WE CAN DROP our Gas prices!!!

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2600571
Yeah, end the war, that will fix it. Iraq production drops due to insurgents, Iran tries to take over. The Arabs states move against Iran and you have all out war in the middle east. Your boy Bama might talk a good line of BS on the campaign trail but he has no intention of pulling troops from Iraq any time soon either. Too much risk involved. You doubt what I say go back and review what all the Democrat candidates were running on in 2006, ENDING THE WAR. If they really wanted to end it they would have went to the mat and not funded the war.
So the war is about oil? Are military is using a lot... this may reduce cost.
But look at gas...in the last week to two weeks it has gone up by $0.20., more than the proposed gas tax holiday. So this is not even a short term fix, or really any relief at all. That's 2 fill ups for me and a savings of maybe $6. But by not funding the war, you put american lives at risk... There already there now, cutting funding is not the right way to go about it... we have to keep them fully equipped until they come home... What's funny is that Republicans who are on board w/ this gas tax... its like you want a handout from the gov't... a thing that you accuse democrats of... This is not going to solve anything, but make gas go up more... and give oil more profits to fill in the gap... Also, if this were to happen this summer, do you think the taxation on the oil companies would go along with it? The answer is no... so don't buy that line that we are going to tax oil on their profits to make up for the deficit this would create.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600679
What's funny is that Republicans who are on board w/ this gas tax... its like you want a handout from the gov't... a thing that you accuse democrats of... This is not going to solve anything, but make gas go up more... and give oil more profits to fill in the gap... Also, if this were to happen this summer, do you think the taxation on the oil companies would go along with it? The answer is no... so don't buy that line that we are going to tax oil on their profits to make up for the deficit this would create.

How can it be a hand out from the government if it was always in my pocket to begin with? Money that I earned. And have to give up. When I buy a gallon of gas. A tax break is not a government handout. It is them not dipping their fingers into my wallet. Heck with taxing oil companies more that is just assinine. The government should learn to do with less, god forbid that happen.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2600552
It is far more feasable to just drill for MORE OF IT!
I mean, either lower demand. (which is not at this point possible with the currently avaliable technology) or drill for more of it. This on the other hand is possible. We don't really need to find more domestic oil, we are sitting on billions of barrels of the stuff and liberals won't let us drill! Why try the impossible like lowering demand for oil (when most of the increase of demand is overseas anyway) when the sames results are avalible when we drill a hole in the ground here at home we know how to do that)
There are major deposits off the florida keys that the chicoms are starting to drill (they just hammered out the deal with cuba) there is stuff up and down both coasts, Alaska, and in North Dakota. It is just sitting there.
And why in the world would should I do without, and the government NOT? Seriously? Come on are you serious, more bridges might collapse! (talk about politics of fear) Oh I ment hope.
More will if they don't get the repairs they need, its something you can't neglect.. And I agree the easist thing would be to drill more. I would limit, but open up areas. But we do have to move off this stuff and be innovative like we once were. Conservation of nature is also important..
So as I said if we want to lower it on our own, we are going to have to give up on some of the things we love, or enjoy them in moderation. Otherwise, we are going to have to wait on car manufactures, gov't, and oil companies.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2600688
How can it be a hand out from the government if it was always in my pocket to begin with? Money that I earned. And have to give up. When I buy a gallon of gas. A tax break is not a government handout. It is them not dipping their fingers into my wallet. Heck with taxing oil companies more that is just assinine. The government should learn to do with less, god forbid that happen.
Its the American way...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600679
So the war is about oil? Are military is using a lot... this may reduce cost.
But look at gas...in the last week to two weeks it has gone up by $0.20., more than the proposed gas tax holiday. So this is not even a short term fix, or really any relief at all. That's 2 fill ups for me and a savings of maybe $6. But by not funding the war, you put american lives at risk... There already there now, cutting funding is not the right way to go about it... we have to keep them fully equipped until they come home... What's funny is that Republicans who are on board w/ this gas tax... its like you want a handout from the gov't... a thing that you accuse democrats of... This is not going to solve anything, but make gas go up more... and give oil more profits to fill in the gap... Also, if this were to happen this summer, do you think the taxation on the oil companies would go along with it? The answer is no... so don't buy that line that we are going to tax oil on their profits to make up for the deficit this would create.
The reason the middle east is a matter of United States national security is oil. The war isn't directly about oil but because of the oil there it makes stability in the region a matter of US interest.
The gas tax holiday fixes nothing long term. What it will do is help with tourist season and the trucking industry. The notion that any planned highway projects will somehow go unfunded because of this is a joke.
You are so concerned about deficits then you should be supporting John McCain. He is the only candidate other than Ron Paul with A DEMONSTRATED RECORD of fighting for spending restraint. What has Obama or Hillary suggested as far as planned spending cuts? All they want to do is raise taxes and create more layers of government.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600692
More will if they don't get the repairs they need, its something you can't neglect.. And I agree the easist thing would be to drill more. I would limit, but open up areas. But we do have to move off this stuff and be innovative like we once were. Conservation of nature is also important..
So as I said if we want to lower it on our own, we are going to have to give up on some of the things we love, or enjoy them in moderation. Otherwise, we are going to have to wait on car manufactures, gov't, and oil companies.
Bridges are going to fall if you cut taxes!
Please, if that isn't screaming impending doom then I don't know what is.
Why would I give something I love? What is the benefit?
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600698
Its the American way...
It is what you are arguing for, the government not having to cut back, while I put 46 dollars of gas in my honda! When I first got a honda it was about 15 dollars to fill up my honda.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2600711
The reason the middle east is a matter of United States national security is oil. The war isn't directly about oil but because of the oil there it makes stability in the region a matter of US interest.
The gas tax holiday fixes nothing long term. What it will do is help with tourist season and the trucking industry. The notion that any planned highway projects will somehow go unfunded because of this is a joke.
You are so concerned about deficits then you should be supporting John McCain. He is the only candidate other than Ron Paul with A DEMONSTRATED RECORD of fighting for spending restraint. What has Obama or Hillary suggested as far as planned spending cuts? All they want to do is raise taxes and create more layers of government.
Well we sure did destablize it...
But 100% of this tax goes to the funding of highway projects... So what this would do is either cut this fund, or create deficits in other areas.. So where should the funding come from... tax dollars are going to come from your pocket one way or another.. I do believe our budget needs to be streamlined, but record has shown that democrates do this, while republicans don't in office. Dems manage budgets better than republicans... and Obama's plan raises taxes on only 2% of Americans while maintaining or giving additional cuts to everyone else.
All economists say this gas tax is not a good idea.... Don't you want a President who listens to conventional wisdom, especially in an area that he has expressed he knows little about?

