence they had provided turned out to be hogwash. The Niger uranium, the mobile labs, the Iraqi connection to Mohammad Atta in Prague, blah blah blah it was all hyped-up baloney. And now Bush and his eternally-deluded supporters want to push the blame off onto everyone else BUT Bush. They lack even the basic courage to accept responsibility for their actions. "

 Sorry Elizabeth wrote on February 11, 2008 11:01 am:
" but you should be able to take the test even if home schooled. Not being familiar with it is a lousy cop out. Standardized tests are not hard to read - they have questions like any other test and even though you are home schooled, you should still be able to answer them. "

 come on wrote on February 11, 2008 11:07 am:
" I am amazed at the typical Republican rhetoric of the bloggers here. If they can make billions, then it is the fault of the consumer. Then there is comparing the US to Germany. Well let's figure out some real common sense here. First of all, making 40 Billion in a quarter on oil prices is gouging. Believe it or not, oil is a necessity. Imagine our country in a real shortage, not this manufactured one. Think if all shipping and transportation stopped for a week. What shape would the country be in? Secondly, comparing the US to Germany is foolish. We have states larger than Germany. They will never match the consumption of the US. Therefore, if we are the largest customer, why wouldn't the US get a better deal by sheer volume?
This entire oil scam is nothing more than Bush and his oil kings making huge profits. If the president really cared, he would back up every tanker to the ports in Iraq and have them start paying for their democracy. We will buy it for $5 a bbl and sell it for less than a dollar to the general public. The oil companies would still be making a profit and our debt would lower. That would force OPEC to drp their prices to compete, and would put Chavez in his place. He can drink all that oil he has as far as I am concerned. Finally, imagine if water was in a shortage. Would we have to pay $3 a gallon for water? "

 WMD study wrote on February 11, 2008 11:39 am:
" Richard, you mean if previous administrations believed Iraq had WMD then its ok to start a war? The interesting thing about your argument about the study showing piles of lies by George and his bunch is that the study did not cite anything that is not available to the public. Now its your time to look at the obvious and wake up to reality. But you are right about one thing, criticizing Bush at this juncture is a bit like beating a dead horse. "

 Josh again wrote on February 11, 2008 11:44 am:
" $40 billion in profits should exclude that company from the big tax breaks Bush gave them.... "

 Jeff wrote on February 11, 2008 11:57 am:
" Dear Richard,
While most intelligence officials suspected that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, there were a lot members of the intelligence community who were questioning the evidence and the sources. So if you want to quibble over whether Bush lied, or whether they just cherry-picked the evidence that supported their view and suppressed those who dissented, I don't see the difference really. This pattern continued throughout the war - that is -suppressing views that didn't mesh with their already made up minds. (e.g. we will be viewed as liberators, we need to fire all the professional people from the Baath party, or letting the Iraq army go unemployed and turning into sectarian militias). You really can't defend Bush/Rumsfeld, so why try? Now - it is what it is, and after a tremendous sacrifice from our country and the people of Iraq - we still await the outcome for that country. And it is has been from day one, Iraqi's will have to self-determine where they go from here. "

 David wrote on February 11, 2008 12:05 pm:
" Carolyn, these oil companies are making $40 billion profits because people are buying the oil. It's simple economics, you want the product and you continually pay at higher and higher prices. Constant complaining does nothing, if you really want to send a message to the oil companies you should either buy less oil or stop buying oil. The government is not "permitting the oil companies to bankrupt us," the government is allowing oil companies to do business and you are bankrupting yourself by buying too much of their product. Oil isn't a necessity, it's a luxury.
On the flip side, I can imagine the people who bought Exxon Mobil stock 10 years ago are laughing their way to the bank. Oil prices are going nowhere but up, why not buy stock to capitalize on that? "

 stignob wrote on February 11, 2008 12:07 pm:
" We the people drive the price of gas, less consumption, cheaper prices. There are other modes of transportation that can be used besides our silly little cars. "

