Gasoline prices jump 5 cents per gallon

Gasoline prices jump 5 cents per gallon

There are 382 comments on the Business Journal story from Aug 2, 2011, titled Gasoline prices jump 5 cents per gallon. In it, Business Journal reports that:

Western Pennsylvania gasoline prices are on their way up again. There's been a five-cent-per-gallon increase to an average of $3.76 per gallon of self-serve gasoline, according to the AAA East Central Fuel Gauge.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Business Journal.

What

Erie, PA

#346 Sep 6, 2011
As Matthew Yglesias explained,“conservatives complain about the results because the President is a Democrat named Barack Obama. But the policy result is what conservatives say they want. Steady cuts to the government sector, offset somewhat by private sector growth.”…

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/02/...

Republicans wanted the cuts in public sector jobs so how the hell can they cry about the unemployment rate not improving? We had 17,000 thousand new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector.
TaxNoMore

United States

#347 Sep 6, 2011
What wrote:
As Matthew Yglesias explained,“conservatives complain about the results because the President is a Democrat named Barack Obama. But the policy result is what conservatives say they want. Steady cuts to the government sector, offset somewhat by private sector growth.”…
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/02/...
Republicans wanted the cuts in public sector jobs so how the hell can they cry about the unemployment rate not improving? We had 17,000 thousand new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector.
**********
We had 17,000 thousand new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector.

**********

Let's triple that in Sept..........

out with all public sector union pigs.

Half pay, 401K!

Half pay, 401K!

Half pay, 401K!

No Justice,No Peace!

No Justice,No Peace!

No Justice,No Peace!

Dump the public sector union pigs.

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#348 Sep 6, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding, right?
You deny that the US lost 750,000 in February 2009? Seriously?
Now it's February 2009, not losing 750,000 jobs a MONTH under Bush!!! LMAO!!!

Read my links and you'll learn the truth! If you ACTUALLY want to spout figures get them RIGHT!

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#349 Sep 6, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Some pesky facts for you:
----------
The Obama Stimulus Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did in 8 Years
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-gop-job-...
Awe the following mantra,“Obama created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in eight years.” However, how much sense does it make to compare an arbitrary nine-month period for Obama to a full eight-year term? Well none, none at all, at least not within the realm of rational human thought. For those of us who are rationally-minded, we will begin with the month that Obama took office, and compare his full term to-date with whomever.

Turning to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), when we added up the total number of private sector jobs created during Obama’s short twenty one month tenure, we found that a total of 2,991,000 had been lost (110,961,000 – 107,970,000). Oops!

ACTUALLY I think you're a lost soul and a lemming! LOL!

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#350 Sep 6, 2011
TaxNoMore wrote:
<quoted text>
**********
We had 17,000 thousand new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector.
**********
Let's triple that in Sept..........
out with all public sector union pigs.
Half pay, 401K!
Half pay, 401K!
Half pay, 401K!
No Justice,No Peace!
No Justice,No Peace!
No Justice,No Peace!
Dump the public sector union pigs.
The Liberals always seem to forget the JOBS lost, SAD for all the worked WHAT this Leader has done and doing! SICK!
yoo hoo

Erie, PA

#351 Sep 6, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
Oh wait - different know-nothing wingnut. Sorry.
No stupid you are the same know nothing left-wing nutjob. I think you and this kook that calls himself "What" are the same simple minded idiot. When one of you takes a crap the others brains are flushed.
Dan the Man

Bensalem, PA

#352 Sep 6, 2011
Rollout wrote:
<quoted text>
Now it's February 2009, not losing 750,000 jobs a MONTH under Bush!!! LMAO!!!
Read my links and you'll learn the truth! If you ACTUALLY want to spout figures get them RIGHT!
What I originally said was that when Obama took office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. When did Obama take office? January 21, 2009 he was sworn in. The following month, before the stimulus passed, we lost 750,000 jobs. Since the stimulus there has been steady improvement in that number - first losing fewer and fewer jobs each month, then gaining jobs every month.

Don't accuse me of being wrong when you misunderstand my plain words.
Dan the Man

Bensalem, PA

#353 Sep 6, 2011
Rollout wrote:
<quoted text>
Awe the following mantra,“Obama created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in eight years.” However, how much sense does it make to compare an arbitrary nine-month period for Obama to a full eight-year term? Well none, none at all, at least not within the realm of rational human thought. For those of us who are rationally-minded, we will begin with the month that Obama took office, and compare his full term to-date with whomever.
Turning to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), when we added up the total number of private sector jobs created during Obama’s short twenty one month tenure, we found that a total of 2,991,000 had been lost (110,961,000 – 107,970,000). Oops!
ACTUALLY I think you're a lost soul and a lemming! LOL!
Sorry, a cut and paste from a rightwing website won't make your case. Give me real numbers from a real source or shut the hell up.
Dan the Man

Bensalem, PA

#354 Sep 6, 2011
More pesky facts:

----------

Beware the math. Some Republican lawmakers critical of President Barack Obama's stimulus package are using grade-school arithmetic to size up costs and consequences of all that spending. The math is satisfyingly simple but highly misleading.

