Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on July 24, 2008, 09:23:41 AM
-
I was watching Fox News this morning and they had a story about a move in Congress right now, proposed by Democrats, to increase that federal tax on gasoline from 18.4 cents/gal to 28.4 cents/gal! Apparently, the higher price of gasoline lately has caused people to cut back on consumption (no surprise there), resulting in decreased gas-tax revenues. This is resulting in a shortfall for fed funded roads and highway projects. So, let's look at the logic here: Higher prices at the pump translates to less consumption and therefore less tax revenues. Democrats' solution, increase the price at the pump by increasing the gas tax...resulting in less consumption and less revenue, and so on and so on... Anyone see a pattern here?
Can Democrats in Congress be so out of touch that they don't understand the depth of voter anger over energy prices right now? If they really wanted to increase revenues, they'd follow the Adminstration's lead, lifting the ban on off-shore drilling and also open ANWR to exploration/production. The ANWR area being proposed for drilling sites is apparently only 70 miles from the existing oil pipeline.
Interestingly enough, Fox had a Republican law maker on to offer an opposing view on this bill. They always try to put on an equal number of people on both sides of the issues (it's that whole "fair and balanced" concept). During the segment, they had the Republican in one panel, and in the other...an empty chair. They had asked a dozen or more Democratic lawmakers on to offer their justification for increasing the gas tax at this time, and could not get one to agree to come on-air. Hmm...
-
It's just another ploy to get people to buy Pruises and give up their manhood in whatever other way possible.
-
Interestingly enough, Fox had a Republican law maker on to offer an opposing view on this bill. They always try to put on an equal number of people on both sides of the issues (it's that whole "fair and balanced" concept).
HAHAHAHAHA....
oh you were serious, sorry.
-
No surprise there. They aren't going to face any tough questions, just bury their heads in the sand as usual..... :mad:
-
HAHAHAHAHA....
oh you were serious, sorry.
Sorry, myelo, but the two-sided format is a fact of Fox News commentary, unlike the one-sided presentations of other MSM sources. Of course, if someone is far enough to the left, even someone in the center seems like a right-wing radical to you. :)
Seriously though, what do you think of the subject of this thread itself (your views on Fox being well enough known)?
-
NEWSFLASH! OBAMA ANNOUNCES OFFICIAL SONG OF HIS CAMPAIGN!
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh MS. Pelosi)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Reid)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
-
You encounter this "logic" in a lot of areas. Let's see. Higher prices cause a drop in demand and therefore a drop in tax revenue. So, let's raise taxes, also further raising prices, so you get an even greater drop in demand and tax revenues.
At the federal level you are somewhat stuck as a consumer with nowhere to turn for relief. However, when this is done at the state level you have the added "benefit" of driving border people to other states where taxes are lower reducing revenues even more!
Charon
-
Will congressional aproval drop below the all time low of 9%?
:D
-
Will congressional aproval drop below the all time low of 9%?
:D
Hey, look at it this way. Once it hits 0%, they've got nowhere to go but up. :devil
-
Hey, look at it this way. Once it hits 0%, they've got nowhere to go but up. :devil
I think lynch mobs become legal once they hit 0.
-
NEWSFLASH! OBAMA ANNOUNCES OFFICIAL SONG OF HIS CAMPAIGN!
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh MS. Pelosi)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Reid)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
dude, you need to be taken out back and shot for that!!!!!!!
how could you soil the beatles by associating one of their songs with that assshole? :rofl
-
What's really funny is the story that's not making the MSM. The DNC hasn't been paying state or federal taxes on gasoline while setting up their convention. They made a special agreement with the Denver to use their state government pumps and supplies. The first reasoning was for "security". :lol
The second reason was that this type of agreement was in place in Washington, and the Republicans were doing the same thing for their convention. Turns out that neither of those are true.
The agreement has since been ended, and the DNC is getting gas from actual gas stations like everybody else now.
Funny how just a little bit of publicity can get somebody to snatch their hand back out of the cookie jar.
-
At the federal level you are somewhat stuck as a consumer with nowhere to turn for relief.
Charon
that's bullchit. they aren't stuck with nowhere to turn. they simpl need to do like those of us little guys do. if we're comming up short on this months bills, then we need to trim our budget. stop buying so much. take a pay cut. they can do it if they try.
or not :O
-
I've repeated this before, I'll do it again. Hasn't anyone read "Earth in the Balance" by Albert Gore Jr.? You do know that one of the supposedly greatest, and most favorite Democrats in recent history, Albert Gore Jr., stated in his book that it should be a goal to drive the price of petroleum products so high that it became impossible to use/operate an internal combustion engine. Yes, that is Al Gore Jr.'s position, and one favored by a great number of Democrats and other liberals.
And yet people wonder why the Democrats refuse to allow drilling off shore, or in the ANWAR, and now propose to raise taxes on oil, whether by creating an arbitrary "windfall profits" tax, or by increasing taxes on gasoline and diesel. THEY DON'T CARE if you cannot afford to drive to work, or to the grocery store. THEY DON'T CARE if your school system can't afford fuel for buses. THEY DON'T CARE if your local law enforcement agency or fire department doesn't have enough fuel for all of their vehicles. THEY DON'T CARE what else you won't be able to afford because of the rising cost of fuel and the taxes on it, either.
-
democrats... socialists... have always felt that you could tax your way into prosperity.
lazs
-
I kinda like the Roman System... Tribunes were elected; and if they betrayed or pissed off their electorate, the people just mobbed the guy, tore him to pieces and fed their dogs with the bloody bits.
-
I kinda like the Roman System... Tribunes were elected; and if they betrayed or pissed off their electorate, the people just mobbed the guy, tore him to pieces and fed their dogs with the bloody bits.
I'm betting my dog would get sick on Pelosi - even a little bit.
-
I kinda like the Roman System... Tribunes were elected; and if they betrayed or pissed off their electorate, the people just mobbed the guy, tore him to pieces and fed their dogs with the bloody bits.
Sounds fun, but I like the ancient Greek system of Ostracism. Each year, the worst politician was voted on, and they're banished for 10 years.
-
I'm ok with that except we have to up to the worst 50% get banned for 10 years.
-
Funny, I can't find anything about this on line... care to supply a link or something?
In fact it isn't even on the Fox News site. Is it possible that this is a concocted story by Faux to further their agenda? I'll go with Yep!
-
If you can't find anything online about this, you ain't looking.
Yahoo, do a search for Federal Gas Tax Increase, enjoy ALL the reading since most major newspapers are reporting on it.
-
I've repeated this before, I'll do it again. Hasn't anyone read "Earth in the Balance" by Albert Gore Jr.? You do know that one of the supposedly greatest, and most favorite Democrats in recent history, Albert Gore Jr., stated in his book that it should be a goal to drive the price of petroleum products so high that it became impossible to use/operate an internal combustion engine. Yes, that is Al Gore Jr.'s position, and one favored by a great number of Democrats and other liberals.
And yet people wonder why the Democrats refuse to allow drilling off shore, or in the ANWAR, and now propose to raise taxes on oil, whether by creating an arbitrary "windfall profits" tax, or by increasing taxes on gasoline and diesel. THEY DON'T CARE if you cannot afford to drive to work, or to the grocery store. THEY DON'T CARE if your school system can't afford fuel for buses. THEY DON'T CARE if your local law enforcement agency or fire department doesn't have enough fuel for all of their vehicles. THEY DON'T CARE what else you won't be able to afford because of the rising cost of fuel and the taxes on it, either.
Well I guess that will lead to 1776 all over again...... :uhoh
-
Sorry, myelo, but the two-sided format is a fact of Fox News commentary, unlike the one-sided presentations of other MSM sources.
Sorry Sabre, when you start photosphopping pictures of people you're covering who disagree with you, you should just stick to stories about Elvis sightings and UFO abductions because you've lost any credibility as a valid news source.
Seriously though, what do you think of the subject of this thread itself (your views on Fox being well enough known)?
If you think there's going to be a serious effort to substantially increase federal gas taxes in an election year, you need to cash a reality check. BTW McCain's and Clinton's proposal to temporarily suspend the tax is even more foolish and is nothing but a shameless pander to voters who should be smart enough to know better.
-
BTW McCain's and Clinton's proposal to temporarily suspend the tax is even more foolish and is nothing but a shameless pander to voters who should be smart enough to know better.
Yeah, make gas cheaper until the crude downslope catches up with the price at the pump. Cheaper gas, thats bad.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Saw a good idea on MSN the other day. A floating tax to keep gas at $4. Think Toad came up with much the same idea a while back.
At least then the money is going to the US, instead of overseas.
Use the extra to cut income taxes, or more likely corporate taxes.
-
Yeah, make gas cheaper until the crude downslope catches up with the price at the pump. Cheaper gas, thats bad.
