Author Topic: How high are $$$ now (Read 7389 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #270 on:** May 04, 2006, 08:38:16 AM »

beet... there you go again... all taxes (there are about 4) on gassoline come out to abut 50 cents a gallon not 18. some states only have the federal tho... one or two I think.

Yes.... I think that carters energy policies were ill concieved and hurt the economy and the consumer and stifled all research, exploration and development. I think Regans deregulation was a great thing and gave us all the good things we have today.

We drive the most luxurious cars and trucks the world has ever seen and they get better milage than any other time in history. More oil has been discovered since carter put a finite number on it than was thought possible.... the "peak" oil date has been shoved ahead at least 40 years from the doom and gloom carter days...

The only thing slowing more refineries and exploration and... pumping the stuff is the regulations and red tape by democrats like carter... the only thing stopping nuke plants is democrats like carter.

While dropping the price 50 cents a gallon by getting rid of taxes will only delay things..... Isn't that what you want??? you want to do stop gap things to delay the invetiable increase in price caused by demand too.

If the price dropped 50 cents and the economy could cook along for another couple years while exploration and alternatives are explored.... isnt that a solution?

And..... why do you need to tax gas to fund a lousy couple of billion dollars in rewards for alternative ideas? it is a pittance.... and... once the government gets a tax source... they never let it go... even when/after the original need is moot.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #271 on:** May 04, 2006, 09:16:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I think Regans deregulation was a great thing and gave us all the good things we have today.

...and dependency on 13m barrels of imported oil every day.

The federal tax is 18 cents a gallon, IIRC. I don't know about state and local taxes for every state.

Like I said, cutting the price would only drive up demand, which itself would drive up the price of crude oil. You'd be right back where you started.

Wolfala · « **Reply #272 on:** May 04, 2006, 11:26:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
It appears he is talking about the distance the gas station is from his work place, and not how far the drive is. I could be wrong as it could be interpreted either way.

Actually both are true. But I just walk now that the weather is warmer. Work is 100 yards from home. Gas is 100 yards from home.

lazs2 · « **Reply #273 on:** May 05, 2006, 08:50:11 AM »

beet... how did deregulation cause the problem? What caused the problem was the regulations and red tape impossed by democrats and the EPA on exploration and refineries and nuke plants.

As for eventually being right back where we started..... So what? All you can do is buy time till tech catchs up or some guy finds a spot that has more oil than we can use or electricity is virtualy free.... All those things will probly happen... why put yourself in pain till then?

If an American wants to have a car that gets 40-50 mpg he can just go buy one right now... we have every option that you do except that we don't have to pay twice as much at the pump to pay for a strong liberal socialist government to lean on us.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #274 on:** May 05, 2006, 09:54:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
If the price dropped 50 cents and the economy could cook along for another couple years while exploration and alternatives are explored.... isnt that a solution?

Oh, OK. So what you're saying is that a 50 cents reduction in the price of gas would make you feel better? For every $60 you're spending on gas, you wish you were spending only $50? Well there is an answer, but it's not likely to be the one you want. Have you ever considered........... consuming less? A somewhat radical concept in America perhaps, but worth considering all the same.

Quote

why put yourself in pain till then?

That's precisely what you have done by allowing a situation to develop whereby you are dependent on ~13m barrels of imported oil every day, mostly from OPEC. The discontent this is now causing is evidenced by the financial hardship being caused to 69% of Americans (according to excel's report) and by the plethora of gas price whine threads on this very board, all of which originate from America.

Quote

If an American wants to have a car that gets 40-50 mpg he can just go buy one right now...

And plenty of Americans are doing that, with the Honda Civic now being one of the three best selling cars as well as Motor Trend Car of the Year for 2006.

Quote

we don't have to pay twice as much at the pump

True, but the advantage is lost if your vehicle uses twice as much fuel.

lazs2 · « **Reply #275 on:** May 05, 2006, 03:13:46 PM »

well.... choice is allways better. paying less is better. I can't see why you would think paying more when there is no reason would be a good idea.

