Post by: wmenorr67 on July 14, 2008, 05:20:38 AM
Quote
WASHINGTON - The White House says President Bush is planning to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.
In a Rose Garden statement on Monday, the president plans to lift the ban. But by itself, the move will not lead to more drilling off Americas coastline.
Congress must still lift its own legislative ban before offshore drilling can happen.
White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so.
In a Rose Garden statement on Monday, the president plans to lift the ban. But by itself, the move will not lead to more drilling off Americas coastline.
Congress must still lift its own legislative ban before offshore drilling can happen.
White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25674571/
Now let us see how much Congress really wants to help. Could prove interesting.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 14, 2008, 05:23:23 AM
Post by: HankB on July 14, 2008, 05:24:36 AM
Quote
WASHINGTON - The White House says President Bush is planning to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.
So what's taking so long? Should've been done a long time ago. (And how can a President simply ban something with the stroke of a pen?)
Post by: RocketMan on July 14, 2008, 05:34:31 AM
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 05:36:34 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 14, 2008, 08:16:25 AM
Post by: doc2rn on July 14, 2008, 09:00:58 AM
Post by: m1911owner on July 14, 2008, 09:07:36 AM
Then I learned that he thought they were talking about "sex on a boat"...
Post by: Manedwolf on July 14, 2008, 09:07:59 AM
When will Americans have had enough of these idiots and tell them to SHUT UP, take their solar panels and put them where the sun don't shine, and get the HELL out of the way, that the gas prices are painful for anyone who isn't a Liberal Elite?
"But, waaaaah, there won't be oil for ten years..." "You said that TEN YEARS AGO! See where we are now!"
People just aren't going to be able to afford $5/gal heating oil this winter. People are going to DIE because of that. Frozen to death. But that's okay with the dems, as long as Pristine Coastlines are maintained...
Post by: MechAg94 on July 14, 2008, 10:09:55 AM
Post by: HankB on July 14, 2008, 10:36:15 AM
Wasn't it 1995 that Bill Clinton vetoed a bill to allow drilling in ANWR? Now it's 2008 . . . 2008 minus 1995 is . . . ?
How much of the "10 year" delay would be due to government bureaucrats sticking their noses in the way?
Post by: lupinus on July 14, 2008, 01:52:41 PM
Post by: RevDisk on July 14, 2008, 03:25:22 PM
Still can't believe morons have taken this long to get to it. Do they realize how it can help the economy to get it started now? Metal and pipe shops will be weeping at the amount of orders they'd get. Engineering shops will be humming like no tomorrow designing rigs. Aviation service outfits will turn around the insane amount of hours they could log. Very decent paying jobs for thousands of Americans.
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 03:31:48 PM
Do the People run this country or do the Poobahs? Clearly, the Democrat Politburo thinks they run the show.
Post by: stevelyn on July 14, 2008, 04:28:14 PM
The ban should have never been put in place to begin with and the SOB is lifting it knowing that Congress isn't going to do their part and pass legislation repealing their ban.
It's a desperate PR attempt to rescue a presidential legacy that is quickly becoming worse than Carter's.
If he want to impress someone he can, lift the '89 import ban his dumbass dad issued and reign in the Waffen BATFEces.
Post by: seeker_two on July 14, 2008, 04:44:34 PM
Wanna bet the Bush family weathers the next four years better than most other families?....
Post by: Ezekiel on July 14, 2008, 06:34:32 PM
People are going to DIE because of that. Frozen to death.
That's just alarmist rhetoric.
Here, in KC? Leave the thermostat on 62 and pay the minimal (mine is ~$50) gas bill.
If you cannot afford $50 -- versus death -- you have much bigger issues, like EATING: and it is NOT the government's fault.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 14, 2008, 07:50:45 PM
People are going to DIE because of that. Frozen to death.
That's just alarmist rhetoric.
Here, in KC? Leave the thermostat on 62 and pay the minimal (mine is ~$50) gas bill.
