Comments for States Get In on the Calls for a Gas Tax Holiday »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 6 months ago in Business & FinanceGov. Charlie Crist of Florida has been fighting to cut 10 cents from the state's gasoline tax for two weeks in July. Lawmakers in Missouri, New York and Texas have also proposed a summer break from state gas taxes, while candidates for governor in Indiana and North Carolina are sparring over relief ideas of their own.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 140 of 182 Comments
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It will have a negative impact on state budgets. People may drive more and demand could go up. The profits still go to the oil companies.
Any shortfall in state budgets would then be met with higher property taxes. You can't push something down over there without it coming up over here.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tell that to the supply-siders sending us these "stimulus" checks and cutting taxes on the "wealthy" (quotes because I'm not sure we can agree on the definition of wealthy).
This is more of the same. People have seen that if they cry about things enough the govt will come up with a pacifier of some kind, usually cash. The country be damned, what happens NOW to ME is what's important, not what will be better for ME LATER.
Idiots.
Reply-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course it is. It's more of the same garbage we're getting all the time from the idiots we keep electing. I'm not sure who is more to blame the idiots we keep electing or the idiots that do the electing and then bitch about who they elected.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the problem is that both parties are firmly in the Oil Companies AND Middle Eastern oil tsars pockets.
All we can expect to see from Congress is the "Drag, Nag, and Bag." They drag oil company executives or foreign officials in front of them. They nag at them for a few hours to put on a good show for the tax payers. Then they bag their campaign donations.
Clinton has nearly $200,000 in big oil money this election, Obama around $170,000 and McCain $220,000 plus. If you think anyone of these 3 are going to fix the problem you are badly mistaken.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that's a symptom of the disease not the disease itself. We've known about peak oil for over fifty years now, but the American consumer hasn't had to really worry about it because energy was cheap due to many different economic factors. That is no longer the case.
We need to address the problem directly by finding a way to eliminate our dependence on oil. All fossil fuels should go that way eventually, but we need to focus on oil RIGHT NOW. Not tomorrow, not five years from now, RIGHT NOW.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that our ever-churning war machine burns through 60% of the world's oil and those who love to see us invade, bomb, shoot up, tear down and rebuild stuff over and over again are 100% to blame--and both parties AREN'T equally to blame for that.
Reply-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world."
http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html
HMM Supply and Demand?
Combined with the SPR fill that just keeps going, it seems to explain why: better than the develoment in China and India.
I still would like to know where the 60% came from.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Accck...Of course that's ridiculous. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to correct this. I meant to say that the military consumes 60% of *US* oil. The US is 5% of the population and we consume 25% of the world's oil. The war department is the world's single largest purchaser and consumer of oil. So, in short, the difference between my error and what we really spend is the difference between thoroughly revolting and merely sickening. ;-P
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_5_facts...
http://nowarnowarming.org/article.php?id=94l
http://www.williambowles.info/venezuela/2006/02...
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With respect sir:
If my B.S. meter had not red lined, I would not have learned that DOD is the largest consumer of oil in the world.
It leaves no doubt in my mind that when I cringe when the dashboard beeps and the low fuel lights up, that the war is reaching into my pocket.
This is real.
Reply-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a stupid idea. Just what one would expect from pimps, panderers, and politicians. Create a worse problem from a bad one.
Try balancing the federal budget and watching the dollar increase in value.
Try not flushing a trillion or so down the Iraq toilet.
Naaahhhhh. No profit in that nonsense. Keep subsidizing the super rich and screwing the working stiffs.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But I don't remember hearing anyone on the right complain that those tax rebate checks Bush gave Americans after 9/11 (right after telling Americans don't-worry-go-shopping) or the GOP conceived $50 gas rebate cards from two years ago were pandering. I wonder why...
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not a good idea, it's intent is to appease and that's it. What will happen here is they will give us a 10c brake at the pumps and hike the toles 50c or something else. Most states are in so much debt they cannot afford to lose this money, it's not sound decision making. It's like the tax cut, this will only benefit the rich because they don't have to lower the price they still get to bilk us, and i bet they will raise the price to take away the fake savings. What shocks me the most is that the Welfare detractors are all for this, what a bunch of hypocrites...this will only make things worse...if you are in doubt check out the tax cut and the state of our nation!