Looks like we can mark you down in the category of voters who should know better.
Right now, the bottleneck for gas supply is the refineries which are operating at near 100% capacity. So supply is essentially inelastic.
Econ 101: When supply is inelastic, the price will rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. So removing the tax will have virtually no effect on the price consumers pay.
Where will that extra money go? The oil companies.
Where does the money come from to make up the lost revenues? Under McCain's plan, you. Other taxes you pay will be shifted to fill in the holes (he's a little vague on that part).
-
How about we burn 'K' Street to the ground, end all tax breaks for oil companies, tax 'em the same rate the IRS taxes you and me (33%+) and lock down all domestic production for domestic distribution.
-
How about we burn 'K' Street to the ground, end all tax breaks for oil companies, tax 'em the same rate the IRS taxes you and me (33%+) and lock down all domestic production for domestic distribution.
If oil were sold worldwide in a truly free market I would have to disagree with you about locking it down. Since we must compete with nations that enslave their citizens I think you're right. We should not be supporting these tyrannical governments with our natural resources.
-
This is resulting in a shortfall for fed funded roads and highway projects.
Heres the funnier part. Why would they need more money for highway and road projects if people are driving less? Less driving is less wear on the roads.
-
Right now, the bottleneck for gas supply is the refineries which are operating at near 100% capacity. So supply is essentially inelastic.
Yet <the democratic> Congress still wont allow more refineries built.
Like I said, cheap gas is bad. :rolleyes:
-
Right now, the bottleneck for gas supply is the refineries which are operating at near 100% capacity. So supply is essentially inelastic.
No, US refineries have been operating at pretty low capacity all year. They were at 87.1% last week, which is very low for July (average around 95% at this time of the year in the past)
That's why refiner's margins are so low. In June the refiners took only 8.5% of the final price to cover their own costs and profits, which again is very low by long term standards.
-
Didn't McCain co-sponser that bill.
BTW, you guys don't really believe it's about revenue more than control and power.
-
Looks like we can mark you down in the category of voters who should know better.
Right now, the bottleneck for gas supply is the refineries which are operating at near 100% capacity. So supply is essentially inelastic.
Econ 101: When supply is inelastic, the price will rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. So removing the tax will have virtually no effect on the price consumers pay.
Where will that extra money go? The oil companies.
Where does the money come from to make up the lost revenues? Under McCain's plan, you. Other taxes you pay will be shifted to fill in the holes (he's a little vague on that part).
Lack of refineries isn't making oil sell for $130+ per barrel, Einstein. Refineries affect gas and diesel prices - not crude oil prices. You watch too much CNN?
Edit - refining costs are about 20 -30 cents a gallon of $4 a gallon gas.
oil costs is about $3 a gallon of $4 a gallon gas. Oil availability DOES matter.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/05/10/will-a-halt-in-spr-additions-lower-gas-prices/
-
Lack of refineries isn't making oil sell for $130+ per barrel, Einstein. Refineries affect gas and diesel prices - not crude oil prices. You watch too much CNN?
Edit - refining costs are about 20 -30 cents a gallon of $4 a gallon gas.
oil costs is about $3 a gallon of $4 a gallon gas. Oil availability DOES matter.
You're missing the point genius. Removing the gas tax doesn't increase supply. In the short term (and the proposal is short term) the oil companies aren't going to produce any more gas then they are producing right now.
-
You're missing the point genius. Removing the gas tax doesn't increase supply. In the short term (and the proposal is short term) the oil companies aren't going to produce any more gas then they are producing right now.
Simply announcing the United States was going to begin drilling more (there is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico) offshore, and in ANWR would cut the price of oil by 30% immediately. Thats before a drop of oil comes out of the ground. But Dimocrat ( or dimwit- terms are interchangeable) Pelosi won't allow a vote on that. The problem isn't greedy oil companies or evil speculators. Its dimwits or Dimocrats like Pelosi who spurn developed technology like oil production for pie in the sky undeveloped and untested technology. Because those technologies are undeveloped, the drawbacks are yet discovered which lead the dimwit Dimocrats to believe there ARE NO DRAWBACKS.
-
Simply announcing the United States was going to begin drilling more (there is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico) offshore, and in ANWR would cut the price of oil by 30% immediately.
It would have no effect on oil supply for 5 years, and no effect on prices now. Even in 5 years the effect on price would be marginal.
How on earth can anyone believe that a commitment to a minor increase in oil supply 5 years from now will have an immediate effect on prices?