If you cannot afford $50 -- versus death -- you have much bigger issues, like EATING: and it is NOT the government's fault.
Yeah, that's nice. In New England, we're talking $3K+ for the winter to not freeze in an house with an oilfired furnace. Most people need about three refills on a 275 gallon tank. That's $4125. Not counting delivery charges, either. If it's especially cold with lots of windchill extreme days, it's even worse.
Last year, many people were sealing off rooms to keep from having to heat the whole house. There were also many fires caused by cheap space heaters that someone dropped something flammable near or on. Lots and lots of fires. I expect this year will be much worse.
Try looking at the realities for people beyond your front yard before you call something "alarmist", maybe? Not everyone lives in the warmer climates, and lots of people have leaky houses over a century old here.
Post by: Ezekiel on July 15, 2008, 03:34:47 AM
Not everyone lives in the warmer climates, and lots of people have leaky houses over a century old here.
Move? Spend $$$ on a system that isn't antiquated? Get a J-O-B?
The reality is that these individuals had over a century -- built that long ago? -- to upgrade their homes...
I find such rhetoric to be alarmist: It's like having sympathy for the folks who bought SUV's but can afford neither them or the gas prices.
If it is that bad, keep the house in the 40's and wear a sweater while living on ramen. It's a choice, theirs, and we are supposed to wring our hands?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 03:44:20 AM
Our furnace went out one winter and we were without any heat other than space heaters and a fireplace downstairs. Temps were around freezing or slightly below and the house never got below 50 at night (we didn't stoke the fire at night, just let it burn out after 9pm).
Chris
Post by: longeyes on July 15, 2008, 03:53:07 AM
Without modern heating and cooling technology half this country is only marginally inhabitable, at least at the kind of comfort and work efficiency level American has grown accustomed to.
I live in temperate, Mediterranean-climate Los Angeles but I spent a year teaching in Sicily, similar climate, and living in an apartment without central heating, A/C, or hot running water. Electricity was too expensive to run a small electric heater, and it was too cold in my room to comfortably sit and, say, read without being bundled up with sweaters and wearing gloves. I sought out restaurants, bars, and hotels to do my prep work. Is this the world you want to go back to?
Post by: Ezekiel on July 15, 2008, 04:05:52 AM
Is this the world you want to go back to?
It's a world we could survive in, which makes all the "People will die!" stuff alarmist, no?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 04:10:01 AM
at least at the kind of comfort and work efficiency level American has grown accustomed to.
There's the key phrase. People lived in these areas before such creature comforts became commonplace, they can do it again. I've lived in the South all my life (NoVa being the furthest North for me). Not everyone has central air, there are still quite a few folks who only have a window AC unit in a bedroom. They get by during the summer just fine. Some of those same folks heat their entire house with a single wood stove in the den even when the temps are in the teens and twenties.
Besides, we're not talking about rolling back climate control to the 1900s, but adjusting your expectations when you can't afford fuel. You do what poor folks are already doing and turn the thermostat down while dressing more warmly. You make repairs and changes to your home that make it more efficient.
Chris
Post by: longeyes on July 15, 2008, 04:19:45 AM
I mean you can; I choose not to.
It's interesting to see the inroads Romanticism has made. I hope you enjoy your de-industrialized America. You'll get by all right; at about one-third your current standard of living. How long are your computers going to last without climate-controlled environments? Or is this to be a world of the young and brawny again?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 04:25:28 AM
Yeah, we can "live that way again."
I mean you can; I choose not to.
It's interesting to see the inroads Romanticism has made. I hope you enjoy your de-industrialized America.
I mean you can; I choose not to.
It's interesting to see the inroads Romanticism has made. I hope you enjoy your de-industrialized America.
Really, reading is fundamental. Nobody is saying this is a good way to live. What we're saying is that if you have X amount of fuel to heat your home with and can't afford more, you turn the heat down to 60deg rather than burn it rapidly to keep your house at 70 or 75.