Reply-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is why I am voting for Obama...he was the only one to call this what it is. It shows me that this guy is for real. He said it was a stupid idea and an 8 grader can see that it is. His thinking of actually finding a way to lower the cost of gas makes more sense to me!To me this is another bush like move it's so stupid it laughable!
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
May 4th and here is the link to the transcript
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24445166/
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nostalgia - you need to re-watch that clip his $1000.00 you talk about is a second phase of the bush economic stimulus package. What he is saying is give the people some real relied than some symbolic BS like this. I don't know about you but i am for that!
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's on page 3 of the transcript
RUSSERT: One issue that has really defined the two campaigns here in Indiana is this debate over gasoline
OBAMA: Right.
RUSSERT: ...the price of it and whether there should be a tax holiday
OBAMA: Right
RUSSERT: ...from the federal taxes. This is Hillary Clinton's ad talking about you. Let's watch
RUSSERT: Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?
OBAMA: You're right, Tim, this defines, I think, the difference between myself and Senator Clinton. This gas tax, which was first proposed by John McCain and then quickly adopted by Senator Clinton, is a classic Washington gimmick ...nd, by the way, I have some experience on this because in Illinois we tried this when I was in the state legislature, and that's exactly what happened. The oil companies, the retailers were the ones who ended up benefiting
RUSSERT: You voted for it, too.
OBAMA: I did. Exactly. And that
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RUSSERT: When gas was only $2 a gallon
OBAMA: And, and that's my point. I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue.
Obama's $1000 idea comes in his next response
OBAMA: And what I've said is, look, people do need serious relief. They are, are getting hammered. I mean, people who--can't go on job searches because they can't fill up their gas tank. And so what I've said is, let's accelerate a--the second half of a tax stimulus proposal that I had put forward that would put, immediately, hundreds of dollars into people's pockets to get through the summer; let's pass a permanent middle-class tax cut, $1,000 per family, to offset the payroll tax to deal not just with rising costs of gas, but also rising costs of food, rising costs of prescription drugs
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not a Bush stimulus package - an idea Obama put forward
I have found no legislation that offers this, have you??
"permanent middle-class tax cut, $1,000 per family, to offset the payroll tax"
No I'm not for this. How can you offer a tax cut to offset payroll taxes when SS is already in trouble??
"most importantly, let's invest in alternative fuels, raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, and let's get serious about reducing consumption of oil, which is the only way that, over the long term, we're going to reduce, we're going to reduce gas prices."
"I don't want, 20 years from now, to have a bunch of politicians proposing a suspension of the gas tax holiday when gas is $8 or $10 a gallon because we failed to act now."
Alternatives & CAFE standards won't let us avoid $8-$10 gas. Anything we save with those measures will be consumed by India & China.
"serious about reducing consumption of oil" That's the key but HOW??? He has no plan
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm certainly not debating the issue. If it were up to me it would be a flat tax or consumption tax. That way if a billionaire wants to buy a yacht, he pays tax. There are no deductions to hide income behind. If someone living at the poverty line wants to buy a wii system, they pay a tax. They are free to make a decision that may not in their best interest financially, but they must pay the tax as well. It simplifies many things.
There is the debate of what should be exempt, like food, which I probably could support. My fear is that the definition of food may change to determine if it should be taxed or not.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How do we tax hybrids or the electric, natural gas and hydrogen fueled vehicles. They will be using the highways also
If the problem with road/bridge repair is bad now, it will only get worse as the Feds and states see gas tax revenues fall
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gasoline is because generally diesel trucks are heavier and put more wear and tear on the infrastructure.
I know it is not fair to the guy that buys a 60 mpg diesel VW, but it is simpler.
Alternative fuel vehicles tend to be light weight. Combined with the value of moving in that direction I like the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple silly) principle.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I realize that the diesel trucks pay more.
I was only talking about private cars/trucks
But I can guarantee you that as more hybrids etc are on the road and gas tax revenues fall, the politicians will move away from the gas tax
I wouldn't be surprised to see them try and tax according to the miles driven or a combination of miles driven and weight.
That would probably be the fair solution
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What can I say? I am a tree hugging Moonbat.
If revenues fall to the point where infrastructure can not be maintained, then other ways will have to be looked at.
For now I see as it as an effective tax incentive to wean our dependence on foreign oil.
I wonder what would happen the day the gas tax relief ends?
I imagine there will be long lines at the stations of folks topping off the tank before the prices go up again.