-
It would have no effect on oil supply for 5 years, and no effect on prices now. Even in 5 years the effect on price would be marginal.
How on earth can anyone believe that a commitment to a minor increase in oil supply 5 years from now will have an immediate effect on prices?
Minor increase? Do you have any idea how much untapped oil the US has? Underneath the Rocky mountains, there is 22 times more oil than what is in Iran. Eight times as much as is in Saudi Arabia. You're spouting the Dimocrat line. Do you get this? The United States has enough oil to be oil independent. Fact is some of the untapped oil could be had in *TWO * (not 5) years. A shift in United States policy that it was going be committed to drilling this oil now would affect the price of oil immediately, as that price is being affected by futures not immediate supply.
So you are completely wrong. A shift in policy would affect oil prices immediately (and create 100,000+ jobs). But hey, being wrong is no hindrance for a Dimocrat :)
Here's a link about the US's "minor" oil supply.
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
-
Minor increase? Do you have any idea how much untapped oil the US has?
Yes. I also don't confuse oil and shale.
Fact is some of the untapped oil could be had in *TWO * (not 5) years.
Source? The facts are the oil industry is working flat out at the moment. All these little fields take a lot of resources to develop. It ain't happening in 2 years.
A shift in United States policy that it was going be committed to drilling this oil now would affect the price of oil immediately, as that price is being affected by futures not immediate supply.
No, it's current supply. In fact, futures prices are usually lower than spot prices. Last time I checked (a few weeks ago) oil for summer 2010 delivery was about $1 a barrel less than the spot price.
So you are completely wrong. A shift in policy would affect oil prices immediately.
Source?
Here's what the government task force report in to oil prices concluded a couple of days ago:
The Task Force’s preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between
January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors.
The world economy has expanded at its fastest pace in decades, and that strong growth has translated into
substantial increases in the demand for oil, particularly from emerging market countries. On the supply
side, the production of oil has responded sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls associated with
geopolitical unrest in countries with large oil reserves. As it is very difficult to rely on substitutes for oil in
the short term, very large price increases have occurred as the market balances supply and demand.
There's one reason why oil prices are high:
(http://www.theoildrum.com/files/CFTC_Fig_1.png)
Edit: from theoildrum.com , but the image is originally from the task force report.
Increased production in the future won't affect prices until that gap between economic growth and oil production growth closes.
-
democrats... socialists... have always felt that you could tax your way into prosperity.
lazs
Let the stupid people in America screw this one up. The percentage of people in America who thinks that George Bush blew up the Twin Towers and created AIDS just to kill blacks are in that stupid catagory. They can also go in the retarded catagory.
-
So you are completely wrong. A shift in policy would affect oil prices immediately (and create 100,000+ jobs). But hey, being wrong is no hindrance for a Dimocrat :)
Do you have any idea who signed the moritorium on oil exploration? Take a guess--- Carter? Nope. Clintion? Nope. It was Bush Sr. who signed the moritorium on offshore oil exploration. Did you know that? Because you keep on blaming the Dims, and the Repugs had SIX YEARS where they had the votes in Congress, not to mention the White House, and could have reversed it easily at any time.
This is one more example of Bush's and the Repug's failure at leadership, yet the insipid here will continue to pretend everything bad that's happening right now is because of the Dims who had no control and weren't in power when these decisions were being made.
-
Do you have any idea who signed the moritorium on oil exploration? Take a guess--- Carter? Nope. Clintion? Nope. It was Bush Sr. who signed the moritorium on offshore oil exploration. Did you know that? Because you keep on blaming the Dims, and the Repugs had SIX YEARS where they had the votes in Congress, not to mention the White House, and could have reversed it easily at any time.
This is one more example of Bush's and the Repug's failure at leadership, yet the insipid here will continue to pretend everything bad that's happening right now is because of the Dims who had no control and weren't in power when these decisions were being made.
Yes, but do you realize that Bush JR got rid of the ban. That congress still wont TOUCH it. GWB has 4 times the approval rating of Congress. And Congress has at most an approval rating of 9%. I've seen it as low as 6%.
-
Do you have any idea who signed the moritorium on oil exploration? Take a guess--- Carter? Nope. Clintion? Nope. It was Bush Sr. who signed the moritorium on offshore oil exploration. Did you know that? Because you keep on blaming the Dims, and the Repugs had SIX YEARS where they had the votes in Congress, not to mention the White House, and could have reversed it easily at any time.