 SB wrote on February 11, 2008 12:29 pm:
" Come on; what would increasing the supply do? Lower gas a quarter? Who’s going to subsidize this 20% oil sale? Taxes? Your kids? You? You’ve hit the problem on the head, America is controlled by other countries (china and japan own our retail and debt, india owns our service providers, and the middle east owns our energy). If we ever want to become dependent and financially stable again we need to learn how to be independent from those we are dependent on (our oil reserves are best kept for a crisis situation, not for you to save a couple bucks a week driving to McDonalds). If a child is addicted to lollipops, giving them a lollipop will make them want two lollipops the next time and then that child will BLAME SOMEONE ELSE when they grow up and are obese. The analogy is quite fitting seeing how it is dealing with a child who doesn’t realize it is addicted. Oil is a foreign commodity and you can’t bully your way out of more lollipops on this one. also, water is in a shortage – farmers are limited on its use, lawsuits are being filed for water rights, and a 20 oz aguafina costs much more than 3$ a gallon. "

 Rob wrote on February 11, 2008 12:34 pm:
" Yes, conserving driving habits is a personal responsibility to save money from spending it on expensive gas, but all you "DON'T DRIVE UNLESS YOU HAVE TO" groups need to realize it goes beyond that. For instance, my garbage collection company has raised the price of garbage collection because of gas prices. Thus, me paying more for gas even though I'm "NOT DRIVING UNLESS I HAVE TO". Food and product prices are also a bit higher because of the high gas prices. So its not as easy as staying home or riding the bus. "

 WTH??? wrote on February 11, 2008 1:53 pm:
" No, do NOT even start with the comments about people that are struggling financially. For many of us, it's a matter of prices going up dramatically (in a short time) and our living wages remaining close to the same.
I agree. Gas prices are ridiculous. The rise in prices in just one year is frightening to many of us. I feel you, Carolyn. "

 Stephen wrote on February 11, 2008 2:10 pm:
" Carolyn, How much would you allow the oil companies to make? Who decides? Maybe we should all use a little less and allow more drilling and more refineries built. Communism was proven not to work. "

 bill wrote on February 11, 2008 2:38 pm:
"
The oil companies and their profits are a lot like healthcare. Competition doesn't really work like you think it would in a free market capitalistic system. In healthcare you have insurance companies and drug companies making huge profit margins, while non-profit community hospitals and consumers struggle under the cost of the system. And rising healthcare costs threaten the health of our economic system because we can't compete in the global economy and we watch jobs move overseas where pay is lower and healthcare is cheaper. Government really has to step into situations like these. For example - drug companies sell their drugs to countries like Canada at cheap prices, and then shift the cost to U.S. patients. Are we tired of subsidizing medication costs to other countries? We can either do something about it our just keep forking the money over, while we slip into a recession and watch inflation keep increasing. "

 Rich wrote on February 11, 2008 2:51 pm:
" Mr. Terrill needs to get to the point -- as he sees it Bush wasn't wrong because he was ignorant just like everyone else. This is a sad commentary on the Bush administration. And he thinks he is the leader of the free world. "

 Theresa wrote on February 11, 2008 3:29 pm:
" Good letters today!

Carolyn, although I certainly agree with you, I think it's only fair to note that a vast majority of the profits go back into exploration through seismic methods, along with EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) of established wells. In general, the sooner we get away from "hard" energy sources, the better off we will be.

Harry, teachers don't get paid nearly enough what they are worth. Your "take what you have" mentality is old and certainly reminiscent of a feudal lord bellowing to his poor, labored serfs to "buck up". Moreover, it begs the question: are YOU happy with what you have? Do you take your own advice?

Chuck, great letter.

