Let me just say it’s hard for me to take seriously someone who can't even type properly

That said, i am a pretty conservative person, financially and socially... in general I don't agree with higher taxes on anything

After hearing from both sides, and from plenty of sources other than this board that's for sure, I have to agree that raising gas taxes is the best way to reduce out dependency on foreign oil

The reason people are driving more miles than ever is because they are doing more and more recreational driving, road trips, whatever. Taxing gas higher will reduce that.

And to those that drive 50miles to work a day, here's a tip, move closer to work, or find a job closer to home

Oh and another tip if your car doesn’t get great gas mileage, you don't have to buy a brand new car in order to get a car that gets good mileage. There are plenty of cars even 20 years old that get incredible mileage... they are small, light, slow, and not as safe, but there is that option if you can't afford a new car

Raising the gas tax would suck on an individual level. But it would by far be the best thing for the country's economy. Forcing the manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient is not the answer. Companies build what people want, and right now most people simply aren’t bothered by the current gas prices and buy whatever they want regardless of the mileage. If you raise the gas tax more people will want to buy the more fuel efficient models and then the manufacturers will give that to them

You can’t fix the foreign dependence on oil by forcing the supply side, you need to change what is in demand

 

So, all I have to do is pay more for gas which drives the cost up on everything you buy, move to a smaller house in the city or quit my job...and drive a slow underpowered unsafe car. WOW thanks for such wonderful tips!

 

GM was really lobbying its tail off last week. I work in D.C. and saw the Volt, Aura Hybrid and Yukon Hybrid parked outside the senate office buildings.

As I walked by, I heard the GM rep saying, "If the tougher CAFE standards go through, we'll actually have less incentive to build the Volt, because its too risky and won't actually lower our corporate fuel economy."

 

And your point about not wanting to pay the gas tax is exactly how it would decrease demand. I don't know what course in economics you took, but as you increase the price of a good, you decrease demand. Turns out taxes increase the price the consumer has to pay. Also, if you had been paying attention ever since 2001, most of the somewhat educated speculation was that gas demand would not wane until prices were more along the lines of $5/gal... again it would be easy to push the cost to $5 with a heavier tax.

So the government has the right to use the money for malevolent reasons apparently. I propose to spend tax money to tear gas your house then. Give me a break, you are extrapolating from a misinterpretation of the Madison quote below.

Yeah I have heard of deaths from contaminated foods. Remember the E. coli in the spinach? That was fairly recent too. And obviously I am not saying we would all die w/o the government, but nice try at the straw man. Clearly public health is improved with government oversight over the food industry.

No you did not in fact. You said John Madison was the father of the constitution. In my original version of the post I pointed out that James Madison was the father of the constitution, and that I didn't know who John Madison was. Maybe I shouldn't have toned it down so it remained more clear.
It is interesting that you put the context in there. This was specifically about spending the constituents money on nonconstituents. If you try to claim that Madison didn't want to spend any money on constituents then you wouldn't have much of a need for government since all of the services are supposed to be for the good of the constituents in the first place.

 

I see the error of my ways now.
More government and more taxes solve everything!
There's no problem to big that we can't regulate or prohibit it away!

 

'Bout damn timed people started recognizing this. Bigger government and higher taxes = The Answer every time, comrade.

On a serious note, I'll never understand people who think more taxes is the answer.

 

Hmm, I don't see anyone complaining about the core issue here, which is the trillions of dollars a year the US spends on military expenditures, primarily to protect access the oil supply.

That's ok -- who needs taxes. Just borrow the money from the Communist Chinese and have your kids pay it back, comarde. Meanwhile, enjoy your driving your 500HP camaro down congested and crumbling roads.

 

Why not develop a chemical that can replace oil in the cars we already have. People act like fuel cells are the wave of tomorrow, but the reality is most hyrogen is currently made with coal or petroleum. Also, you make every car on the road obsolete, and that in itself is an environmental disaster.

My plan for energy independence-

I say make E85 the new standard gas. Sell kits that make it so current, and past vehicles can run on it. Grow corn...lots of it. E85 still uses 15% petroleum, so we need a replacement for oil. Petroleum is a complex carbon compond...just like diamonds. We can made fake diamonds, we can make fake gas, it just takes a lot of energy. Bite the bullet and build more nuclear power plants and call it it a day. What would you rather have, a 1 in 800 million chance something could go wrong at a nuclear powerplant, or be dependent on terrorist run states for oil?

 

Peak Uranium is estimated to be 20 years away, so nuclear power would only be a very expensive temporary fix. Wind is the way to go and solar is getting better and better every year. All new construction in the sun belt should have solar roofs.