This is one more example of Bush's and the Repug's failure at leadership, yet the insipid here will continue to pretend everything bad that's happening right now is because of the Dims who had no control and weren't in power when these decisions were being made.
And during that six years you keep harping on gas prices rose at a consitent rate along with the cost for everything else. Nothing unusual there so nothing needed to be done. Now that the price has tripled in the last year something needs to be done. Bush did what he could by removing the executive ban. Now it's up to Congress (the people who make the laws) to do something. Of course this Congress hasn't done ANYTHING worthwhile since they got there so who are you going to blame?
-
...
Use the extra to cut income taxes, or more likely corporate taxes.
Corporate taxes? You mean the taxes we pay for corporations when we buy their products? Corporations dont pay taxes you can trust that!
-
How about we burn 'K' Street to the ground, end all tax breaks for oil companies, tax 'em the same rate the IRS taxes you and me (33%+) and lock down all domestic production for domestic distribution.
That will only pass the taxes paid along to consumers and the price will go up just the same.
I dont believe imported oil is taxed but I do know taxes have been suggested for years. Hillary complained about profits of the oil companies and how she wanted 'to take that money' (theft in my book) and use it in her own way. Well she should take another look. Oil companies profit about $0.11 on the gallon. The truckers that deliver the final product make almost as much ($0.09) and when you add Federal Taxes State Taxes and Local Taxes there is as much as another $1.27 added to the price. The highest profit on gas of course is OPECs which is currently well over $2. The people that make the least are the marketers and retailers at about $0.04.
Taking OPEC out of the equation would drop the price of gas by at least $1.60/gallon. Oil companies would not increase costs above the current actual cost of production of $0.33/gallon because they would redirect R&D funds as required and we would not be sending that money to a foreign land.
-
How can anyone think that NOT doing oil exploration and exploitation of same will have any beneficial effect on oil or fuel prices in 5 years? :huh
Seems pretty darn silly to think that not looking for and getting new sources is going to make prices go down or even stay the same later on.
-
You're missing the point genius. Removing the gas tax doesn't increase supply. In the short term (and the proposal is short term) the oil companies aren't going to produce any more gas then they are producing right now.
And you my friend are missing the point of this entire thread, which is NOT the gas tax holiday the McCain (and H. Clinton, during the primaries) have proposed. It's about increasing the price of gasoline by raising the tax. If, as proponents of this increase claim, the loss in revenues has been caused by reduction in purchases by consumers (further reducing the pressure on refineries, by the way), which ultimately has been caused by higher gasoline prices, WHY in the world would anyone with even average intelligence think that increasing the tax further (and hence the price at the pump) would not simply result in still lower revenues?
As has been pointed out, the primary driver of the most recent increases in refined gasoline is not] lack of refinery capacity (though it was in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, due to damage to refineries). It is because of the doubling and nearly tripling of the cost of crude, which is not affected by refinery capacity. If anything, a shortfall in refining capacity should cause a drop in crude prices, since demand for crude would be throttled by ability to process it. For the record, I opposed the gas tax holiday when Hillary proposed it, and I still think it wouldn't help much at the pump today. There are a number of things that would.
1) Immediately lift the ban on off-shore and open ANWR to exploration/production. This would put a whopping hole in the speculation bubble that has been a driving factor in high crude prices (note that while world-wide demand certainly is also a factor, demand has not trippled, but the price of crude has)
2) Immediately begin the effort to streamline licencing of Nuke plants and new/upgrades of oil refineries (so refining capacity can keep pace when needed at some point)
3) Increase the margin required for oil futures speculation to at least 50%
4) Develop incentive packages for states and industry to develop alternate sources of automobile propulsion (hydrogen is my personal favorite) and the infrastructure to suppor them.
Some of these would have short-term effects (bursting the speculation bubble), some mid-term (2 to 10 years, such as increasing production of oil), and some long-term (new technologies for powering cars and shifting electricity production from fossile fuels to alternatives. The point is, within 10 to 20 years we could be energy independant, while still running a growing and vibrant economy (which requires energy consumption, and can not be sustained simply by energy conservation.
-
If, as proponents of this increase claim, the loss in revenues has been caused by reduction in purchases by consumers (further reducing the pressure on refineries, by the way), which ultimately has been caused by higher gasoline prices, WHY in the world would anyone with even average intelligence think that increasing the tax further (and hence the price at the pump) would not simply result in still lower revenues?
Because the tax is a very low proportion of the overall price.