"

 SB wrote on February 11, 2008 4:23 pm:
" Rob, having your garbage picked up weekly is another luxury – try composting, recycling, re-using and cutting back on buying items with a lot of packaging/trash, you won’t have to pay someone to pick up your trash and there’s your 20-30$ per month savings that can go toward what other ‘ridiculous gas caused’ problem you may conjure up. "

 SE Lincoln wrote on February 11, 2008 4:41 pm:
" Great letter Carolyn. If our government was as responsive to its people as it is quick to pander to corporations and lobbyists, every citizen would benefit. VOTE! "

 ECON 101 wrote on February 11, 2008 5:04 pm:
" High fuel prices effect EVERYTHING we tak for granted. Tansportation costs to move goods from the manufacturer (or more likely from the ports) have been increasing for that last 18 months. Hasn't anyone noticed prices at the grocery store (packaging keeps getting smaller, price about the same) or at any retailer for that matter.
This problem is NOT GOING AWAY people. Deal with it by changing your lifestyles. Ditch the Expedition. Walk a little. Take the bus. Plan your outings, kill 5 birds with one stone. Those who take heed will be fine, those who don't, welome to the welfare line. "

 Des wrote on February 11, 2008 5:29 pm:
" Carolyn, ever thought of buying some Exxon stock so that you can get some of those dividends from the record profits? Corporations are owned by their stockholders, and more people are stockholders now than anytime in the past. So kindly stop your whining and either reduce your costs or find ways to offset those costs. "

 Response to Harry wrote on February 11, 2008 6:15 pm:
" Explain to me why it makes sense that educators make less starting off then high school drop-outs. This is true. I am a second year teacher, who works very hard mind you, and I make less then my brother-in-law who dropped out of school. Does it seem fair to you that I work more hours a week then most people, but never get any overtime? I am expected to teach for eight hours, and then I have to plan and grade papers. I also have to enter grades in the computer and meet with parents about their child. My day never ends at 4 o'clock but that it what I get paid for. Teacher salaries in this state are horrible. Thank goodness I love my job and my students, because the pay does not make it worth the effort alone. "

 whatever wrote on February 11, 2008 6:26 pm:
" The idea that oil isn't a necessity is how can I say this politely,umm, novel. Certainly at the most basic level of human existence it is not a necessity, but right now in the 21st century oil is essential for the survival of any semblance of civilization. It's interesting how most economists and "financial experts" are coming around to the idea that high energy prices are affecting the growth or lack thereof of the economy. Most of us "dolts" in the hinterlands figured that out several years ago. And by the way the oil business has many more players than the "oil companies". Any other view is naive` and just plain silly. "

 Amen to that wrote on February 11, 2008 6:31 pm:
" Amen, oil oil oil. Liberal Democrats won't allow drilling on a practically abandonned wildlife refuge in Alaska where we likely have as much oil as the Middle East. If we drill our own, some problems would be solved...not those related to out-of-control spending, though. "

 Gene Hogan wrote on February 11, 2008 7:06 pm:
" I agree with the person that goes by "oil oil oil" in that we really have to look at the folks that ran Congress from 1994 through 2006. If it were REALLY the fault of the House and Senate, why elect any more Republicans? As Mr. or Ms. Oil Oil Oil put it, they just create problems. "

 Actually wrote on February 11, 2008 7:21 pm:
" Exxon stock hasn't been THAT spectacular over the last 10 years. You would have been better off buying other companies and you would have made more money. Just because they had a record quarter doesn't necessarily mean they've made a killing over the long haul.

And as a driver of an itty-bitty Escort I blame the rise of the oil prices on those people who feel the "need" to have a large vehicle. You have no one to blame but yourself. "

 DJ wrote on February 11, 2008 8:30 pm:
" A lot of folks apparently seem to think that if we "nationalize the old industry" all will be okay. These oil companies spend a tremendous amount of money to keep the oil flowing to your automobile. Currently my Son is off the coast of Nigeria working on an underwater pipeline. On the end of their barge is a 50-caliber machine gun manned 24/7 to keep terrorists from blowing them up or kidnapping them. This "oil" that's too high doesn't just appear out of thin air and no amount of "political posturing" is going to get it in your tank any cheaper. "

 Matt Poulsen wrote on February 11, 2008 8:59 pm:
" Yes, Elizabeth, it would be speculation by both parties that home schooling is either succeeding or failing. That's why there should be some sort of standardized testing!! So, there is some feedback concerning the individual student. No one is arguing that home schooled kids do well as a whole. The point is there is no safety net for the children who are being left behind because their parents are either completely incapable of teaching them or simply do not provide the proper curriculum. "

