John McCain’s proposal for a three-month summer federal gas-tax holiday might be a good way to get votes, but it’s lousy transportation and energy policy. A Wired blog points out that suspending the federal 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax would save the average motorist about $28. But the plan would cost the government $9 billion in lost highway funds and put at risk an estimated 300,000 jobs tied to the funding, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
This at a time when the Highway Trust Fund, which bankrolls local and state road and bridge projects, is already facing a $3.4 billion deficit.
A McCain spokesman said he would borrow from the general fund to make up the shortfall, but doing that would just add to the federal deficit.
Plus, as energy experts point out, the next president should be encouraging gasoline conservation, not more consumption and carbon emissions.
73 Comments
Get real McCain,the price at the pump would go down 18 cents ONLY to be raised 20 cents by the oil companies within a few weeks. What you might want to look into is this oil speculation where you can sell oil you don’t even own.
In the early ’70’s, Nixon and Congress imposed a price freeze and a Windfall Profits Tax to prevent oil companies from jacking up the cost of gasoline.
Under WORST PRESIDENT EVER, oil companies are tranfering wealth from the poor to the rich at an astonishing rate.
Now MCCain’s plan is more of the same. Without price controls it won’t matter if the government suspends the gas tax.
The oil companies will continue to raise prices and negate any savings.
within a few week = the next day
Ever since I had Congressman Tiahrt explain the “tax cut” and why afterwards I ended up paying instead of seeing a refund. I have found it tragically laughable the “Washington math”, Taking money out of my left pants pocket instead of my right. And then saying it is saving me money! I wish I could handle my finances that way. “Let see I have two hundred dollars in checking and five hundred in saving. So if I use the money in savings to pay the bills instead of from checking. I will have TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS IN CHECKING! OMG I will be better off and have more money totally!”.
I only see this being commented on because it was done by a Republican, if Dem Libs Obama or Hillary had done so, if probably would have been praised. In the end the markets will take care of gas prices. It is the politicians fault and the envaros that crude prices are so high. Can’t drill here or there where can you go but overseas.
George, your reasoning has been proven to be faulty time and again.
Even Bush (worst President ever) said that oil companies could drill given the incentive of the prices a few months ago.
Too bad you can’t admit that you are wrong and help this country instead of standing against.
“george” blithers –
“I only see this being commented on because it was done by a Republican…”
No. This is being commented on because it’s a stupid idea.
bush doesn’t know how to sell an occupation.
Neither does old John McCain.
We have lost more than 4,000 troops and half a trillion dollars occupying Iraq.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on the planet and we “own” it.
Gas SHOULD be about 57 cents a gallon.
Oh but that would cut into the oil companies record profits wouldn’t it?
I noticed that Quik Trips had some of their gas pumps covered yesterday. I suppose we will find out next that there is a gas “shortage”.
By the way…has anyone seen a McCain bumper sticker at all in Wichita?
WORST PRESIDENT EVER + OLDEST CANDIDATE EVER = MASSIVE Republican defeats this year.
Did you see the figures on how much gas is being used by our troops in Iraq?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23922063/
We’re paying those costs in addition to that usage adding to the fuel shortages and increased costs. Vicious circle the idiot in charge has caused.
McCain wants to take the path began by bushco and make it worse.
We don’t need cheaper gas, we need alternate forms of energy. Reducing the price of gas short term does nothing to solve the underlying problem.
Many problems could be solved if we weren’t so dependant on fossil fuels.
McCain could be known as WORSTEST PRESIDENT EVER except that he won’t be elected (but then George wasn’t elected at first either.)
I agree Mary. They’ve got the technology, and I’m sure the energy companies are doing everything they can to stifle growth of energy.
I’d like to put a windmill up on my house- but good luck.
Translation from the left:
Liberals LIKE high gasoline prices!
Policies like this prove McCain is an idiot. How does he plan on paying for the shortfall? By borrowing money and paying interest on it eventually costing the taxpayers more. McCain can’t think ahead. What’s good for today isn’t always good for tomorrow.
“Translation from the left:
Liberals LIKE high gasoline prices!”
Translation from the right:
Conservatives love pot holes.
Liberals like being able to buy food and not waste an entire paycheck on gasoline.
“Americans this summer paid 38 percent less for a gallon of fuel than they had 19 years ago. Gore called for a “thorough and hard-hitting” investigation of what he suspected was “big oil’s price gouging.”