 

[aquaknight]

I'm not too sure I follow either. Gas tax is one that actually makes sense. The more you drive, the more tax is taken in from gas collections, the more the roads are worn and needed repair/updated. As stated, if you want decent roads, the money has to come from somewhere. I would greatly prefer being taxed 8% at each fill up, then say 8% of my income.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600825
Well we sure did destablize it...
But 100% of this tax goes to the funding of highway projects... So what this would do is either cut this fund, or create deficits in other areas.. So where should the funding come from... tax dollars are going to come from your pocket one way or another.. I do believe our budget needs to be streamlined, but record has shown that democrates do this, while republicans don't in office. Dems manage budgets better than republicans... and Obama's plan raises taxes on only 2% of Americans while maintaining or giving additional cuts to everyone else.
All economists say this gas tax is not a good idea.... Don't you want a President who listens to conventional wisdom, especially in an area that he has expressed he knows little about?
Funny I was talking to some of my friends who are actually economists and they LIKE the idea of a gas tax. I guess that is like Al Gores Global Warming Consensus.
And records do NOT show democrats have handled the budget better than republicans. It is a vast oversimplication and based on external factors which Clinton had no control of. And frankly misleading to insinuate that voting for either one of the democrat candidates (and probably the quazi-dem running at a republican) will be fiscally responsible.
Only raising taxes on 2% of Americans is simply wrong, Obama would let the bush tax cuts expire and that is raising taxes on almost EVERY american.

 

[mgatdog]

I'm not too sure I follow either. Gas tax is one that actually makes sense. The more you drive, the more tax is taken in from gas collections,
I wish the RICH would have to do the same thing. Oh no I forgot Bush's tax cut for the wealthy. Its suppose to put money back into our country, jobs and business and he wants the tax break voted in before leaving office.Hey I say if it didn't work in 8 yrs of office. Time for change. Also his staff on the drilling in US said it would take 10 yrs before it hit the market and the people would only save 1 cent on the gal. Weh I'm going to be rich

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600424
There is a flaw in your thinking because the gas tax is a fair tax.
Yeah, we while we are going around flat taxing people, get rid of the regressive tax system and lets go to a flat tax based on consumption. After all it is fair.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2600868
Yeah, we while we are going around flat taxing people, get rid of the regressive tax system and lets go to a flat tax based on consumption. After all it is fair.
I figured you'd say that...