As I understand it, the federal tax is currently about 18c a gallon. Gasoline is currently around $4 a gallon.
If they increase the tax to 28c, they get 56% more tax per gallon sold. Is anyone seriously suggesting increasing the price of a gallon of gasoline from $4 to $4.10 is going to result in a 50% drop in gasoline sales?
In reality they'd get 56% more per gallon, and gasoline sales would reduce by less than 1%. The net result would be a 50%+ increase in tax revenue from gasoline sales.
That doesn't mean I think increasing the tax is a good (or bad) idea, just let's get things in perspective. A 10c increase in gasoline taxes would result in a large increase in the amount of tax raised by gasoline sales.
1) Immediately lift the ban on off-shore and open ANWR to exploration/production. This would put a whopping hole in the speculation bubble that has been a driving factor in high crude prices (note that while world-wide demand certainly is also a factor, demand has not trippled, but the price of crude has)
Small increases in demand can result in large increases in price.
If gasoline went up by 10%, would you reduce the amount you use by 10%? The truth is, large increases in price are required to cause small reductions in demand. Look at it another way, with oil at $120 a barrel the world is still using more oil than it's producing. That level of price has been necessary to reduce demand to balance the stagnation in supply.
There really is no evidence to suggest speculation has affected the oil price much, if at all. There is plenty of evidence it hasn't.
-
we should not drill now, we should wait 10 years and then say "but if we drill now it will take 10 years to get the oil". :lol
-
I've repeated this before, I'll do it again. Hasn't anyone read "Earth in the Balance" by Albert Gore Jr.? You do know that one of the supposedly greatest, and most favorite Democrats in recent history, Albert Gore Jr., stated in his book that it should be a goal to drive the price of petroleum products so high that it became impossible to use/operate an internal combustion engine. Yes, that is Al Gore Jr.'s position, and one favored by a great number of Democrats and other liberals.
And yet people wonder why the Democrats refuse to allow drilling off shore, or in the ANWAR, and now propose to raise taxes on oil, whether by creating an arbitrary "windfall profits" tax, or by increasing taxes on gasoline and diesel. THEY DON'T CARE if you cannot afford to drive to work, or to the grocery store. THEY DON'T CARE if your school system can't afford fuel for buses. THEY DON'T CARE if your local law enforcement agency or fire department doesn't have enough fuel for all of their vehicles. THEY DON'T CARE what else you won't be able to afford because of the rising cost of fuel and the taxes on it, either.
No actually the stupidity is thinking that a finite resource will never run out. Now we are scrambling and whining that prices are high. If we had collectively planned ahead, we wouldn't be here.
If we don't learn our lesson now, we WILL be in for bigger problems down the road. Oil will only become more and more expensive as the years pass. If you don't understand this, I pity you. All I can say now is, because I've told people such in the past, "I told you so"...
Fact is, we need to move away from oil. Wouldn't you rather pay the price to move now, while we can still collectively afford it?
Unfortunately the US government will waste any taxes they get however, so it's not like I'm arguing for more taxes.
(http://susty.tv/image/al-gore-slideshow-man-with-the-golden-arm-america-addicted-to-oil-addiction-junkie-uncle-sam-hypodermic-needle-sustainability-go-green-living-carbon-co2-emission-reduction-global-warming-climate-crisi1.jpg)
-
No actually the stupidity is thinking that a finite resource will never run out. Now we are scrambling and whining that prices are high. If we had collectively planned ahead, we wouldn't be here.
If we don't learn our lesson now, we WILL be in for bigger problems down the road. Oil will only become more and more expensive as the years pass. If you don't understand this, I pity you. All I can say now is, because I've told people such in the past, "I told you so"...
Fact is, we need to move away from oil. Wouldn't you rather pay the price to move now, while we can still collectively afford it?
Unfortunately the US government will waste any taxes they get however, so it's not like I'm arguing for more taxes.
(http://susty.tv/image/al-gore-slideshow-man-with-the-golden-arm-america-addicted-to-oil-addiction-junkie-uncle-sam-hypodermic-needle-sustainability-go-green-living-carbon-co2-emission-reduction-global-warming-climate-crisi1.jpg)
We can move away from oil AND tap the 23 trillion barrels the United States has. Its win/win and jobs all over.