This was when Gore was campaigning for $5 fuel costs. Well he has almost got that wish but where are we?
“26-Sep-00 —
Just when you thought you might get a break from the tiresome politicking about oil prices in this election year, here come the presidential candidates again sparring over the high cost of fuel and proposing dubious remedies”.
If this looks familiar it could be because even though the dates have changed this prez election is the same as always. Read the entire piece by the Brooking Institute. As long as we set back and don’t drill for our own fuel then we deserve the misery we are getting. Even new technology won’t help us next week or next month or even next year. How many here will be able to junk what they are driving and get a new ecofriendly vehicle. Get real!
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0926elections_nivola.aspx
Thing is, the fuel tax is precisely designed, imposed, and collected exactly the way all but the most whacked-out wingnuts (who want no taxes at all) would write the law.
Fuel taxes directly fund highway building and maintenance. The more you use the highway, the more you pay for highways.
Meanwhile, our infrastructure is deteriorating and ignored. On July 31, 2007, the I35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneaoplis was considered one of the safest bridges in the Twin Cities. It still is rated as one of the safest.
So, to save you an average $28 in federal gas tax between Memorial and Labor Day, let’s put off inspecting and repairing bridges and highways and overpasses.
Pmom that sounds great but what exactly are the libs doing that will make your gas and groceries less costly?
“This was when Gore was campaigning for $5 fuel costs”
I must have missed that campaign – when was it again?
On May 13, 2000 that strong conservative Senator from California gave this speech. It was a warning of thinks to come and couldn’t have been more prophetic.
——————————-
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today offered an amendment to the Senate Energy bill that would give States the ability to choose whether they participate in a program to encourage the use of ethanol in gasoline.
Under the provisions currently contained in the energy bill, the United States would be required to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2012. This mandate could cause shortages and higher prices for gasoline in California, New York and other states.
In a speech given on the Senate Floor, Senator Feinstein discussed her amendment and described why she opposes the ethanol mandate. The following is the prepared text of Senator Feinstein’s statement:
“Mr. President, this year we saw retail gasoline prices across the United States rise at a pace not seen since the 1991 Gulf War. Average U.S. retail prices rose from $1.44 to $1.73 per gallon over the first ten weeks of this year. At the same time, California gasoline prices rose even more precipitously, from $1.58 a gallon on January 1st, to a record setting $2.15 a gallon on March 17th. On a recent weekend when I was home in San Francisco I paid $50 for a tank of gasoline and it wasn’t premium.
The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the ethanol mandate in the energy bill will divert approximately $7 billion away from the Highway Trust Fund. Now if the Energy Tax bill is passed into law this money will no longer come from the Highway Trust Fund – instead it will come from the General Fund and be paid for by taxpayers. This future $7 billion payout is on top of the $11 billion in gas tax revenue that has already been lost by giving ethanol a partial exemption from the fuel tax.
http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/03Releases/r-ethanol03.htm
——————————
In our rush to be eco friendly with little or no study on what the long range ramifications would be we find ourselves 8 years later paying much higher food bills because of the grain shortage caused in no small part by the production of ethanol as well as higher fuel bills because we didn’t start looking for alternate fuel supplys and allowed ourselves to be held hostage by OPEC who are now driving our economy down. This doesn’t even take into account the water shortages we are facing because of this policy.
In this election year we need to ask the hard questions. Look at each candidate and see how they propose to remedy this. Don’t accept the easy answers. Hold each answer up to the light of resonability.
Party allegiance needs to be relegated to the back of the line.
“ksgrm” asked –
“…what exactly are the libs doing that will make your gas and groceries less costly?”
Fair question.
There are macro answers and micro answers.
The macro answer is we’ve got to get over our addiction to oil. (Those aren’t my words, they’re from George WMD Bush himself in the State of the Union Address.)
The only reason gasoline became a fuel for individual motor cars in the 1900s was because it was cheap. It ain’t cheap anymore.
So we “libs” (as you sneeringly call us) suggested back in the 1970s that government promote alternate sources of energy and new techologies for conservation. But the Republic Party was in power and passed tax breaks for people who bought gas-guzzling SUVs.
Hummers — they’re not just for airport men’s rooms anymore!