You might choose not to now, but what happens when the price of whatever fuel you use hits the point where you have to make that choice? What happens when your budget allows you to keep your house at 70deg for a month or 60deg for two months?
Not saying we shouldn't drill for more oil (we should), but folks who are stretched that thin might want to consider the possibility that they might have to experience an austere Winter in order to meet their budget. It sucks, but it's life.
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on July 15, 2008, 04:26:15 AM
So, ironically, restoring an old house to its original heating design to save a few thousand dollars can cost tens of thousands of dollars to get done.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 04:29:22 AM
How long are your computers going to last without climate-controlled environments?
They'll last quite nicely thank you. A friend of mine lives in an old farmhouse without central heat or air. He heats with a single woodstove in the den and has a single AC window unit in the bedroom. He's been on the Internet for the past 8 years (I got him hooked by giving him an old Linux laptop and directing him to the nearest ISP). The laptop lasted a couple years (was already a decade old when I gave it to him) and the desktop he replaced it with is still running.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 04:32:18 AM
Some folks had to do this even in the days of cheap oil. The cost of oil isn't the only budgetary constraint.
Chris
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 15, 2008, 04:45:46 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on July 15, 2008, 05:18:40 AM
Post by: longeyes on July 15, 2008, 06:30:07 AM
Quote
They'll last quite nicely thank you. A friend of mine lives in an old farmhouse without central heat or air. He heats with a single woodstove in the den and has a single AC window unit in the bedroom. He's been on the Internet for the past 8 years (I got him hooked by giving him an old Linux laptop and directing him to the nearest ISP). The laptop lasted a couple years (was already a decade old when I gave it to him) and the desktop he replaced it with is still running.
I think if you examine "modern life," not just here but around the world, you'll notice that certain environmental conditions are synonymous with the type of society we enjoy and take for granted. Productivity requires it.
Yeah, we may "survive," but it won't be the life we have now, in many ways. And what you and your kids think is "civilization" dates back about fifty years. Welcome to the good old days when life was "nasty, brutish, and short."
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 06:37:34 AM
My point was not that we should revert our standard of living to the early 20th century but that folks who's income does not allow them to keep their homes at 72deg in the middle of winter with the current cost of fuel should consider stretching their budget by reducing the heat in their homes to a point that allows them to get through their winter within budget (holy run on sentence Batman!). I used examples from prior generations merely to illustrate that people can live this way and not "freeze to death", not that we should, as a society, reduce our standard of living "just because".
Chris
Post by: longeyes on July 15, 2008, 06:40:07 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 06:48:50 AM
Chris
Post by: RocketMan on July 15, 2008, 06:59:13 AM
Really? You think? I never said you should "just get by" if you have the means to do better. However, the claim that people are going to freeze to death simply because they can't afford to keep their homes warmed to 72deg is asinine.
Chris
Chris
Tell that to the relatives of the folks that have died each winter the past few years in this country.
Mostly elderly, living on fixed incomes, no means to move, making choices between paying the bills for food, shelter, or utilities.
You've all seen the headlines. If you haven't, then you weren't paying attention.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 07:17:33 AM
Hell, I keep my house cooler in the Winter than I prefer for this very reason. Paying $150/month to keep the house around 68 at night (sunlight brings it up to the low 70s most days) is better than $250+ for 72deg.
Chris
Post by: charby on July 15, 2008, 07:41:46 AM
Realistically in the future if people want to afford to live in their climate controlled houses at the levels they desire they are going to have to live in much smaller houses.
Post by: Balog on July 15, 2008, 07:53:19 AM
And saying "Well, that 80 y/o granny wouldn't have died if she'd just been smarter and lived the way I do" seems a bit.... crass. I hope no one reading this thread has had a death in the family from an issue like that.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 15, 2008, 08:58:26 AM
Which is why it might be prudent to use your limited heating funds to keep the house at 60deg for 3 months rather than 72deg for 1 month. It's simple rationing. You have a fixed amount of heating oil, do you burn it up keeping the house toasty warm or you stretch it out by keeping the house habitable?