 Marc wrote on February 11, 2008 10:03 pm:
" to all you people saying we need to drive less to lower the price of gas...do some research! you will find that in 1977 the U.S. consumed about 156 billion gallons of fuel.There were also 378 refineries back then. In 2006 the U.S. used about 142 billion gallons of fuel and there where 142 refineries!!So the reason no new refineries were built was because they weren't needed.What is driving the price of oil today is the Board Of Trade, not supply and demand.The only way to get the price of gas lower is to get it off the CBOT.And I have no idea how to do this!!!! "

 Mike D. wrote on February 11, 2008 10:03 pm:
" Ride a bike. That would solve on of Lincoln's other major problems--obesity. "

 Don wrote on February 11, 2008 10:33 pm:
" Why would Bush knowingly and intentionally lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If it was for oil, which it wasn't, why aren't we in the oil fields right now getting all the oil we need so the prices we pay at the pump can be lower? Why would he knowingly and intentionally send our young men into war just to go to
war? He stated repeatedly that he did not want to go to war. Most of our soldiers seem to realize what the purpose of war in Iraq was all about. Weapons of mass destruction were one of the reasons that he stated for going to war. But the main reason was to fight terrorism around the world. That he made abundantly clear.

If all you liberals out there seem to know that he intentionally lied, then you were all fools to believe those lies and you were fools to let him go to war. Why don't you condemn Bill Clinton also for lieing about the war? He also stated there were weapons of mass destruction and we needed to go to war. We all know what a big liar he is. "

 Starbucks wrote on February 11, 2008 10:44 pm:
" Yes, the evil oil companies, overpriced. And how dare McDonalds sell a better and cheaper product than ours and make more profit on volumn of sales. At the average $.09 company profit per gallon (and the average $.57 per gallon state/federal taxes) based on the volumn sold in the US, yes record profits, and record tax income. Lower the taxes first to lower prices. I am more worried on feeding the beast in DC with fuel taxes over the lower corperation profit rate. So lets see here doin the math: You buy 20 gal a week, $1.80 profit X 52 weeks=$93.60 single vehicle X210,000,000 total us vehicles= $1,965,600,000.00 in profit.
So $2,000,000,000 is not hard number to get to, not that excessive based on number of vehicles and $.09 per gallon profit. Not counting jet fuel, lubricants, diesel, kero, etc, or those who buy more than 20gal per week. "

 Einstein wrote on February 12, 2008 12:08 am:
" Thanks "Supply and Demand", now I'll save so much money by driving without my lights on. Ya know, if I wasn't home schooled I wonder if I would have learned this gas mileage trick on my own out in the real world? "

 JJ wrote on February 12, 2008 7:05 am:
" Elizabeth, did you survive college? If you did I'm not sure how with all the testing that is done in college. So coming from a home schooled person persons educated in public school are much more prepared for college because of being use to testing. That is just one more reason 'for' testing home schooled kids. "

 Tammy wrote on February 12, 2008 8:56 am:
" Don...your argument would be valid IF Iraq was a hot bed of terrorists before we went in there. It was not. However, it most certainly is now. Certainly there were/are much better targets then Iraq was if the intention was to "fight terrorism around the world". "

 Stephen wrote on February 12, 2008 9:08 am:
" This capitalism experiment just isn't working. Let the government take over oil, medicine, and banking. Bureacracies are so much more efficient than private enterprise. Put Obama in charge and we won't have a thing to worry about. "