Kansas could become the Saudi Arabia of wind power if America would have continued the alternative energy and conservation programs established by “libs” in the 1970s.
On a micro level, walking to the corner store instead of driving to it is a fairly common “lib” idea. Better for ya, too.
We “libs” have been trying to tell people that corn-based ethanol is a misguided approach to alternative fuels. But it’s hard for me to call that a “lib” idea since the oldest, first-est rule of civilization is “don’t eat your seed corn.”
Wheaties and Wonder Bread and pizza cost more now that millions of acres are dedicated to an inferior fuel technology instead of food. It isn’t the “libs’” fault. Look how wheat and corn farmers tend to vote.
WS a campaign doesn’t always mean you are seeking office. It can mean, as it did in Gore’s case when he wrote his first book and said when we paid $5 a gallon for gasoline fewer people would be driving cars, that he is trying to set policy.
MH I very rarely base my opinions on what libs or cons think and didn’t realize that you were ’sneering’ when you called me a con. If you read my previous post about Feinsteins speech you will probably see that I think we dropped the ball years ago.
As for rebates – I didnt realize those were party based but if that is the case I got my rebate in 2007 for buying a Prius. Guess that was because GWB was the prez?
As long as the American public keeps throwing zingers at each other we won’t solve any problems.
I agree we need to reduce our need for fossil fuels but that won’t happen over night. In the meantime what do we in the midwest do for transportation. We don’t have the benefits of a mass transit system. We still have to go miles each day to live our regular lifes. What do you libs (not sneering) propose to do today? What will your candidate do? I really want to know. We share the same globe and what happens to me happens to you. The solution has to be for both parties.
Bad idea McCain.
Let’s not start off, “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
KSgrm, you beat me to it. In the old days, Cosmos would have been all over this one in support, to conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help stop Global Warming!
And if we walked more, we’d be healthier, and obesity related diseases like cancer, heart disease, strokes would be diminished.
Solving Global Warming and Obesity at the same time!
Gore and the Global Alarmists have gas prices exactly where they want them. In fact, if they had their way, the gas tax would be INCREASED!They have what they asked for.
So Libs, quit complaining!
Why do you neocons think it’s the liberal position to put billions of dollars into the coffers of Exxon? Last time I checked it was the oil companies enriching the Republicans with millions in campaign donations and opposing environmental efforts to limit oil consumption.
Actually the Libs are FOR conservation as long as SOMEBODY ELSE pays for it.
They don’t like paying higher gasoline, electric, natural gas, propane, or food prices. Go figure.
No need to drill for oil in Anwar or on the US shorlines.
The Libs should vote themselves some sort of Socialist tax rebate for the POOR so they can pay for the higher costs of energy without having to make any sacrifice themselves. The POOR Libs don’t need to be ones conserving energy or paying the price for conservation.
The RICH should be the ones made to pay more!
And I see Max the rabid anti-socialist is still in favor of borrowing trillions from the communist Chinese. :)
But, to get back to the subject, may we assume, Max, that you see pitted hightways and crumbling bridges as not the business of government?
If not, how do make up for the lost revenue? Yes, I realize types like you only look at the spending side of the ledger (no way to run a business!), but even something so unlike business as government requires funding to function in the real world.
Max, nobody is paying for my conservation efforts. Are you offering to pay my $12 electric bill? Or perhaps you’ll pay my monthly gasoline bill of $25? That’s the thing about conservation, it costs less, so why are you conservatives so eager to pay more?
Rage, if we spent 100% of the gasoline tax revenues on the highways and bridges, there would not be a pothole in the entire country.
According to the Heritage Foundation, of the $41 billion authorized in early versions of the bill, only $23 billion is allocated toward constructing, repairing or improving general purpose roads.
The rest of the money is diverted into mass transit, bicycle trails, and other unrelated projects.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/415.asp
For those who can’t get enough taxes:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22669.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp56%20final.pdf
Nice misdirection, Max.
Okay, let’s leave aside things like the relationship between alternative transit and road surface maintenace. Let’s also presume the Heritage Foundation’s $23 billion figurte is dead-on correct.
Same question, Max: crumbling roads, or make up for the lost money. What do you do, and how do you do it?