Hell, I keep my house cooler in the Winter than I prefer for this very reason. Paying $150/month to keep the house around 68 at night (sunlight brings it up to the low 70s most days) is better than $250+ for 72deg.
Chris
Hell, I keep my house cooler in the Winter than I prefer for this very reason. Paying $150/month to keep the house around 68 at night (sunlight brings it up to the low 70s most days) is better than $250+ for 72deg.
Chris
A lot of times, someone will just not be able to get down to the basement to see what the tank level is. When it runs dry, it's an absolute surprise, and there's no money to place an order for a refill.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 09:09:40 AM
When I was a kid, we had an oil fired furnace, but the tank was outside. I don't recall it ever running out. I also don't recall my parents checking the level. Then again, this was piedmont NC and a tank might have gone all winter for us. I'll have to ask my parents.
My grandfather had an oil fired furnace as well and he used to check his level with a dipstick (it was buried underground).
Chris
Post by: Ezekiel on July 15, 2008, 10:28:46 AM
I keep my home in the low 60s (wearing a sweatshirt) during winter and the high 70s (wearing little) during summer. I think the rest of America can adjust...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 15, 2008, 11:25:18 AM
Really? You think? I never said you should "just get by" if you have the means to do better. However, the claim that people are going to freeze to death simply because they can't afford to keep their homes warmed to 72deg is asinine.
Chris
Some people will freeze to death if they aren't able to heat their homes adequately. Elderly and the frail will indeed suffer. There is nothing asinine about it.Chris
The way you guys talk we should never have gotten as far as we have as a civilazation. I mean how did the cave men and women survive without central heat or air?
Many people didn't survive cold winters in ages past. Mortality rates were much higher, average life expectancy was much lower. The ability to heat and cool our houses is one reason (out of many) that we can all expect to live more than 40 or 50 years.Death from cold winters is rare these days, but only because we have HVAC. It wasn't particularly uncommon back before we had HVAC.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 15, 2008, 11:46:55 AM
For heat, they still depend on a fire place. My dad has a wood stove mounted with the fire place that uses a lot less wood than it used to when I was a kid. There are air pipes built into the brick behind it and above it with fans to circulate air around the fire place and get more heat out of it. That works really well. They use a few electric heaters in other rooms at need.
Post by: seeker_two on July 15, 2008, 02:34:48 PM
All I am saying is that talk of death is alarmist.
But it sells papers and buys votes.....
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 04:27:41 PM
Some people will freeze to death if they aren't able to heat their homes adequately. Elderly and the frail will indeed suffer. There is nothing asinine about it.
They'll freeze at 60degrees? The Elderly have a higher freezing point? Interesting, I was unaware. As for them suffering, yes, they will, but less than if they burned their finite quantity of fuel more rapidly trying to maintain an unreasonable (for their budget) level of heat.
Chris
Post by: lupinus on July 15, 2008, 04:41:14 PM
I'm in the south now I love it when people bitch about cold or snow. Grow up in one of the houses I spent most of my childhood/teens, at current rates it costs a hell of a lot to heat a home up there.
It's not as simple as dialing back to 60 degrees and wearing a sweater.
Post by: longeyes on July 15, 2008, 05:07:26 PM
Quote
I keep my home in the low 60s (wearing a sweatshirt) during winter and the high 70s (wearing little) during summer. I think the rest of America can adjust...
You going to keep your office at 60 too? Or 40? Or 105 with high humidity?
As was posted, modern climate control and longevity are connected, not to mention general productivity.
I wonder how many people will be living in Las Vegas? Or Phoenix or Tucson? Or Austin?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 15, 2008, 05:19:46 PM
and even at 60 degrees a home in the northeast goes through an amazing amount of oil.