Have you researched alternative energy sources? Solar, wind, and hydrogen have serious problems right now and are impractical as stand alone energy sources. They need to be backed up by oil and gas. That's a simple fact T Boon Pickens leaves out of his windmill commercial. In order to use wind for electricity, there needs to be gas or oil based electricity always running to bridge the gaps in power when the wind quits blowing. The wind produced electricity cannot be stored. Electricity is only produced when the the turbines are turning. If they stop, they need an alternative source immediately, to service the grid. Gas, oil or nuclear plants need power up time so they would already have to be on. Its really funny how this little detail is overlooked.
To think that alternative energy sources (other than nuclear plants) to produce electricity or power cars is just a few years away, is ridiculous. Its decades away at least, and we need to become oil independent while we perfect the other technologies.
-
That will only pass the taxes paid along to consumers and the price will go up just the same.
I dont believe imported oil is taxed but I do know taxes have been suggested for years. Hillary complained about profits of the oil companies and how she wanted 'to take that money' (theft in my book) and use it in her own way. Well she should take another look. Oil companies profit about $0.11 on the gallon. The truckers that deliver the final product make almost as much ($0.09) and when you add Federal Taxes State Taxes and Local Taxes there is as much as another $1.27 added to the price. The highest profit on gas of course is OPECs which is currently well over $2. The people that make the least are the marketers and retailers at about $0.04.
Taking OPEC out of the equation would drop the price of gas by at least $1.60/gallon. Oil companies would not increase costs above the current actual cost of production of $0.33/gallon because they would redirect R&D funds as required and we would not be sending that money to a foreign land.
Enh? If given a choice.. higher $ at the pump, vs NOT spending my tax dollars on lining their pockets... WTF? I'll be glad to pay a fair price for gas... but I hate being robbed. Twice.
Digging a bit more; subsidies for oil companies to 'protect' the price at the pump is a freakin illusion... and banning imports from OPEC producers, shifting our contracts to non-opec producers is not only viable... it's rational. Think of the freakin billions saved by NOT having to protect oil fields and shipping lanes we no longer have any interest in.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html)
-
Hangtime I think we are arguing the same side of the issue. :D What I was saying is if we allow drilling the price HAS to fall but I am all in favor of telling the OPEC group to go off themselves.
-
I didn't read every page of this thread yet, but did anyone mention that the government is getting more $$$ from taxes on gas than the evil oil companies are making in profits off them? We need to take the money from the Government. Who gets the money from the Governments wind-fall profits?
-
yeah its something like a 10:1 ratio government:oil company.
-
and banning imports from OPEC producers, shifting our contracts to non-opec producers is not only viable... it's rational.
It's not rational when non opec production is stagnating. The US is importing ever more oil from OPEC countries. This year it has averaged over 6 million barrels a day, non OPEC imports just under 7 million barrels a day.
Think of the freakin billions saved by NOT having to protect oil fields and shipping lanes we no longer have any interest in.
Oil is a global market. If Saudi Arabia suffers a total loss of production, world oil production falls from about 85 to about 75 million barrels a day. That will push the oil price well over $200 a barrel.
Do you think Canada and Mexico and Russia will continue selling oil to the US at $120 a barrel if Europe or Japan or China is offering them $200?
-
Corporate taxes? You mean the taxes we pay for corporations when we buy their products? Corporations dont pay taxes you can trust that!
All companies pass any tax they pay to the end consumer. If they didn't they would be out of business. So any tax on corporations would be passed on to us the end users. I'm sorry did Hillary and Obama forget to mention that. Must have slipped their minds.
-
Gas, oil or nuclear plants need power up time so they would already have to be on. Its really funny how this little detail is overlooked.
To think that alternative energy sources (other than nuclear plants) to produce electricity or power cars is just a few years away, is ridiculous. Its decades away at least, and we need to become oil independent while we perfect the other technologies.
Well I'm all for nuclear energy. It doesn't pollute in an uncontrollable manner, and works well now. They are actually talking about shutting the plant down where I live, which is stupid. I'm lucky to live in a region that gets most of it's grid power from hydro & nuclear.
My point is, we need to build infrastructure to get off gasoline. Using food, like corn is not the answer either.
Things aren't that bad now, it's been worse. That said .. it means we need to do something now, or things will get worse in the future. We should use the still, relatively cheap energy we have now to build new infrastructure. Hydrogen cars work. Not that everyone on the planet needs to give up driving gasoline cars, but we need to build the infrastructure now, while it's easy.
Also, some solar technology is very simple, and produces well. They just use highly focused mirrors to boil water, instead of trying to use solar cells, that are similar in cost to produce as computer chips.