. . .or are you content to keep to borrowing money from communists to run your government, like to good socialist you are?! :)
Federal Gas Tax by Year:
YEAR TAX
1932 ………….. $0.010
1933 ………….. $0.015
1934 ………….. $0.010
1940 ………….. $0.015
1950 ………….. $0.020
1956 ………….. $0.030
1959 ………….. $0.040
1983 ………….. $0.090
1987 ………….. $0.091
1990 ………….. $0.090
1990 ………….. $0.141
1993 ………….. $0.184
1995 ………….. $0.184
1996 ………….. $0.183
1997 ………….. $0.184
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm
Same question, Max: crumbling roads, or make up for the lost money. What do you do, and how do you do it?
Max the Socialist answers:
Federal Gas Tax by Year:
. . etc. . . .
So I guess that means we should eliminate the gas tax entirely, and borrow more money from the communist Chinese.
Well done, comrade!
P.S. By the way, in the 1940s, the minimum wage was .40 an hour.
I’ll leave it to those who have functioning brains to grasp the relevance of that observation. :)
#
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
P.S. By the way, in the 1940s, the minimum wage was .40 an hour.
I’ll leave it to those who have functioning brains to grasp the relevance of that observation. :)
———————-
Is that like “pancake” logic, instead of using tried and true techniques, you just look at the pancake then flip it over.
Or, one can use observation powers and notice when the small air pockets around the rim of the pancake stop forming and began to crust up, then flip it over.
Or, do you go by smell and when you get that burned smell, you flip it over.
What does my pancake analogy have to do with your 1940s minimum wage analogy.
Absolutely nothing.
What does your 1940 minimum wage analogy have to do with “functioning brains?”
Absolutely nothing.
Try again, you are leaving out an important component, it’s called effective communication.
Calling people idiots while at the same time leaving out the processes at which you arrived at your conclusions indicates a failure on your part to communicate effectively.
Hmm corn used for ethanol is the reason for the rise in food costs.Seems more like inflation due to loose monetary policy.Oil prices are rising due to a weak dollar not ethanol.Some say peak oil has something to due with it.
Is that like “pancake” logic, instead of using tried and true techniques, you just look at the pancake then flip it over.
Heh, okay, fair enough. I didn’t want to get off track on discussing the history of the gas tax (as it was a way of evading the real issues), so I dropped an oblique hint. It’s possible one might not make the connection between my post and Max’s post, or grasp that inflation was the key.
Let’s get this over with.
Roughly, .0010 in 1932 dollars = .0100 in 1997 dollars. This means that, adjusted for inflation, the gas tax didn’t quite double during that period.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
U.S. population was at about 120 million in 1930 and rose to about 260 million in 1990, more than doubling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
Obviously, the size of the U.S. highway system increased dramatically during this period as well.
http://www.us-highways.com/
So it’s quite understandable that the gas tax might double.
But none of this explains how we make up for the lost revenue if we suspend the gas tax.
But none of this explains how we make up for the lost revenue if we suspend the gas tax.
Of course, it doesn’t. Because you failed to cite revenue production from gas taxes.
I believe McCain’s proposal is wrong.
You still haven’t provided any meat on the bones for your conclusions.
Sounds like Rage made a Ballistic reentry today. Awful G forces weighing down your brain?
As for the nasty oil companies making money for obtaining the oil, gas, and gasoline that we use, I suppose y’all could go out and drill your own.
Regulating the oil companies into bankruptcy will only serve to dry up the energy supply, and then your prices will truly soar!
Many here cry about:
1. High gas prices.
How much do you expect to pay? Do you think alternative energy will be cheaper?
2. Dropping the gas tax for the summer.
Ok, don’t drop it. Then keep complaining about higher gas prices.
If we used 100% of the gas tax on maintaining our highways and bridges, we wouldn’t need to raise the gas tax.
“Peak Oil” is a bogus theory.
We have a great deal of oil left in this world.
Even if we were “running out of oil” — at some future date, we aren’t at all close to that date, today.
The United States gets most of its oil from:
The United States
Canada
Mexico
Yes, Opec is a factor.
The biggest factor in price, right now, is exploding demand in the “3rd world” countries.
America should produce more domestic oil.
And, Annie, Ethanol IS to blame for higher food prices.
I think you will find wide-spread disgust towards the Ethanol subsidies by liberals and conservatives, alike, on this Blog.
Of course, it doesn’t. Because you failed to cite revenue production from gas taxes.