But still less than it would at 70+, which is the entire point when you have limited funds. Kind of like driving, you reduce the amount you drive so you only have to buy gas once a week if you can't afford to fill the tank every other day. Or, you use all your gas in two days and do without...
Chris
Post by: roo_ster on July 16, 2008, 07:12:14 AM
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isnt this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices wont decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. Thats the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. Theyre talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
Theres also a gang of 10 in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So its possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isnt this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices wont decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. Thats the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. Theyre talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
Theres also a gang of 10 in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So its possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 16, 2008, 08:35:03 AM
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 06:49:04 AM
and even at 60 degrees a home in the northeast goes through an amazing amount of oil.
But still less than it would at 70+, which is the entire point when you have limited funds. Kind of like driving, you reduce the amount you drive so you only have to buy gas once a week if you can't afford to fill the tank every other day. Or, you use all your gas in two days and do without...
Chris
Unless you can't afford to even drive to the local park and ride to bus in to work. Why are you assuming poor elderly people on fixed incomes would be able to afford a cold winter at 60? Sure it would use less fuel, but there is no guarantee it would reduce the consumption to a level they could afford.
Some people will freeze to death if they aren't able to heat their homes adequately. Elderly and the frail will indeed suffer. There is nothing asinine about it.
They'll freeze at 60degrees? The Elderly have a higher freezing point? Interesting, I was unaware. As for them suffering, yes, they will, but less than if they burned their finite quantity of fuel more rapidly trying to maintain an unreasonable (for their budget) level of heat.
Chris
They may not literally freeze, but being cold all the time does make one more vulnerable to illness. And if your immune system is already weakened from being old......
Post by: mtnbkr on July 17, 2008, 07:06:05 AM
I'm not saying they should do this rather than drill for oil. I'm not saying they should do this for any ideological concept of conservation. I'm saying this is something they might have to do if the only alternative is burning their fuel sooner.
This all started with Maned's statement that people were going to freeze to death this Winter. Yes, that might be the case if they can't afford fuel and burn up their limited reserve keeping the house at 72deg, but if they lower the temp to 60 (for example), they will stretch their fuel reserves further and not freeze. They won't be happy or comfortable, but they won't freeze, which was the original claim. Of course, the obvious solution is to increase the supply and reduce the price, but if that doesn't happen, then the only alternative is to reduce consumption to a point that you can remain thawed through the winter.
Chris
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 17, 2008, 07:14:27 AM
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 07:19:16 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 17, 2008, 07:26:40 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on July 17, 2008, 07:31:49 AM
That said, the cost for heating my 3 story townhouse with gas runs from roughly $250 to keep it at 72+ down to $150 for 68-70deg in the middle of Winter (temps in the teens to 40s). We cook and heat water with gas as well, so part of that bill is not related to heating the house.
Chris
Post by: Ezekiel on July 17, 2008, 10:07:04 AM
I just rather dislike the "Nothing bad will happen, and if it does it's their own fault" attitude.
Isn't this 100% the reason given -- here -- that carrying firearms is okay? You know, personal responsibility? That, if something bad happens, it's the USER, not the tool?
Can't have it both ways: if something bad happens, it is their fault, regardless of who "likes it." They had ten billion opportunities, prior to freezing to death, to locate a solution.
Post by: longeyes on July 17, 2008, 10:15:40 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on July 17, 2008, 10:51:05 AM
The individual gun owner does not control the cost of ammunition.
He/she controls what is done with it, how much is used, what it is used for, and what occurs if it is rationed improperly.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 11:02:59 AM
I just rather dislike the "Nothing bad will happen, and if it does it's their own fault" attitude.
Isn't this 100% the reason given -- here -- that carrying firearms is okay? You know, personal responsibility? That, if something bad happens, it's the USER, not the tool?
Can't have it both ways: if something bad happens, it is their fault, regardless of who "likes it." They had ten billion opportunities, prior to freezing to death, to locate a solution.
