molson_golden2002 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 We can encourage more Americans to burn up more gas like there is no tomorrow! While encouraging Americans to ignore the immediate crisis in energy we can also expand the deficit. McCain, a true Republican bent on running the country into the ground. Truly, he is Bush's heir to office http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20080416/bs_bw/...b20080415958396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 What is this gas tax you speak of? You mean the gubbamint is making money off gasoline? I thought it was only greedy oil companies and their shady CEOs I wonder if Exxon/Mobile/BP/Shell/Citgo/Haliburton/Cheney etc have a profit margin of 18.4% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 What is this gas tax you speak of? You mean the gubbamint is making money off gasoline? I thought it was only greedy oil companies and their shady CEOs I wonder if Exxon/Mobile/BP/Shell/Citgo/Haliburton/Cheney etc have a profit margin of 18.4% Yup, everything is the government's fault! I wonder how much profit those oil companies would have made without the military protecting their interests in hostile areas of the world. BTW, this isn't about profits, its about dealing with a shortage of a resource. They should be raising the taxes on gas so people will use less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 High gas prices = Republicans are eeeevil Plan to lower gas prices = Republicans are eeeevil This public service message has been brought to you by molton_retard and whoever dropped him on his head when he was an infant. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Yup, everything is the government's fault! I wonder how much profit those oil companies would have made without the military protecting their interests in hostile areas of the world. BTW, this isn't about profits, its about dealing with a shortage of a resource. They should be raising the taxes on gas so people will use less. Good thing those evil oil companies are paying hundreds of billions in taxes, on top of what the government collects from each gallon. Exxon alone pays 110 billion dollars a year in taxes. That's just Exxon. I don't have the sheets for citgo, sunoco, shell, chevron. Can you honestly say you pay more in taxes than what you get back in service and support from the government? Please consider the infratrature (pipes, roads, library, schools, police, fire, military, etc....) There profit margins would be similar. Also, f the US government didn't protect them, and they didn't have to pay the hundreds of billions in taxes they probably could fund a very efficient and effective miltary force to protect their interests. At a much lower cost, all while taking hundreds of billions out of our governments pocket. You sure you really want to go down that road? Again, another subject that you choose to shout the dem line and not look at the whole picture, just the wonderful little soundbite to make Mccain, the repubs and the oil copanies sound evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Again, another subject that you choose to shout the dem line and not look at the whole picture, just the wonderful little soundbite to make Mccain, the repubs and the oil copanies sound evil. I certainly wouldn't use the word evil but stupid certainly comes to mind. They (read: politicians) just feign ignorance of economics and the inelastic nature of demand for goods such as cigarettes and gas which make them ripe targets for taxation. Certainly sounds great that McCain is attempting to help the revered common man, but this proposal makes no sense. We just don't have enough refining capacity to satisfy the demand surge that will be caused by this price shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I certainly wouldn't use the word evil but stupid certainly comes to mind. They (read: politicians) just feign ignorance of economics and the inelastic nature of demand for goods such as cigarettes and gas which make them ripe targets for taxation. Certainly sounds great that McCain is attempting to help the revered common man, but this proposal makes no sense. We just don't have enough refining capacity to satisfy the demand surge that will be caused by this price shock. If the demand is inelastic, why would lowering the price create a demand surge? In any event, the gas tax was never meant as a sin tax to curb global warming or pollution, was it? It's just a revenue producer. The economics of driving make sense no matter whether the .30 tax is in effect or not. It's not a matter of elastic demand until the price goes a lot higher. I'm taking a trip to Buffalo this summer from Philadelphia. I'm looking at a 14 hour car ride that will cost about $120 in gas. Compare that to 24 hours (total) in a train ride that costs about $600 (arriving sans car unless I rent for more $$). Compare that with a 9 hour (door to door) about $400 plane ride (same car issue). Tell me which one I'm doing? The tax and price doesn't even begin to figure into my decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 If the demand is inelastic, why would lowering the price create a demand surge? In any event, the gas tax was never meant as a sin tax to curb global warming or pollution, was it? It's just a revenue producer. The economics of driving make sense no matter whether the .30 tax is in effect or not. It's not a matter of elastic demand until the price goes a lot higher. I'm taking a trip to Buffalo this summer from Philadelphia. I'm looking at a 14 hour car ride that will cost about $120 in gas. Compare that to 24 hours (total) in a train ride that costs about $600 (arriving sans car unless I rent for more $$). Compare that with a 9 hour (door to door) about $400 plane ride (same car issue). Tell me which one I'm doing? The tax and price doesn't even begin to figure into my decision. So if you drive, you'll have an extra 30 bucks to spend on food, and in the local economies. Seems like it might