??? What, you mean, like increased productivity from repaired highways or something? I was proceeding from conservative assumptions, i.e., that gas taxes are used for improvements in transit, and that lacking that money produces a circumstance wherein something else must be done: either discontinue planned repairs, and or find the money elsewhere.
Looking the other direction, whatever consumer savings produced at the gas pump are more likely to go into other areas of the economy (e.g. grocery spending, prescriptions), , none of which will go direct to government revenues and is unlikely to even indirectly replace the lost funds.
The economy may be complicated, but government spending is not: when the money’s gone, the money’s gone, and it takes considerable effort to replace it. McCain, of course, has not even suggested doing so.
Just saw diesel fuel at 4.19 p.g. How in the world can truckers stay in bus.?
Well Franklin, it should be obvious, but since it isn’t,
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Interesting Times for Saudi Oil Production
Two interesting developments in Saudi Arabia this week. First, sources tell us that their oil production has decreased from9.2 million barrels per day to 9.0 million barrels per day. Second, and more interesting, the Saudi king is now publicly stating that they are delaying the development of some new oil finds because “our children need it.”
While this may seem fairly innocuous, a bit of analysis leads to some very interesting possible motivations.
Let’s look first at the decrease in oil production. A 200,000 bpd decline is pretty significant. The source quoted by Gulf Daily News claims that this decline in production “reflects the demand from our customers.” Well, maybe at $110/barrel. But compare this to President Bush’s recent request to the Saudi king to ease prices by increasing demand. It’s a bit disingenuous to say that you’re pumping 200k bpd less because that reflects demand at $110+/barrel, when putting an additional 200k barrels on the market each day would invariably decrease prices and increase that demand. If they offered those 200k barrels each day at $80/barrel, I’m pretty sure there would be buyers! So it seems apparent, at least to me, that IF the Saudis are voluntarily cutting back production, it is because they want to increase prices, or at least they want to keep prices at present levels, not because they can’t find buyers.
Annie anyone who looks at the cost of corn and other grain crops today compared to a year ago and doesn’t see a relationship between this and high food costs – well some people just never get it.
#
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
Of course, it doesn’t. Because you failed to cite revenue production from gas taxes.
The economy may be complicated, but government spending is not: when the money’s gone, the money’s gone, and it takes considerable effort to replace it. McCain, of course, has not even suggested doing so.
—————————————-
Now you’re getting it.
Before you were drawing a conclusion without establishing a preceding premise.
Rage,
When ReguLIAR doesn’t get your math, that’s how you know you’re right.
Several years ago, within the last eight I believe, maybe a little more, I bought gas for $0.69 in Oklahoma City, I believe it was around $0.75 to 0.80 here. Incredible! Being in sales I loved it.
I had a friend who was a petroleum geologist and he was desperate. He couldn’t make a living with an advance degree in petrogeology exploration and had to leave the city and state to find other work.
I don’t remember anybody feeling sorry for him, or that the petroleum companies and refineries couldn’t make a decent profit then.
The petroleum companies are not making ‘PROFIT MARGINS in excess of other large companies, but they are dealing in very large dollar amounts.
Sure I want lower fuel prices, high ones will negatively effect everything, and I make a living putting on approx. 35,000+ miles/yr. in sales, but I don’t hate the companies providing it.
I buy their stock. ;)
““Peak Oil” is a bogus theory.
We have a great deal of oil left in this world.
Even if we were “running out of oil” — at some future date, we aren’t at all close to that date, today.”
Flat out wrong.
*”Franklin is the poster formerly known as Paul F Rosell. He has elsewhere posted that the world will be using fossil fuels “forever”.
“America should produce more domestic oil.”
Irrelevant. The US has almost no appreciable oil reserves. The oil currently recovered in Alaska is largely shipped to Japan. This would be true of any new oil produced there as well.
“The RICH should be the ones made to pay more!”
I could not agree more “Max”!
Just why would I or ANYONE be against that?
Retail grocery stores have a captive market, yet I don’t hear anyone lamenting that their 1% profit margin should be comparabe to say any other retailer of manufactured goods.
You petroleum industry sympathizers would be crying the loudest if your groceries had a 10% profit margin!
(With the increasing price of commodities the producers are going to get theirs, so why shouldn’t retailers have a decent return relative to the cost of goods sold?)
And it takes how many Billions of Dollars to explore for new oil and gas?