It goes like this: Divide the stimulus money spent so far by the estimated number of jobs saved or created. That produces a rather frightening figure on how much money taxpayers are spending for each job.
...
The reality is more complex.

First, the naysayers' calculations ignore the value of the work produced.

Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for material, supplies and that worker's output -- a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped from a factory floor, railroad tracks laid.

Second, critics are counting the total cost of contracts that will fuel work for months or years and dividing that by the number of jobs produced only to date.

A construction project, for one, may only require a few engineers to get going, with the work force to swell as ground is broken and building accelerates.

Hundreds of such projects have been on the books, in which the full value of the contracts is already counted in the spending totals, but few or no jobs have been reported yet because the work is only getting started.

To flip the equation politically, it's as if the 10-year cost of George W. Bush's big tax cuts were compared with the benefits to the economy that only accrued during the first year.

Third, the package approved by Congress is aimed at more than direct job creation, although employment was certainly central to its promotion and purpose.

Its features include money for research, training, plant equipment, extended unemployment benefits, credit assistance for businesses and more -- spending meant to pay off over time but impossible to judge in a short-term job formula.

Nor do the estimates made Friday include indirect employment already created by the package -- difficult if not impossible to measure.
Dan the Man

Bensalem, PA

#355 Sep 6, 2011
Still MORE pesky facts:

----------

First, there's the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created.

Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It's as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch.(The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#356 Sep 6, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
What I originally said was that when Obama took office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. When did Obama take office? January 21, 2009 he was sworn in. The following month, before the stimulus passed, we lost 750,000 jobs. Since the stimulus there has been steady improvement in that number - first losing fewer and fewer jobs each month, then gaining jobs every month.
Don't accuse me of being wrong when you misunderstand my plain words.
I guess you still didn't read the truth! No problem, I deal with Lib Bull everyday! SAD!

Look at the Bush unemployment rate for 8 years to Obams's rate after 2.5 years! Anything else??

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#357 Sep 6, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, a cut and paste from a rightwing website won't make your case. Give me real numbers from a real source or shut the hell up.
ACTUALLY, prove them wrong! LOL!!!

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#358 Sep 7, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, a cut and paste from a rightwing website won't make your case. Give me real numbers from a real source or shut the hell up.
But a cut n paste from a liberal biased site is considered a reputable source. Got it. Hypocrite much? LOL!
CRANK

Erie, PA

#359 Sep 7, 2011
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
What I originally said was that when Obama took office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. When did Obama take office? January 21, 2009 he was sworn in. The following month, before the stimulus passed, we lost 750,000 jobs. Since the stimulus there has been steady improvement in that number - first losing fewer and fewer jobs each month, then gaining jobs every month.
Don't accuse me of being wrong when you misunderstand my plain words.
Read the August jobs report. You won't understand it, I feel sure, but read it anyway.
Anthony

Erie, PA

#360 Sep 7, 2011
Everyone posts crushing facts and un real numbers... but really where is the exact source of these numbers that you obtained them from... I can think of one place.

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#361 Sep 7, 2011
Anthony wrote:
Everyone posts crushing facts and un real numbers... but really where is the exact source of these numbers that you obtained them from... I can think of one place.
Ever hear or read this????

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost...

Yes? No?
Bad BO poliicy

Pittsburgh, PA

#362 Sep 7, 2011
U.S. domestic supply is but one factor in the global price of oil, and thus gas prices. But when Obama
purposefully chooses to decrease our domestic supply by 13%, with hopes of driving that supply even lower, and objects to U.S.-Canadian pipelines and new forms of exploration, discovery and friendly importation, the price consequences are real, and should be scrutinized.
NANCY GRACE SMELLS STINKY

Royersford, PA

#364 Sep 9, 2011
Bush and Dick Cheney are the real terrorists...case closed! Kisses, NG {Dancing with the Stars...and I'll win all...even with my fat, stinky, smelly, and ugly body!}

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#365 Sep 9, 2011
Bad BO poliicy wrote:
U.S. domestic supply is but one factor in the global price of oil, and thus gas prices. But when Obama
purposefully chooses to decrease our domestic supply by 13%, with hopes of driving that supply even lower, and objects to U.S.-Canadian pipelines and new forms of exploration, discovery and friendly importation, the price consequences are real, and should be scrutinized.
Yep but you won't read this in the media every single day will you?
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

#366 Sep 10, 2011
Rollout wrote:
<quoted text>
Now it's February 2009, not losing 750,000 jobs a MONTH under Bush!!! LMAO!!!
Read my links and you'll learn the truth! If you ACTUALLY want to spout figures get them RIGHT!
I never said "losing 750,000 jobs a month under Bush."

You'd be a better debater if you knew how to read.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Indiana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hydro Pros Sep 13 Barb 1
Blonde JPD cop (Dec '16) Sep 12 God hates Florida 7
News Landmark hot dog shop closes in western Pennsyl... Sep 12 God hates Florida 3
Mcnally bridge suicides (Jun '15) Sep 12 God hates Florida 34
Connie Winters Kennels (Jul '10) Sep 3 beefcake 2
nursing homes in Indiana, PA (Feb '12) Sep 3 beefcake 3
good fish fry? (Feb '13) Sep 3 beefcake 4

Indiana Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Indiana Mortgages