1. Not having a gun rarely results in death; not having heat in the winter will.
2. No one is suggesting .gov intervention, no is one is saying anything that would abrogate their responsibility.
The issue at hand is whether or not very high prices for heating oil will likely result in significant levels of mortality. I also object to treating impoverished older people like Darwin award candidates. I also object to saying that women who got raped were "asking for it" if they were doing something stupid prior to the assault. YMMV, I just think it's in poor taste.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 17, 2008, 11:13:08 AM
That doesn't lessen the responsibility of each resident to secure the means heat his home, if he wants a heated home.
Post by: Ezekiel on July 19, 2008, 03:15:46 AM
The issue at hand is whether or not very high prices for heating oil will likely result in significant levels of mortality.
The answer is, of course, "no."
Unless said humans were flippin' idiots to begin with.
It's called planning...
Post by: Balog on July 19, 2008, 07:44:49 AM
Post by: longeyes on July 19, 2008, 08:21:54 AM
How many Americans have no savings of size, are one or two paychecks from living in their cars?
I see people more interested in queueing up at midnight to see Batman than learning how to take care of themselves, much less informing themselves about issues vital to their nation.
When the truckers stop delivering food to the markets because of exorbitant fuel costs, all bets are off.
Post by: Ezekiel on July 20, 2008, 10:53:22 AM
Do you actually know any elderly people Zeke?
Yes. They can all pay their electric and/or gas bills.
"Personal accountability."
I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.
Post by: Ezekiel on July 20, 2008, 10:53:57 AM
How many Americans have no savings of size, are one or two paychecks from living in their cars?
Whose fault is that?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 20, 2008, 04:25:25 PM
Yes. They can all pay their electric and/or gas bills.
"Personal accountability."
I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.
"Personal accountability."
I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.
Has anyone suggested the elderly shouldn't do that? All I've seen so far is concern that they might have trouble with their utility bills because of rising energy costs, not that they shouldn't continue to pay their bills. If you recall, my suggestion was that they turn their heat down until they can reach a level they can continue to pay.
For example, my grandmother, who is in her early 80s, is spread thin these days. She has been widowed for the past 30 years and has lived an independent life, working two jobs, putting money into savings and investments, etc. She finally retired from her last job a few years ago (less than 10). She still lives alone in her own home. She was doing fine financially until she had some health problems and had to start taking an assortment of prescription drugs. Combined with the increase in energy costs, she's in trouble now. We (children, grandchildren, etc) help by buying gift cards to the local grocery stores, restaurants, etc to help (easier than money and ensures she spends it on her groceries rather than us). My mom and aunt have payed her pharm bills several times. If things get much more expensive, she's going to have real problems.
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on July 20, 2008, 05:09:34 PM
Yes. They can all pay their electric and/or gas bills.
"Personal accountability."
I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.
"Personal accountability."
I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.
Has anyone suggested the elderly shouldn't do that? All I've seen so far is concern that they might have trouble with their utility bills because of rising energy costs, not that they shouldn't continue to pay their bills. If you recall, my suggestion was that they turn their heat down until they can reach a level they can continue to pay.
For example, my grandmother, who is in her early 80s, is spread thin these days. She has been widowed for the past 30 years and has lived an independent life, working two jobs, putting money into savings and investments, etc. She finally retired from her last job a few years ago (less than 10). She still lives alone in her own home. She was doing fine financially until she had some health problems and had to start taking an assortment of prescription drugs. Combined with the increase in energy costs, she's in trouble now. We (children, grandchildren, etc) help by buying gift cards to the local grocery stores, restaurants, etc to help (easier than money and ensures she spends it on her groceries rather than us). My mom and aunt have payed her pharm bills several times. If things get much more expensive, she's going to have real problems.