How much does it take to put up a new grocery store?
Saw on the news today a story about drilling for gas in PA.
One company is investing $100 million to drill there. They expect they MIGHT find $1 billion in gas. Or it could be a dry hole.
A $1 Billion return for a $100 Million investment.
That is a 10% ROI.
How many risky investments do you make that MIGHT bring you a 10% ROI?
Many companies in many industries expect a 15 – 20% ROI or their stock falls, and the company is sold off.
You seriously think oil has more than quadripled over the last 7 yrs. because of some dynamic increase in oil exploration?
Get Real.
for the dynamic dou, grim and franklin
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/292
Food aid agencies are feeling the pinch, too; last week, Josette Sheeran, the head of the United Nations’ World Food Program, reported that global food reserves were at their lowest level in 30 years and the agency faces a $500 million shortfall in 2008.
Some of this inflation can be attributed to short-term production shortfalls. But many of factors driving food price increases are more lasting, and their effects are likely to be felt for several years at least. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, identified the following root causes for food price inflation in 2007:
Agricultural subsidies in developed countries that make more efficient production in developing countries unprofitable;
Decreases in food stocks;
Rising fuel prices;
Increased demand for some products, such as meat, particularly in rapidly emerging markets such as China and India;
Growth in biofuels production (see figure 2 below); and
Speculation in agricultural commodity markets.
Global population increases and climate change are also contributing to rising prices. The global population is expected to exceed 9 billion within the next 50 years, and simultaneously the impacts of climate change are predicted to reduce agricultural productivity by as much as 50% in some parts of the world, most notably sub-Saharan Africa.
Are the conservatives bitter because without the socialist highway program we wouldn’t have any interstate highways? Let the conservatives have their way and we’d be lucky to have dirt roads.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted April 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
Are the conservatives bitter because without the socialist highway program we wouldn’t have any interstate highways? Let the conservatives have their way and we’d be lucky to have dirt roads.
————————-
Wasn’t it Eisenhower that pushed the national Interstate system? :D
Reg, one can argue, flatulently, as to how “conservative” Ike was by 1950’s standards (not much, actually–why did he need Nixon?), but that’s beside the point.
IMHO, Doug is talking about what counts for conservative now .
#
Rage
Posted April 20, 2008 at 11:39 pm | Permalink
Reg, one can argue, flatulently, as to how “conservative” Ike was by 1950’s standards (not much, actually–why did he need Nixon?), but that’s beside the point.
IMHO, Doug is talking about what counts for conservative now .
————————
Ummm, lay off the high blend Rage.
I know what he meant, I meant and what Eisenhower stood for and did.
nuff said…
Doug can stand on his own hind legs, besides we are kinfolk. :D
The windfall profits a tax was a tax on petroleum at the well head. No effect on the price of fuel. At best it offset the Federal government’s extra costs caused by rising energy costs. Fuels are a commodity, the price is set in part by the speculators, sure the price of fuel can rise to the point it renders the “holiday” moot, but hey can also rise anyway. The “liberals” like high gas prices, what’s the logic behind that one? Not that I don’t recognize what the proposed holiday for what it is, election year political maneuvering. Democrats will be forced to vote for it and it can only benefit McCain come November
“Wasn’t it Eisenhower that pushed the national Interstate system?”
Yup, and he’d be denounced as a socialist by folks like Paul and Max.
Dear Nazi,
What Phantom said. As for the poor oil companies and their risky ventures, cry me a river.
Interesting comments I read this morning. Guess oil just needs to find its ‘real price’ (whatever the market will bear).
“Abdullah el al-Badri, secretary-general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said Sunday that oil prices would likely go higher and that the group was ready to raise production if the price pressure was due to a shortage of supply — something he doubted.
“Oil prices, there is a common understanding that has nothing to do with supply and demand,” al-Badri said on the sidelines of an energy conference in Rome.
Also over the weekend, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted Saturday as saying crude oil prices at $115 a barrel are too low, and that oil must “discover its real value.”
Actually, highways are within the proper role of the government. This is not a socialist program.
Highways benefit EVERYONE, and are located on public land. Everyone here benefits from the highways. Everyone who buys gas, license fees, registration fees, tolls, etc.. pays for the highways.