If you remove the useless tax you would pay less... in the case of sales tax... it has increased with the price.

It is never a good idea to get the tax junkies addicted to money. The government is worse than any junkie... once they mainline some tax money they never want to give it up.

Take the tax on smokes.... presumably to educate and eradicate smoking.... they are addicted to it.... if everyone quit smoking the governmment would go on a colosal jones.

lazs

bkbandit · « **Reply #276 on:** May 05, 2006, 04:10:40 PM »

is there any relief in site. Im i goin to have to park my car for the summer?

beet1e · « **Reply #277 on:** May 06, 2006, 05:54:29 AM »

Well Lazs, I don't think there's much more we can say in this thread, but...

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
It is never a good idea to get the tax junkies addicted to money.

Was it such a good idea to let the gas junkies get addicted to foreign oil?

Please do me one last favour and answer these two questions. Then we can let this thing go.

Do you think that Reagan's relaxation of the CAFE requirements and subsequent SUV generation led to an increase or a decrease of America's dependence on imported oil?
Do you think this was a good thing or a bad thing, in light of the situation today?

Just answer I or D for the first question, G or B for the second. No embellishments required...

Jackal1 · « **Reply #278 on:** May 06, 2006, 06:34:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Just answer I or D for the first question, G or B for the second.

Can you print those directions out and put them in a manual ?

lazs2 · « **Reply #279 on:** May 06, 2006, 09:44:59 AM »

Beet....yes I think it was a good thing... we have luxurious cars that get far better millage than we had in carters day. They are better in every concievable way.... without our market you would probly not even be able to drive the car you do.

your questions were ludicrous in that they were a false premise (that Reagans deregulation led to an entire nation driving SUV's wich got less fuel economy than during carters day)

It is obvious that we enjoyed a very prosperous time and that it is not over yet..... may never be.

I see no way that giving the government more of our money would make things any better.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #280 on:** May 07, 2006, 05:23:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
your questions were ludicrous in that they were a false premise (that Reagans deregulation led to an entire nation driving SUV's wich got less fuel economy than during carters day)

I didn't say that Reagan's policies "led to an entire nation driving SUVs". I said that Reagan relaxed the CAFE standards, and that subsequently there was an SUV generation. Subsequent merely means following at a later point in time, not necessarily caused by what went before, so no false premise. Are you saying that SUV's did not gain popularity from about ~1990? Is dependence of OPEC oil a good thing?

bj229r · « **Reply #281 on:** May 07, 2006, 06:40:20 AM »

If there werent SUV's, there would still be big, ugly station wagons (which ALSO get poor mileage)

Jackal1 · « **Reply #282 on:** May 07, 2006, 07:23:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
If there werent SUV's, there would still be big, ugly station wagons (which ALSO get poor mileage)

Bring back the Nomad.

lazs2 · « **Reply #283 on:** May 07, 2006, 09:05:50 AM »

beet... you are making some real flighty connections here.... you claim that deregulation led to cheap oil prices which led to SUV's which led to the world running out of oil.

silly stuff... currrent SUV's get better milage than the cars before deregulation.... current cars get better milage at 70mph than carter cars got at 55 mph.

regulation stiffled development. Cars today are light years from the carter days. Choice is abundant... from boring cars that get 60 mpg to 200 mph vettes that get 26 mpg.

How was this all a bad thing? How do you think it will all turn out? How could it turn out better?

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #284 on:** May 07, 2006, 09:10:56 AM »

beet.. I guess I am saying.... you guys have paid twice as much for "petrol" for half a century... what has it gotten you? you paid this untold billions for... for what?

you drive a german car. jag is owned by Ford... you still don't have a decent dentist in the whole country and you don't even have free TV on the airwaves.

You won't be in any better shape than us when the oil runs out... probly worse. Why is the way you have done it so much better?

lazs