I remember running out of gas with an odd numbered plate. It sucked.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are already in trouble with the Federal Highway Trust Fund
They spent every dime in the last transportation bill including all of the pork
The politicians just can't help themselves
But we have to be realistic - we are NOT going to be able to stop importing oil for decades
In the mean time it is the low income and many in the middle class who are struggling.
When the price of gas AND food increases so dramatically, they are the ones who get hit the hardest and there is no end in sight for them
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"But we have to be realistic - we are NOT going to be able to stop importing oil for decades "
We also have to be realistic that we can no longer be dependent on oil and that within decades (or much sooner) we should have alternatives in place. Which means investing actual money into alternatives. Not sinking more money into already failing systems.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's very true
But the emphsis on alternative fuels and CAFE standards aren't going to get us there
The auto industry is an easy target for politicians but private cars & trucks only account for ~20% of our oil consumption - that is according to a group of economists, energy experts etc It was a discussion I watched several weeks ago on TV
Washington needs to look at where we are using the most energy if we ever expect to be oil independent - electricity generation
The World Factbook
Electricity - production: 4.062 trillion kWh (2005)
Electricity - production by source: fossil fuel: 71.4%
hydro: 5.6%
nuclear: 20.7%
other: 2.3% (2001)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
This should be a huge target for DC. Nuclear and coal needs to be in the mix
Obama on Meet the Press: Nuclear Yes. BUT...
Coal Yes BUT...
Obama addresed this on a question about climate change. Page 4 of the Meet the Press transcript
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The original idea behind the gas tax was a good one and it was not originally regressive.
The gas tax was supposed to be money put aside for infrastructure repair, maintenance and new construction of roads. As is typical, our fantastic government, acting on the "will" of the People for more bread and more circuses, put that money in the General Fund (just like Social Security by the way, thanks Reagan and the Democrats in Congress).
So, as it was originally intended it made sense, the people that used the roads would help pay for their upkeep. It isn't like that now because of the growth of the automobile culture.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I have to say upon further investigation that the General Fund portion of the gas tax was revoked under the Clinton Administration. Now, most of it does indeed go to the Highway Trust Fund. With the rest of it going to the Mass Transit Fund.
I stand corrected.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the Highway Trust Fund and stipulated that 100% of the gas tax be deposited into the fund. From 1956 to 1982, the Highway Trust Fund was used solely to finance expenditures from the federal highway program.
Highway Trust Fund revenues were first allocated to mass transit in the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, when Congress raised the gas tax from four cents per gallon to nine cents per gallon and dedicated one cent, or 20 percent, of the increase to the newly-established Mass Transit Account. Each time there has been an increase in the amount of gas tax going into the Highway Trust Fund 1990, 1993 and 1997, 20 percent of the increase has been allocated to the Transit Account and 80 percent to the Highway Account. Of the current gasoline tax of 18.3 cents per gallon, 2.86 cents per gallon is allocated to the Mass Transit Account.
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports...
Reply-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm
Take a look at the site I posted
There are some fairly good charts showing how the Federal tax is distributed
I think we have reached the point where there are so many bridges etc that need repair, we need to reconsider mass transit for the time being
Perhaps the local and/or regional mass transit systems should be funded by the localities they serve
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was on that site today, which is where I got corrected. I'm troubled by the numbers there because they aren't current.
Mass transit isn't the problem. Lack of focus and a screwed up sense of priorities is the problem.
You don't CUT TAXES (in total) in the middle of a war and when you already can't pay for the programs you have. It's really ****** poor economics.
We need to look very carefully at our priorities and how to get the most bang for our buck.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I'm saying is prioritize
That's something the politicians are never willing to do
They also need to consider that as more hybrids and eventually electric or hydrogen vehicles come online, the revenue from gas taxes are going to fall
If they keep spending the money on walking tours, parks etc like the last highway bill, the highways and bridges will never be repaired. Ban all pork in the transportation bills for a starter
Which is more important right now? - highway and bridge repair or mass transit
Make the tough decisions - if they won't make the tough choices, vote them out of office
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm fully aware of that. My point is that originally the regressivity of it was pretty marginal. Gasoline was not a major portion of any American's budget. It is now because of the failures of the Federal government to do their job and protect the American people. If we had used the money from the gas taxes to build sensible infrastructure this would not be the problem it is today.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry but the wording of your post led me to think that you were basing the definition on the use of the funds. With respect to regressivity, there are other examples of regressive state taxation, or de facto regressive taxation, such as lotteries.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand. I went at it all assbackwards. Sorry.
In my opinion all taxes are regressive, using the term more loosely. Any tax, including consumption taxes, impact those least able to pay the tax more. It is virtually impossible to make taxes "fair" to everyone.
I think it needs to be approached differently, I'm just not exactly sure how it should be done. Don't start with the "fair tax" or any of the "flat tax" proposals. They simply won't work the way they are intended. I don't have a viable alternative yet, but I'm working on it.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The big problem with any major revision to the structure of the tax system would be revenue forecasting in the years immediately following the change. It would be complete chaos for any state government to accurately forecast revenues for budgeting purposes with no actual revenue history on which to base estimates.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm:
It is an interesting twist that President Reagan saved Social security partially by making government employees pay into it. I remember reading about a lawsuit by someone who is now sitting on the Supreme Court suing and crying about having to pay in.
I also find myself in agreement with Ann Coulter when she said that withholding wage tax is one of the worst thing this country has done.
We are third from the bottom of the OECD countries in terms of self-employment.
http://masetto.sourceoecd.org/vl=4709588/cl=19/...
I admit I am bleeding heart Lib but there seems to be something un-American about this statistic.
I used to be self-employed and did a lot of work on people's homes. I now work as an employee and do commercial construction millwork. A homeowner could not afford me.
I cost double what I make. If I had set my tools down and managed a business I would have made it, But hell I like building stuff.
Reply
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a stupid idea. Yes, I said it, stupid. It's like trying to bail the Titantic with a thimble.
Government, I'm sending you a message from the People: stop pandering to us and fix the problem or we will. You won't like where that leaves you.
Reply-
Neutral
slyboy21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Agreed, this is a stupid idea. The plan will really only help businesses who purchase hundreds (or thousands) of gallons of gas a day but the average Joe might save 20-40 or so dollars a month. People can save that anyway by improving driving habits. This might have been a real treat when gas was oh 1.20, but now at 3.50 , gas will still squeeze people's budgets.
Reply-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I live in New York - if I go to New Jersey to fill up I save $8-$10 per tank full , New Jersey has gas taxes, but no where near NYs . Since bridge tolls cost about $14 going there just to get gas is a loss, however I am there quite often making these savings viable. I would much rather spend my money in NY, so any gas tax relief would be welcome
Reply -
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The plan will really only help businesses who purchase hundreds (or thousands) of gallons of gas a day but the average Joe might save 20-40 or so dollars a month"
That is true BUT you have to remember that higher costs for business is passed along to consumers in the price of the goods and services
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The price for a gallon of gas has gone up from $1.20 to $3.65 in 3 years. These opportunist politicians want to give us a 10 cent break.
I don't think they realize, any reduction of the price at this time will only increase big oil profits and ONLY increase purchases and drive up the price.
Idiots, Idiots, Idiots and Idiots.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama's problem is how he says it. Obama is content to say "it won't work" and not how or why. Some people somehow see a reduction in gas tax as their lifeline and Obama just tells them it is a silly idea and dismisses it. He is talking down to working families on this and just saying "no no no" and not why. It's insulting, it is widening the gap.
So Hillary gets to waive the flag saying that Obama is "out of touch" with working people and an elitists because he doesn't want to help them. Far worse for Obama, he won't/can't explain why he won't help.
If Obama somehow loses, it is his campaign manager and PR teams fault. Good lord, they need some work...I'm a Republican and I could get this man elected easily against Clinton.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have you ever tried to explain basic economics to the American people? They don't get it. Heck, smart well meaning people don't get it.
Supply side economics is a joke, but there are a LOT of people that think it's a great idea. If you try to explain to people that raising taxes on the wealthy is a good idea, they don't get it. They want taxes to come down and then they don't understand why there is a budget deficit and there are bridges collapsing.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Point is that he isn't trying. He just says "no, your idea is stupid, I don't care." That is what Americans are seeing. Americans are seeing John McCain come up with an idea that they think is great...and then Hillary comes along and agrees.
That tells the American people 2 things: that if Hillary agrees with McCain then maybe McCain's idea is a good one AND that Hillary might be willing to work across party lines.
Then we have Obama who just says "no". One thing that I learned from my study of history and international affairs, that FAR too many historians and political scientist fail to remember after they get those lil' letters behind their names is that, when it comes to the historical actors, perception IS reality. The truth doesn't matter, only what is perceived matters. You have to alter the perception or you lose.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand what you're saying, I just don't know how you explain it to the People.
He's already been accused of being an "elitist", so if he pulls a John Kerry and tries to explain the concept of opportunity costs and consumption push/pull to the American People, he would put himself in further danger. Most people seem to want an easy sound bite these days, not facts.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly right and that's why the country is in the state it is in. Who would you rather have a beer with is how Americans vote.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Mencken
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama explained his plan on Meet the Press
"let's pass a permanent middle-class tax cut, $1,000 per family, to offset the payroll tax to deal not just with rising costs of gas, but also rising costs of food, rising costs of prescription drugs; and, most importantly, let's invest in alternative fuels, raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, and let's get serious about reducing consumption of oil, which is the only way that, over the long term, we're going to reduce, we're going to reduce gas prices."
When you look at what is realistic:
By expanding production of gasoline-electric hybrids and making improvements in conventional vehicles, automakers could raise the fuel efficiency of new vehicles to 40 mpg within a decade and 55 mpg by 2020.
The oil savings we could achieve by that time - more than 2.5 million barrels every day
http://green.yahoo.com/global-warming/nrdc-106_...
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is 2.5 million barrels out of the 20 million barrels used everyday in the US by 2020
Something more needs done now
Let's start by moving all gas tax collection/spending back to the states.
Congress has already made it clear they are unable to constrain themselves and every highway bill is dripping with pork
States and local governments should be able to set priorities for what is needed. The Feds should no longer be involved
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
try googling "obama on gas tax holiday"
he has said plenty on the subject, to various news outlets.
"We're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something. Well, let me tell you, this isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's designed to get them through an election."
- Barack Obama.
He then went on to explain how his middle-class tax cuts would be far more beneficial than suspending gas tax collections.
so...
he has talked about it in more detail. and he has said that he will help the middle class. you're simply not listening.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For once, we are in agreement...and I'm in agreement with Obama on this as well.
A temporary moritorium on the gas tax will see no benefit. The theory is that reduced gas prices will reduce shipping and supply cost for stores, restaurants, and small business and allow them to reduce their prices slightly. Of course, is every single item consumers buy has a meager price reduction of just 3 cents...then over the moriturium period that McCain and Clinton are both calling for that is a HUGE savings.
Only problem is that savings is temporary for businesses and by the time they see their savings, it will be too late to pass them onto the consumer so prices will not change.
Also, reducing the price of gas will more than likely increase demand. The problem is not (contrary to popular belief) that we are being gouged. The problem is that demand has increased while refining capacity has been stagnant since the 70's and production is falling.
Reply-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When New York suspends the sales tax on clothing & other products during specific times of the year, retail sales go up - benefiting everyone in NY. Complete suspension of the sales taxes would be foolhardy, I rather pay in cents what would cost me in dollars in income taxes, however that brief respite once in a while does help & so will a suspension of gas taxes.
Reply -
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Demand in this country has decreased, not increased, in the last 4-5 years.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a1036000...
Demand worldwide outside of the US has marginally increased during that time.
Where have you obtained your statistics to support your claim?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't see where djrev is saying that demand in the US has increased. djrev is simply saying that demand has increased, which is true. Refining capacity in this country has remained stagnant largely due to the Clean Air Act and greed.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, so, read my reply.
Refinery capacity has remained stagnant for the same reason that the electrical grid is a mess...the companies in charge of those things don't want to spend the money to clean it up. It's greed, nothing more.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There should be a flat fee tacked onto each customer's electric bill within a power grid. The money should go into a fund to upgrade and maintain the grid
It is inexcusable that this was never done
Same for water, sewer etc
Small amounts of money collected over time are much easier for comsumers to pay than huge amounts all at one time
We seem to pretend that infrastructure will never need maintained or upgraded in this country
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.worldoil.com/InfoCenter/statistics_m...
Read it. Quoting from the Article "World oil supply fell by 430,000 barrels a day to 84.6 million bpd in August and demand has been slightly revised down to 85.9 million bpd in 2007 and 88.0 million bpd in 2008."
There is more demand than supply. It's simple math. And also, the fact that India and China have developed their economies in the past few years would of course lead someone to believe that oil demand has increased.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey: Mesodude redlined my BS meter.
When I did a bit of fact checking I learned that our DOD is the largest purchaser of oil in the world.
I have been reading a bit about the SPR. We are expanding its capacity and filling it aggressively. This historically increased commodity costs.
Sure India an China have had an effect, but why turn a blind eye?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your article is from 2006 and are projections for 2007 and 2008. It also demonstrates that our economy is and will continue to have trouble competing internationally which points to the need for a new energy technology that is not dependent on outside sources.
As demand increases, price increases, which then restricts demand. If oil were to follow pure supply/demand economics, an equilibrium will be reached. I am not sure that oil follows pure supply/demand economics. The retail end of it tends to follow perceived demand vs. actual demand. An example of this is the corporate raising of retail prices on Thursday for the perceived weekend need.
The US is using less gasoline and oil than it was 5 years ago. Have we reached the supply/demand equilibrium, but cannot control pricing because of external pressures? If so, we need to create a technology that we can control and export for profit.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The problem is that demand has increased while refining capacity has been stagnant"
It is almost impossible to build new refineries - regulations, environmental court challenges etc
BUT refinery capacity has not been stagnant
Two foreign companies broke ground Monday on construction of the largest oil refinery in the U.S. in the Gulf Coast town of Port Arthur.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus...
Marathon's estimated $3.2 billion Garyville, Louisiana, refinery expansion project will increase the crude oil refining capacity by 180,000 barrels per day.
The expansion will provide an additional 7.5 million gallons of clean transportation fuels to the market each day.
http://www.marathon.com/News/Features/Spotlight...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
postaphis1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can see the siren call to lower these taxes for the summer season but just think what it will do when the taxes are reinstated. Sorta like pulling the plug on the ventilator. The state level may be easier to do but the federal....I can just see the tax reinstated at the end of the summer and just before the national elections...
Reply -
Neutral
Cityslicker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stupid idea .
Put a freeze on Oil Companies profits , make making a large profit not so inviting .
American People are to blame , the Oil Companies are making record breaking profits it is our fault , we make them charge to much , we force the large amounts of money on them , they would be fools not to accept it .
Notice the Commodities are driven by Foreign Investors , Al-Qadea , Taliban , etc ....
Enough is enough , it needs to stop .
It is out of control !
Reply -
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Altering the price artificially prolongs the problem. High prices underwrite new innovation.
The best announcement they could make that they will open up drilling in Anwar, the gulf and other areas.
That would announce to the world we're serious about solving the problem.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those proposals are band-aids for a very short time at best.
Can you see any way of increasing oil and gas production by twenty-fold so that the rest of the world can flame it off at the same rate as Americans? If not, what do you propose - invade and occupy all oil-producing countries?
The ONLY real solution is to reduce our energy use by a factor of two every decade for the next 30-40 years. The first halving is not difficult - simply copy the measures already introduced by the europeans and japanese since the first oil shock in the 1970s.
As for the automobile, General Motors put us in a no-win deadly trap when they bought up and destroyed public transport systems in the 1930s. The sooner we start on alternatives to automobiles the better. (besides which, living in urban areas without automobiles is infinitely more interesting and healthy than the present situation).
Reply-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
China is going to get our gulf oil, make Cuba richer than you can imagine;and Florida/USA get cut out of the proceeds.
Their technology is nothing compared to ours, so expect a mess. You may not need sun-tan oil on the Florida beaches.
Reply -
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those proposals are band-aids for a very short time at best.
Not true ... these are relatively long term solutions.
What do you suppose OPEC would do if the President announced a "man on the moon" type campaign to claim new oil sources from areas under our control. It would get their attention.
There is plenty of oil in our hemisphere, however not cheap oil.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you propose to invade and occupy oil producing countries "under our control"? Perhaps you then understand why much of Latin America is denouncing our imperialism. Want to put puppet regimes in all those countries Simon? And then ensure that their consumption per capita is permanently a fraction of ours so we can flame off their oil? Doomed to failure.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Opening up new areas solves the problem how? If we have reached maximum refining capacity, how will more supply help? Have you investigated how long it would take to bring any of ANWR's into the system? If opened today, the projection is actual production would start about 9 years later, so approximately 2017. Analysts project it would lower the price of oil by about $1. ANWR is a drop in the bucket in relation to our consumption. Average US monthly production is about 150 million barrels. At peak production, ANWR represents about 26 million barrels per month or about 17% of our production. We us approximately 500 million barrels per month. ANWR, at peak production, represents 5% of our current use.
How about the idea that we remove ourselves from oil. I see that as solving the problem. Your solution is solving it by a small percentage, if you could refine it, which I don't think you can currently.
Reply-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My suggestion is to open ANWR only as an equal partner to anyone who wants to develop the resource there. The US government owns the land and would share in the profits at 50%.
The return is still marginal. We need to wean ourselves from imported oil and create an energy technology to replace it. Our economy and security are currently beholden to imported oil. We need to change that and ANWR will not provide that change.
Reply-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can you imagine what the world would be like without petroleum? Can you imagine the trees we would have to burn just to generate our electricity.
If you are religious, I tell you that petroleum is a gift from God to mankind. Without it, we would be as developed as central Africa. It has no other value than to power our energy needs. The planet would be barren if we had to use the organic material we have today to make our energy.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you are suggesting that petroleum has no other value than to power our energy needs? Wow.
What you are suggesting is that we have reached the limit of our innovation and creativity. Petroleum is the end of the road for us. Once it is gone we either have to wait for God to make us some more, which I am pretty sure he is in one big hurry to do, or we go back to the stone age. There is no other recourse.
I certainly hope that our country can do better than that. If not, then as Greg Lake said (well, it might have actually been Pete Sinfield), the Christmas we get we deserve.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we have reached maximum refining capacity"
Refineries along the Gulf are being expanded. We are not at capacity. That's old news
"the projection is actual production would start about 9 years later"
And in 9years we won't be using any oil???
We need a long and short term strategy - more drilling for the short term while the new technologies are developed.
Otherwise, we will see these oil prices spiral upward for decades
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that high prices are a good thing, if and only if the people making the profits are putting the capital into innovations to eventually wean us off oil (as fuel) completely.
More production won't actually help much. There is enough oil on the market, but there is a bottleneck at the refineries. Further, the speculators are the ones driving up the market price. This is not a simple supply/demand economic equation.
Reply -
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't you think that the lack of competition inhibits new innovation? As long as shortages and reductions in supply benefit Big Oil there is no motivation to expand supply or innovate.
Strange enough I just saw a full-page ad in Newsweek by Big Oil trying to justify its enormous profits by saying that the average American owns mutual funds and these mutual funds invest in Big Oil so Big Oil's obscene profits benefit average Americans.
Reply-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do we really need the oil companies for innovation???
With oil this high, other companies and entrepreneurs will see that they may be able to develop alternative technologies and make some money
All that is needed is consumers demand
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My economic stimulus check will be applied, by the Feds, to a tax debt for last year, as will, I daresay, may others'.
I find this happily masturbatory. Otherwise, as I see it, there's no other stimulation in sight.
What DO pols think? Do they THINK at all?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a joke. What's the matter with you guys. Any tax reduction is a good thing. But instead of playing with lowering the taxes and fees on gas, let's really review on how the taxes collected are spent.
You'd think a gas tax would be used for roads, wrong. More than half goes towards light rail, commuter rail, buses, bike paths, alternative energy solutions and the like. The one that annoys me the most are the rail and bike solutions. We have to fund them rather than actually having those who use them pay for them. Another example of bad moves with the fuel tax money is the bridge in Minnesota. Had they used the $1,000,000,000 that they spent on their train on the bridge, it wouldn't have fallen.
Use fuel tax money for the roads. No more pork projects that will solve problems that don't exist.
Reply-
Neutral
cosmogenium1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree. When it comes to those using it funding it, hey, I pay property tax but have no children. I don't like paying it but I do like having good public schools in my community so kids can learn and grow like I did.
In my neck of the woods (upstate NY), the only mass transit available within the cities are buses. Since they have to move along with the traffic, they are less efficient than taking a car and driving by alternative routes. They are so slow that taking a bus means you only get one destination and return in a day's time.
We need light rail and bike lanes, and if we had them here they would get plenty of use. The benefits, including lower pollution and less congestion, would be for all; not just the users.
Reply -
-
Neutral
slyboy21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So does that make you the same person who yells at and tries to run over the people who bike in the road because they don't have a bike path to go on? Bike paths are cheap. About one mile of highway could fund about 50-100 miles of bike paths.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.