People really need to just say, using oil is not acceptable. Drilling for oil at home, will only postpone the problem, and limit our options later. People who say we need to drill more at home, are too often the ones who blow the security horn. I don't think they understand what security is.
-
What I don't understand is why we don't throw some money to this guy?
http://www.butanol.com/
11% more energy per gallon than Gasoline, and fermented from waste bio stocks.
Just a thought,
Kevin
-
What I don't understand is why we don't throw some money to this guy?
http://www.butanol.com/
11% more energy per gallon than Gasoline, and fermented from waste bio stocks.
Just a thought,
Kevin
I still don't believe growing fuel - any kind - is a good idea. I think its flawed from the outset as it takes away food that could be used for people or takes away land that could be used to grow food for people. How may people could be fed with the food or land it requires to make 1 gallon of this stuff? How much clean water is used? The devil is in the details as we are quickly finding out with the ethanol fiasco.
-
Anyone know what % of our oil consumption is for electricity production vs transportation?
(ALSO like to know how many folks of the 'alternative energy' camp, who continually eschew ANY new drilling, are really just global warming nutbergers....somewhat harder to find that out)
-
Anyone know what % of our oil consumption is for electricity production vs transportation?
Very little is used for electricity generation. This graph goes up to 2004:
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/ussectorcons.gif)
In 2004 the US used a total of 210 million barrels of oil for electricity generation. That fell to 115 million barrels in 2006.
To put that in perspective, the US uses about 7.5 billion barrels of oil a year, so in 2006 about 1.5% of US consumption was for electrical generation.
Even that probably overstates the case, because in 2006 the US consumed 190 million barrels of petroleum coke and 251 million barrels of residual fuel oil. Neither product is of much use apart from heavy industrial or power generation.
-
The point was that he uses bio waste, not food. Saw grass, Kansas killer weed (hemp), wood pulp etc, stuff that grows where food doesn't. Add in all the land that is currently farmed and plowed under due to the agro subsidy's, and there is a lot of stuff available to convert in to fuel. It is a lot like TCP, processing bio waste to make oil. >>> http://www.changingworldtech.com/ <<< lots of tech out there that works, none of them are the total solution, but in aggregate they help.
regards,
Kevin
I still don't believe growing fuel - any kind - is a good idea. I think its flawed from the outset as it takes away food that could be used for people or takes away land that could be used to grow food for people. How may people could be fed with the food or land it requires to make 1 gallon of this stuff? How much clean water is used? The devil is in the details as we are quickly finding out with the ethanol fiasco.
-
Look at all the corn stalks that are left bafter the corn is picked. I'm sure the farmers would be willing to sell it off after its picked for some extra cash.
-
Look at all the corn stalks that are left bafter the corn is picked. I'm sure the farmers would be willing to sell it off after its picked for some extra cash.
How much fuel is the waste going to make? There's another guy who has a machine that runs on the oil waste from fast food restaurants. Sounds wonderful until you ask how much fuel would that be? Developing the technology to get oil out the Rocky Mountain shale is only years away and there's 2.3 trillion barrels of oil there - more oil than in all of the middle east. Its the largest known oil source in the world. Why don't we do that first?
-
If you're anti gas and earthday is everyday, let me help you out. I'll grab my hose and fill your tank with some golden mother nature. :aok
-
What I don't understand is why we don't throw some money to this guy?
http://www.butanol.com/
11% more energy per gallon than Gasoline, and fermented from waste bio stocks.
Just a thought,
Kevin
You really ought to ready your own links when you make a statement like that. Here is the conclusion from the bottom of the link.
"BioButanol is made from the same
corn, sugar beets, sorghum, cassava, sugarcane, corn stalks, and other biomass
as ethanol yet replaces gasoline drop for drop.
It is ours - yours, mine and our neighbors’ choice what we decide to make."
When you read the butanol link you see that they talk about the amount of this version of alcohol per bushel of corn. They are only "proposing" that it would be more economical to use bio waste yet do not indicate what the waste is from or that they have actually made it from "waste". You can only grow so much from the arable land we have now. You can only force so much from an acre of land before you have to either let it lie fallow or use a fair quantity of fertilizer to boost it's production back up from being worn out.
These are FOOD products, "corn, sugar beets, sorghum, cassava, sugarcane" not waste materials. They are common in food products in many kinds of food we eat every day. The price of corn has already gone up just making plain ethanol for fuel and has had an impact across the board for all kinds of food. This is a dead end stop gap based on resources that are way to finite to support a percentage basis of use much less a 1 to 1 replacement.