We import ~40% of our oil. If we could cut consumption by that much then the problem is solved. Ending the tax subsidies to big oil companies would help cut consumption and the money could be used to fund alternative energy programs and high speed trains and other forms of mass transit.

 

Before this Presidential administration you could just vote Republican all down the line to ensure small businesses and low government were the straight edge of lawmaking but im not sure where we stand now, lol.

At least with the E85 alternative joke we could still live the lives we wanted too instead of being choked out of vacations or trips to the racetrack because Gov't decided to make fuel prices so high only the very wealthy could afford recreation in driving.

 

Interesting you say that then you say this:

So if we are driving more recreational miles than ever before how will raising a tax cut down on use? If you look back when gas was $1.20, &1.50,$2.00, $2.50 and $3.00 a gallon and we continue to drive more miles, how will a tax cut this? It might have a temporary effect and then homeostasis will happen and we will continue to drive those miles.

Good answer to everyone's problem!!!


Really?? Go take a look at miles driven vs. the price of gas and tell that this, for the long term reduces demand? It does not! A gas tax would not only increase the cost of gas but would increase the cost of food, clothing and business cost. I pay a fuel surcharged on my water delivery. If it gets to high I will cancel my delivery service. When the price of gas increases the prices of everything on this planet increases. Is that what you want?

Tear gas my house? What for? Misinterpreting James Madison? Have you ever look over the Constitution? Do you want more quotes on what the Consititution gives in the way of powers for spending? You have no idea what the quotes means. He said BENEVOLENT spending. If you knew what that means then you would understand what he was trying to say.

My mistake.

No it was not, it was about benovolent spending and if you knew what that was you would not have made this comment. I never said that the FG is not authorized to collect taxes, did I? I said speciffically about benevolent spending, big difference!

According to the Constitution this is one of the FG jobs.

We could pay 95% of our income in taxes and the roads would still be the same.

The reason oil & gas is high:
1. Oil is what $70 a barrel because the ME suppliers have cut production which decreases supply and increases price.

How the FG is directly involved in high oil prices:

1. Can't build refineries which leads to a decrease in supply and an increase in price.
2. Can't drill for more/new oil sources which causes a decrease in supply which increases prices.
3. To many formulations of gas which leads to a decrease in supply and an increase in price.
4. Gas tax.

How can we fix it:
1. Build more refineries which will increase supply and lower cost.
2. Drill for more/new oil sources which will increase supply and decrease price.
3. Have one formulation of gas which will increase supply and decrease price.
4. Once we start to drill and refine more the ME oils wil come down in price. Why? Well we are the number 1 or 2 purchaser of ME oil. If we start to purchase a significantly less amount of oil then they will see a huge dent in their income. They would then increase production to increase supply therby lowering price.

An increase in gas tax will drive up the cost of everything. Why on earth would you want to do that?

If we ignore the terrorist issue, why do we not want to use foreign oil? I mean should we not store all of our oil and release just enough to keep prices fairly low and constant? Then we can use their oil and save our own?

 

#1 Building refineries is up the oil companies. A lot of Ethanol refineries are coming on line this year. Plus peak oil in a few years could mean less oil year to year to refine.

#2 It isn't that easy. Oil companies go after cheap easy to get oil first. They will only drill if the well is profitable at ~$30 a barrel. If a well cost $70 a barrel to extract and transport to market then why would they want to drill there and increase supply to drive prices down to well below $70?

#3 Yes, there are too many formulas, we should have no more than 3 kinds for our various seasons and climates.

#4 ME oil is cheap to extract. OPEC has the ability to increase production and drive a lot of American wells out of business. Back to point #2 if it was so easy to get cheap oil out of the US then we would still be the #1 oil producer in the world. Check out the movie Crude Awakening

Using foreign oil also helps create huge trade deficits which rob our nation of wealth and hurts the dollars value.

 

The US would burn through it's oil reserves in about 2 years if it weren't for imports. While increasing domestic production by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas might smooth out some prices spikes, its by no means any sort of long term solution to the problem.

The problem is that the real cost (borne by you and me) for that cheap ME oil ain't cheap. But this cost is hidden in the budget deficit, so people don't see it at the pump and therefore don't alter their behavior. If they only knew what that gallon of gas was really costing them.

Furthermore, people don't want to pay the actual cost of the road they drive on, so that gets lumped in the federal deficit too (as well as state deficits, such as here in CA where we bond everything.)

However, now the cowardly politicians have conditioned citizens to believe they're getting something for nothing, so the only really available option is to artificially cut demand through regulations that are onerous to the auto industry (CAFE).