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2600834
I'm not too sure I follow either. Gas tax is one that actually makes sense. The more you drive, the more tax is taken in from gas collections,
I wish the RICH would have to do the same thing. Oh no I forgot Bush's tax cut for the wealthy. Its suppose to put money back into our country, jobs and business and he wants the tax break voted in before leaving office.Hey I say if it didn't work in 8 yrs of office. Time for change. Also his staff on the drilling in US said it would take 10 yrs before it hit the market and the people would only save 1 cent on the gal. Weh I'm going to be rich

thats all? I wonder if that is accurate... if so...then we need to start growing herb for ethanol.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2600868
Yeah, we while we are going around flat taxing people, get rid of the regressive tax system and lets go to a flat tax based on consumption. After all it is fair.
Don't forget, after all, driving is a priviledge, a luxury item.

 

[mgatdog]

Info came from CNN and FOX news channels .We know they never lie!!!!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2600834
I'm not too sure I follow either. Gas tax is one that actually makes sense. The more you drive, the more tax is taken in from gas collections,
I wish the RICH would have to do the same thing. Oh no I forgot Bush's tax cut for the wealthy. Its suppose to put money back into our country, jobs and business and he wants the tax break voted in before leaving office.Hey I say if it didn't work in 8 yrs of office. Time for change. Also his staff on the drilling in US said it would take 10 yrs before it hit the market and the people would only save 1 cent on the gal. Weh I'm going to be rich

That one cent number can't possibly be right. And even if it does take ten years, (which isn't entirely accurate, I'm working on a project that took 3 from discovery to first oil) at least we are doing something that really will help. Imagine if clinton hadn't vetoed a bill allowing for drilling 12 years ago. Where would we be now? Bush's tax cuts, aren't just for the rich. That is just plain incorrect. And simply put during Bush's term we have seen some of the best economic numbers in our history.

 

[bang guy]

The tax cuts were for the rich. The soundbite news would have you believe that. The truth is that the democrats define anyone that makes enough money to have to pay a big chunk of their income in taxes as rich. If that's the definition then yes, the tax cuts were for the people that actually pay the taxes. The people that don't pay much in taxes are miffed because they don't get a kickback. A tax break for people that don't pay taxes doesn't really make sense does it?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2600825
Well we sure did destablize it...
But 100% of this tax goes to the funding of highway projects... So what this would do is either cut this fund, or create deficits in other areas.. So where should the funding come from... tax dollars are going to come from your pocket one way or another.. I do believe our budget needs to be streamlined, but record has shown that democrates do this, while republicans don't in office. Dems manage budgets better than republicans... and Obama's plan raises taxes on only 2% of Americans while maintaining or giving additional cuts to everyone else.
All economists say this gas tax is not a good idea.... Don't you want a President who listens to conventional wisdom, especially in an area that he has expressed he knows little about?

"All Economists" I don't think so Tim

This isn't going to affect highway projects (assuming it somehow went through)any more than the Democrats scheme to bail out the

[hr]
lenders (assuming Bush folds and doesn't veto it)
I like the fact McCain would admit he isn't an economist, neither is any other candidate in the race. He was the Chairman of the Senate finance committee, what is Obo's financial experience other than getting a sweetheart land deal from his pal Rezko?

 

[mgatdog]

Originally Posted by mgatdog
http:///forum/post/2600864
That one cent number can't possibly be right. And even if it does take ten years, (which isn't entirely accurate, I'm working on a project that took 3 from discovery to first oil) at least we are doing something that really will help. Imagine if clinton hadn't vetoed a bill allowing for drilling 12 years ago. Where would we be now? Bush's tax cuts, aren't just for the rich. That is just plain incorrect. And simply put during Bush's term we have seen some of the best economic numbers in our history.
Hey cnn said after Bush's speech last week on keeping the tax's cuts in place and congress open up the fields in Alaska for drilling and not depend on foreign oil.It would make a difference on price. Then the next reporter said that Bush's panel did the study. It would take 10 yrs by time,cost and what else for it to make to the consumer.

MAYBE THE PANEL GOT BUSH'S FUZZY MATH BOOK TO DO THERE WORK.

 

[reefraff]

Oil is traded on a FUTURES market. Just opening up ANWAR isn't going to drop the price but showing a willingness to allow known reserves like ANWAR, California and Florida coasts, Rocky Mountain front etc. to be brought into production would lower prices in the near term. The coastal fields could be brought into production pretty quick.