Socialist programs rob from one group to give to another group. One group pays for another group. That is, one group gets benefits and the other does not. And one group pays, and the other does not. One groups hoards their Socialist benefits as their private property, for their private use. The other group gets up everyday and goes to work, and pays their taxes. The other group, does not.
You Socialists are full of gimme, gimme, gimme. Do not attempt to confuse your greed by warping the definition of Socialism, because you will fail. But then, you Socialists are used to failing.
CF2K
Posted April 21, 2008 at 7:41 am | Permalink
Dear Nazi,
What Phantom said. As for the poor oil companies and their risky ventures, cry me a river.
——————————————
Full of HATE and JEALOUSY for those who are successful, CFUK is a typical Radical Liberal. Not a rational comment in his pea-sized brain.
Max, proper role of government? Do you mean?
“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”
Sounds like the proper role of government is to be socialist. Other socialist programs like police, fire department, education, and health care benefit everyone as well. All these programs increase security and productivity. On the other hand there are fascist policies like corporate welfare to companies like Exxon that has the purpose of enriching shareholders at taxpayer expense. But when the Democrats suggested removing some of those subsidies from the top five oil companies the Republicans whined that the welfare was a necessary government program.
“You Socialists are full of gimme, gimme, gimme. Do not attempt to confuse your greed by warping the definition of Socialism, because you will fail. But then, you Socialists are used to failing.”
Socialist countries have the highest standard of living. Notice how the British pound, the Canadian dollar, the Japanese Yen and the Euro aren’t falling the way the American dollar is?
27 Trackbacks
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Randy Scholfield wrote an interesting post today on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holidayHere’s a quick excerptJohn McCain’s proposal for a three-month summer federal gas-tax holiday might be a good way to get votes, but it’s lousy transportation and energy policy. A Wired blog points out that suspending the federal 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax … [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Maggotpunk wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by MaggotpunkHere’s a quick excerptPolicies like this prove McCain is an idiot. How does he plan on paying for the shortfall? By borrowing money and paying interest on it eventually costing the taxpayers more. McCain can’t think ahead. What’s good for today isn’t always … [...]
[...] Franklin wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by FranklinHere’s a quick excerptTranslation from the left:. Liberals LIKE high gasoline prices! [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Regular wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by RegularHere’s a quick excerptBut none of this explains how we make up for the lost revenue if we suspend the gas tax. Of course, it doesn’t. Because you failed to cite revenue production from gas taxes. I believe McCain’s proposal is wrong. … [...]
[...] MaxGrobnik wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by MaxGrobnikHere’s a quick excerpt2. Dropping the gas tax for the summer. Ok, don’t drop it. Then keep complaining about higher gas prices. If we used 100% of the gas tax on maintaining our highways and bridges, we wouldn’t need to raise the gas tax. [...]
[...] Rage wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by RageHere’s a quick excerptOf course, it doesn’t. Because you failed to cite revenue production from gas taxes. ??? What, you mean, like increased productivity from repaired highways or something? I was proceeding from conservative assumptions, ie, that gas taxes … [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Phantom wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by PhantomHere’s a quick excerptRetail grocery stores have a captive market, yet I don’t hear anyone lamenting that their 1% profit margin should be comparabe to say any other retailer of manufactured goods. You petroleum industry sympathizers would be crying the … [...]
[...] annie_moose wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by annie_mooseHere’s a quick excerptfor the dynamic dou, grim and franklin. http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/292. Food aid agencies are feeling the pinch, too; last week, Josette Sheeran, the head of the United Nations’ World Food Program, reported that global food … [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] static wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by staticHere’s a quick excerptThe windfall profits a tax was a tax on petroleum at the well head. No effect on the price of fuel. At best it offset the Federal government’s extra costs caused by rising energy costs. Fuels are a commodity, the price is set in part by … [...]
[...] Tax » Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by annie_moose wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by Tax » Comment …Here’s a quick excerptannie_moose wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by annie_mooseHere’sa quick excerptfor the dynamic dou, grim and franklin. http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/292. … [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] John McCain News » Blog Archive » Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s… wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The costs of McCainâ??s gas-tax holiday by John McCain …Here’s a quick excerpt[…] Read the rest of this great post here […] [...]
click here…
fuel saving is what we need…
Electric Gas Saving…
Interesting – because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday….
Stock Investing Because Htm…
In the end, everything is a gag. Charlie Chaplin….
Angie…
…
Jessie…
…