 

Reread my post, and I can see where it would come across that way, so I very well see your point.

It just chaps my hide when some dumb-butt comes along and politicizes an issue with name calling.

Appologies. I humbly recall the attack dogs.


Yes, but it really didn't start to go off the deep end till then.

Which shows you to be a far more advanced person than those who think everything is free, and deride even the idea of taxes as they continue to rake in the benefits.

Regardless as to who provides the services, federal, state, county, or city, they cost money.

And I thank you. In return, I'll pay for your's.

I don't think anyone would say they want government to return only to the responsibilities it had in 1913 when the 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified.

I agree 150% with you on this. Once things get to a price where something else is feasible, there'll be a change. But I'm not looking at this as a ecological issue. Today's cars put out so little pollution, sucking on a tailpipe today will do little more than give you a serious headache. I don't buy into the idea that the automobile is the cause of global warming (especially when we've been coming out of a mini ice age for the past nearly 200 years). But I do see this as an issue of making ourselves venerable to the whims of other countries unnecessarily.

I like answers, not just rhetoric. If someone has an idea that stands up, I'm interested, but when someone on one hands says that it's his or her right to use as much gas as they want then in the next post rage against countries that don't support us (which we buy our oil from), it becomes hypocritical... a pet peeve of mine.

Now you're being facetious, Aaron.

I haven't read a single post from anyone saying more taxes solve everything. And that "big government" swipe is getting nothing but air as well. The subject here is an alternative to CAFE.

I think you're missing one inescapable conclusion here:

Fuel consumption must be cut.... dramatically!

This isn't a "maybe", or a "possibly", or an issue of simply finding more oil so we can use more oil. Oil consumption needs to drop.

There's 2 ways to do this.

1) CAFE: which will take over a decade to implement and decades to actually make a substantial dent. It puts the entire burden on our automakers not just to make fuel efficient cars, but to convince you to buy them... even at the point of losing money.

2) Fuel taxes: which will have an immediate impact on oil consumption since it affects all cars on the road, not just new cars. It places the burden in the marketplace and leaves it to the manufactures to satisfy demand.

All this talk of drops in the bucket is mostly just talk. The issue isn't finding more drops. The issue is reducing our consumption.

 

DAMN, YOUR'RE GOOD!!!


That's why I get irked when someone reaches for that old tired "Liberal vs Conservative" blanket to answer things they have no clue.

To those people:

1. China is supporting deficit spending by buying US Bonds and securities. It's like buying things with your neighbor's credit card. He's going to get something in return. Think about it. Iraq was thought to have nukes. North Korea does have nukes. We're under treaty to support South Korea, Japan, and the Philipenes if threatened. Yet we attack Iraq and leave NK to China to talk to. Oh, and by the way, all factories we open up in China must be part Chinese owned... so effectively, we're giving them technology.

2. The US consumes 20,730,000 barrels of oil per day. The US is the world's 3rd largest producer of oil, and we make 7,230,000. We simply are not going to produce enough oil to supply ourselves, regardless as to how much wilderness we strip away. We can send the military into Saudi Arabia (#1 oil producer)tomorrow, and it's 10,580,000 barrels of oil combined with ours is still not enough to meet our needs alone. (in case you were wondering who produces the 2nd most amount of oil between us and Saudi Arabia, it's Russia... but I don't think they'd be a pushover if we invaded them).

3. Deficits don't go away. We have to pay them. Right now your share of just the intrest on the current debt owed is over $12,000 per year. That's just each person. If China (and Saudi Arabia for that instance) is funding the debt, guess who you should make your check out to? 20% of the debt is owned by foreign intrests.

4. Bigger the debt and the bigger the deficit, the cheaper our money becomes. Canada, whose's dollar was once worth 60 cents to ours, is now about even. The value of other currencies against the US dollar have risen similar amounts the past 6 years. Oil is paid in dollars. While the rest of the world's oil price hasn't changed much, our plunging dollar makes ours cost more, feeding inflation pressures.

5. A tax increase on fuel would certainly reduce the amount used. It would also send that increased cost to the government which would be a great thing as long as the government showed the same wisdom (regardless as to how it happened) they showed in the late 90s when surpluses went towards paying off the national debt and help fuel our economic expansion far longer than it should have lasted.


Everything above is a National issue, not a conservative versus liberal issue. Not a republican versus democrat issue. Despite what "Talk Radio" ratings ****** tell you on the radio, these are things that are going to have to be faced, regardless as to who's sitting in the White House, or your Congressional District.