help boost some local businesses. All at the expense of a highway upgrade being delayed a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 So if you drive, you'll have an extra 30 bucks to spend on food, and in the local economies. Seems like it might help boost some local businesses. All at the expense of a highway upgrade being delayed a year. Lest there be any confusion, I don't care about the federal gas tax being repealed or not. McCain is just giving America a Summer reach-around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Lest there be any confusion, I don't care about the federal gas tax being repealed or not. McCain is just giving America a Summer reach-around. Oh I agree, but a reach around, when we've been royally taking up the ass can help sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 A moratorium on war spending for a week, returning the money in equal shares to the taxpayers, would be much better. These morons have not yet figured out that stopping the flow of money coming IN to the government coffers is totally ineffective unless you also reduce the money going OUT. The taxpayer will just pay somewhere else and the candidate will be able to make a claim that mght turn into a good campaign slogan. You can't dog citizens who get in over their heads in debt for doing the same things their "leaders" are doing. (Well, I can and DO because if I can't pay for it, I don't buy it. But that's just me.) By the way I see oil is $115 a barrel. Does anyone remember what it was when the Chief Oil Executive took office? Somewhere in the 30's. Hmm. What's up with that do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 By the way I see oil is $115 a barrel. Does anyone remember what it was when the Chief Oil Executive took office? Somewhere in the 30's. Hmm. What's up with that do you think? Decreasing supply, increasing demand, and a weak dollar. Only the last of which can you even think of pinning on the president. Why is this concept so difficult for people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Decreasing supply, increasing demand, and a weak dollar. Only the last of which can you even think of pinning on the president. Why is this concept so difficult for people? Because everything wrong in the universe is Bush's fault. Get with the program! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Decreasing supply, increasing demand, and a weak dollar. Only the last of which can you even think of pinning on the president. Why is this concept so difficult for people? People are conditioned to assign blame. It is an easier way to operate and an easier way to assuage one's ego that they are standing on the "right" side of an issue. Assigning blame also circumvents the need for open and nuanced thought based in calm examination of the relevant information. Why look at the subtleties and undercurrents that permeate an issue when one can easily pick out one factor among many and assign that one factor with the majority or totality of responsibility for the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 A moratorium on war spending for a week, returning the money in equal shares to the taxpayers, would be much better.These morons have not yet figured out that stopping the flow of money coming IN to the government coffers is totally ineffective unless you also reduce the money going OUT. The taxpayer will just pay somewhere else and the candidate will be able to make a claim that mght turn into a good campaign slogan. You can't dog citizens who get in over their heads in debt for doing the same things their "leaders" are doing. (Well, I can and DO because if I can't pay for it, I don't buy it. But that's just me.) By the way I see oil is $115 a barrel. Does anyone remember what it was when the Chief Oil Executive took office? Somewhere in the 30's. Hmm. What's up with that do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 Decreasing supply, increasing demand, and a weak dollar. Only the last of which can you even think of pinning on the president. Why is this concept so difficult for people? Ya, the weak dollar has nothing to do Bushonomics, no nothing And I would imagine that an Al Gore administrtaion would have done much more to lessen our reliance on foreign oil thru conservation measures that would have been road blocked, denounced and declared communistic by the current president's political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 You realize that's about 2 billion? That would be about 6 dollars per person. take away the overhead and government corruption to process those checks and you might see a buck. Again you and blz and slapping each other on the back and coming up with stupid sh-- without considering the reality of the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Ya, the weak dollar has nothing to do Bushonomics, no nothing Only the last of which can you even think of pinning on the president. What part of that didn't you understand? And I would imagine that an Al Gore administrtaion would have done much more to lessen our reliance on foreign oil thru conservation measures that would have been road blocked, denounced and declared communistic by the current president's political party. Because the price of domestic oil is so much cheaper. Really...what the !@#$ does Gore have to do with the worldwide price of oil? Start making sense, fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Absolutely friggin right... Now that global warming is being debunked also, I gonna burn more... Couple that with cheaper gas prices... Ya baby... Lets burn! No guilt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Absolutely friggin right... Now that global warming is being debunked also, I gonna burn more... Couple that with cheaper gas prices... Ya baby... Lets burn! No guilt... By jove, you are right. I am also getting free money from the gubmint just in time for driving season. Perfect confluence of reasons to burn, baby, burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts