Story Comments
Posted by: walden3 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (29)
capn_caveman
Ratskii
moxxxxxxxxxx
Dobes_Rule
cushi
vor
Bkumm
Poulenc
Aidenag
simonsez
Xaos
LumFan
Hanyman
dadesider
Goppy
quackpot
mesodude
Blackacereturn
flyonthewallzz
tkyrchncs
cosmogenium
RussianThreats
CRYMTYPHON
AtheismIsRealityPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.