Chris
FYI, you can give Target pharmacy giftcards, too, some people I know have been giving them to elderly relatives of theirs or even to charities. They look like a pill. They have to use Target pharmacy, of course.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 20, 2008, 05:22:38 PM
They also know my mom and aunt, so it's no problem for them to call up, find out what she owes, and pay the bill for her.
Chris
Post by: macpherson on July 21, 2008, 07:08:04 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on July 22, 2008, 12:52:23 AM
My suggestion to turn the thermostat down to the 50-60 degree level was not intended for those who can afford to keep their heat at whatever temperature they deem comfortable. It was suggested only for people who's financial situation would not enable them to heat their home all winter at their preferred temperature. Rather than using up their budgeted amount of fuel (oil, gas, etc) in a month at, say, 72deg, they could potentially run longer at a lower temperature.
If you can afford to heat your home to 72deg (or whatever you choose) all winter, by all means do it. If you can't afford to do so, you might consider turning it down to 68, 60, even 50deg to meet your budget.
Now, was that so hard to understand?
Chris
Post by: Ezekiel on July 22, 2008, 04:48:31 AM
Seems easy to understand.
Post by: Firethorn on July 22, 2008, 06:23:26 AM
And, 50 degrees does NOT mean "death."
Seems easy to understand.
Seems easy to understand.
Well, it could, for a frail enough person - but I'd ask how much longer they would of lasted anyways? It's like looking at how many heart attacks are caused by taking the stairs. The heart attack would of occured regardless - the stairs just happened to be the trigger in that case. It could of as easily been the visit to the mall scheduled for the next day.
But a person that frail should be in some sort of institution, I think, that has extra capability to maintain the heat. Even if not, between space heaters to heat the room the person is actually in, combined with electric blankets and such, it shouldn't be too bad.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 22, 2008, 08:25:59 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 22, 2008, 08:33:56 AM
And, 50 degrees does NOT mean "death."
Seems easy to understand.
Seems easy to understand.
Actually, it can for the elderly.
Chronic low-grade hypothermia is insidious and can be deadly.
"Whose fault is that?"
Well, let's see, Zeke.
Whose fault is it that people who have been retired for a number of years are finding that their monthly retirement/pension and social security incomes aren't able to keep up because in the last 10 years gasoline and heating oil have quadrupled in price?
Whose fault is it that for quite a few, the pensions and accounts that they worked so hard to amass over their careers evaporated when the employers raided the retirement accounts or simply went belly up?
That's right, it's those pesky old people. They should have had the foresight to get into highly paid vocations when they were young (instead, say, the ministry, teaching, or the like) and should have died off already.
Post by: Ezekiel on July 22, 2008, 10:12:08 AM
Whose fault is it that people who have been retired for a number of years are finding that their monthly retirement/pension and social security incomes aren't able to keep up because in the last 10 years gasoline and heating oil have quadrupled in price?
"They chose poorly, over years."
There is a price to be paid.
If I choose poorly, that's on ME: so don't try any reflexive arguments, please. (The pitard is there for me to be hung upon, I just choose to endeavour for that NOT to occur, by trying to anticipate SIGNIFICANT market fluctuations that are not in my favour.)
Post by: K Frame on July 22, 2008, 10:27:49 AM
Such as when you came here looking for a sympathetic shoulder when you were having trouble with your divorce?
Curious that such a tender-hearted individual is so coldly crass when it comes to others.
Ooops, sorry, that was reflexively comparative.
Post by: longeyes on July 22, 2008, 08:45:10 PM
Quote
"They chose poorly, over years."
There is a price to be paid.
There is a price to be paid.
It's a bit more complex than that.
You can start with the fact that interest rates have been kept artificially low and savers and investors are radically penalized by outrageous tax rates and double taxation.
If Social Security embodied true inflation adjustment payouts to beneficiaries would be much higher than they are.
The government is essentially conning the American people, transferring wealth from the small investor class to the welfare class.
Post by: Ben on July 23, 2008, 05:43:56 AM