 Jody P. wrote on February 12, 2008 9:54 am:
" Responding to Don asking why the Bushies would lie to invade Iraq, i.e. what would the motive be, do a google or check wikipedia on the Project for a New American Century. It is a "think tank" which espoused American dominance of the world, and in particular the invasion of Iraq, since the late 1990s. These people are known by the label "neo-conservatives", and the new Bush administration was almost filled with these people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc etc. They had been pleading for an invasion of Iraq since the Clinton years, and once in power under Bush, 9/11 gave them the chance they had been drooling over. The fires were still burning on Sept. 11 when they were already looking for excuses to invade Iraq. And one final thought, Don. Even though those neocons sent a letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq, he didn't do it. And Clinton didn't lie to us about the Niger uranium, or the mobile weapons labs, and so on. It was Bush who told us those lies, and it was Bush who invaded. Not Clinton. "

 Rob wrote on February 12, 2008 1:55 pm:
" SB, I'm glad you like to make assumptions, but I'll clear my comments up a bit better for you. One, I do recycle. Second, I don't consider not having garbage piling up in my yard a luxury. I guess my toilet is another luxury. And heating my house is a luxury. Regardless, I was using that as a real world example. Pretty soon taxes will rise to pay for the gas to dispose of that recycling. And you will be affected. Better luck next time.
"

 HPG wrote on February 12, 2008 2:13 pm:
" That's right Carolyn, we need more government intervention.
What is wrong with making a profit? Remember, that we have a capitalist economy in these United States. It is the entrepreneurial spirit that continues to make America strong. People with great ideas, put them in motion, create jobs and boost the economy.
Here is an idea for you Carolyn, why don't you invent a car that runs on air or water or some other readily available item and market it. I bet you would become a Zillionaire and at the same time you could single-handedly destroy the petroleum companies you so despise. Or, you could just quit whining.
Oh, and to "thank you Carol", if the government didn't have so many entitlement programs which cause my taxes to rise, I could have more money to give to charity so that the government would not need all the entitlement programs... "

 MarkyMark wrote on February 12, 2008 5:12 pm:
" You must be a newbie to the Journal Star if you didn't know that Dr. Satterfield injects a subtle, satirical humor into his columns. Take a deep breath. "

 Dave wrote on February 12, 2008 6:16 pm:
" Why don't you lobby our liberal congress to let us drill on our own land (Alaska, western slope of Colorado, etc)!! We don't need high priced foregn oil! Additionally, did you care to look and see how much Taxes Exxon paid? THIS COMPANY PAID AS MUCH TAXES AS 50% OF OUR POPULATION COMBINED!! Stop blaming big oil and blame big government. Government is the problem here, not the solution. "

 Big Chief wrote on February 12, 2008 9:11 pm:
" Exxon makes $40 Billion. . . General Motors loses $38 Billion. I guess it all equals out doesn't it? "

 SB wrote on February 13, 2008 8:34 am:
" Merely trying to make a point about people wanted to complain about energy costs while living with all the luxuries they’re somehow entitled to because we live in the ‘home of the free’. I do consider trash (recycle, re-use, and compost and you will have no trash therefore you wouldn’t have trash piling up in your yard), heating (drop the thermostat to 62 and put on a sweatshirt – you do live in the Midwest in winter), plumbing (do people really need the 3 bathrooms?), driving (try biking, busing, carpooling), water (quit watering your lawn everyday), electricity (still the cheapest in the US), taxes (look at all the adults w/o kids who pay to put other’s kids through school through property taxes). My simple point is we have been getting cheap and destructive energy for so long that it is starting to catch up with us (war, energy crisis, water crisis, environmental pollution) and too many people want to just complain about 3$ gas. And I really can’t stand it when someone that smokes, drinks, gambles, spend thousands at Christmas complains about gas prices (how sad for our soldiers dying in the Middle East). It’s the same people that complain about jobs moving overseas as they stroll through Walmart with the value pack of juice boxes. I only ask the question; why is America entitled to cheap everything at the expense of everyone else? And stop complaining until you do everything in your power to reduce energy consumption. "

 andy wrote on February 13, 2008 6:52 pm:
" If the Big Oil companies are greedy and evil as you claimed, Carol, then WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO GASOLINE PRICES EVER GO DOWN???????????????????????? You need to stop voting, please just stop. gas prices are subject to an array of economic pressures from supply/demand, gov. regulations, war, weather, accidents, politics, etc. "

Ads by Yahoo!