Breaking:US to open 3.9m acres in Alaska

[voteneg]

The futures market does a very important thing but at the same time, as you have proved, can get wildly out of hand with so much money at stake. Perhaps not global oil prices will fall, but oil prices in the U.S may. Sorry, none for you makeshyft 

 

The leases they mention that have already been issued are completely false. Congressional leaders have been grilling the sh*t out of the executives for the past couple of years and no progress has been made in bringing the price down. These democrat leaders and Obama are talking redistribution of wealth from U.S oil execs, so if they are getting these threats made at them, why the hell would they sit there and not drill more if government barriers were not in the way?

It's just that the oil in those existing leases aren't as profitable for the oil companies... they lie in smaller and more numerous deposits as opposed to large and single chunks. Thus making it more expensive to harvest.

Then why even expect them to drill in 50 different places and have to make all the equipment necessary to do so? What if they tried to go ahead and drill in these 50 places and it ends up breaking the back of the U.S oil industry? Do they end up drilling at these places and find they only break even with how much it took just to set up the drills?

 

I guess it could be taken any which way, they could be lying, or our government is lying. I feel at such a loss with the state of the world and the truth. Where do you get the truth from now-a-days?

The problem is a little bit of both... oil doesn't want to drill in those areas because it would yield less of a profit... and less of a profit would require higher prices to justify the excursion. Both sides aren't being completely realistic about the situation.

 

Also here's my take on taxes... the people of the United States deserve to receive a great portion of the revenue made from drilling oil... this oil belongs to the people of the United States... it is OUR natural resource... it doesn't belong to the oil companies... they are merely contractors whom earn money to retrieve it for us. I believe they shouldn't be earning as much profit (no matter how little or large) off the natural resources of the people. Oil interests want to make taxes on oil lower... and they try to convince the American people into supporting it... however what they don't say is that lowering taxes will only allow them to earn more... it's already been established how much people are willing to pay... oil is inelastic... they can charge well over what it's worth and people will still have to buy it (because people have NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE)... and the price is set by largely the same people on the flip side in the futures and speculation market... They'll drill for oil at the profit margin they're making right now... they're guaranteed oil won't go down if markets remain unregulated... that's why you'll find Republicans advocating lower taxes and and unregulated market... when in fact we need to re-regulate the market to ensure reasonable prices... and maintain the taxes so that that money comes back to the people as opposed to the oil companies.

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

The american people already get a great share in the profits of oil. Pensions through stocks are often funded by the profit big oil makes. Same goes with many other jobs. There are big execs making big money, yes, but not as big as the leftist media wants you to think, and a lot of people are getting more money from those profits than they want you to think. There's no need for their taxes as we can already see what our government spends the taxes on, which is nothing I certainly voted for.

 

Also, there are big oil execs talking a lot about other viable sources of energy. I just heard an ad from T Boon Pickens, an oil man talking about how DRILLING IS NOT THE ANSWER, even though I snickered at how full of sh*t he was when I heard it. It's the new fad to talk about how "green" you are, dude.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420

[Saggy]

Overall I think you are taking a more pessimistic look at it all. And it's easy to, but I think people really need to be optimistic and adopt a can-do attitude. We need to work this out together... no one individual can bring about a solution.

Bringing "pessimism" and "optimism" into this context is pretty idealistic. I'm simply trying to be realistic. The average consumer today has to buy a used car because the high price for vehicles. Couple that with the higher prices for alternative fuel/engine cars, and you get what is essentially a very unappealing aspect to most portions of the society. The problem with the ideal that, "People should just look toward their future," is that, we can't control what people do; we can't will them to adopt a gung-ho attitude, we can only really analyze trends. Trends show that most people are too worried about their present day life and stresses ( i.e. The Rat Race ), that the only thing they really care about is lower fuel costs.

 

What I'm essentially saying is that we're jumping the gun. Simply because we have viable options for technology and infrastructure ( just not perhaps in place yet ), it means nothing without consumer interest. Unless there's a very sudden demand for these types of vehicles, I don't think that anyone is going to be willing to shift over to the infrastructure that the new technologies rely on. Because of that, I think that alternative fuel/engine cars are just going to be somewhat of a niche for the first few decades of their lives. The majority of consumers who wish to drive them are going to have to pay high prices in the beginning, and high prices just don't mesh with what the consumer wants these days.

 

 

The best way I see to launch a successful alternative fuel/engine for vehicles is to put more of an emphasis on traveling than city driving with these cars. One of the best features of vehicles like these is the extended fuel millage, and if someone has the money to go on a trip, they're likely able to afford the high prices of gas, so if these alternative sources are just going to make it even cheaper for them to travel long distances, why wouldn't they go for it? With city-driving, I think the idea that you can get 300+ miles per gallon doesn't really come into the picture if the car costs $45,000 more than your budget.

 

Simply put, the technology needs to be marketed to consumers that want it and will invest in it, not attempted to be forced upon them. I mean, unless the government wants to come out with extremely affordable, extremely clean, extremely high-millage cars, it won't work like that. Not until the technology has enough consumer interest and support to actually begin offering the technology at affordable prices for the average consumer.

 

In any case, I think motivating the consumer to want the product has never really been a successful strategy. The technology, and the vehicles using them need to have a broader array of consumer interested in them before any of it--the technology, the vehicle, and the infrastructure-- becomes viable and affordable.

[voteneg]

The american people already get a great share in the profits of oil. Pensions through stocks are often funded by the profit big oil makes. Same goes with many other jobs. There are big execs making big money, yes, but not as big as the leftist media wants you to think, and a lot of people are getting more money from those profits than they want you to think. There's no need for their taxes as we can already see what our government spends the taxes on, which is nothing I certainly voted for.

The media is not leftist... the media largely right leaning... they are after all funded and owned by a small amount of corporations... I'm a die hard liberal... and I rarely see anything on the news closely advocating anything I stand for.

 

The American people get a great share of the oil profits... bullsh*t... first tell that to all the people who lost everything in the enron disaster.

 

Second the United States has a very unequal Lorenz curve for wealth distribution.

 

THE RICHEST 1 (ONE) PERCENT of Americans own more wealth than:

 

1) ALL of the wealth of ALL of the MIDDLE class

COMBINED WITH

2) ALL of the wealth of ALL of the LOWER class

AND ADDED TO

3) ALL of the wealth of the bottom HALF of the UPPER class

 

-Forbes.

 

Don't tell me that things are relatively equal. It's clear where the majority of the money goes... the top 1%. And that's a plain fact. Yes people do make a living off of oil, working in the field, but those people don't have to be dependent on oil for their jobs... why don't we create green collar manufacturing jobs making windmills and solar panels... I'm sure there is a great need for scientists and engineers to develop the tech of tomorrow... lets get them working on that. And those that invest in oil could also make big money by investing in wind and solar and alternative fuels if the government were to officially and wholly take action to sponsor that sort of development. But I'll tell you one thing... the great majority of those in the lower and middle class aren't making money off oil investments... for they have/had no money to invest in the first place... instead they're stuck paying out the ass to make it to their job and back so they can wake up to do it again the next day.

 

 

Third.

 

You don't want the government to spend tax money on roads?

 

a national defense?

 

healthcare?

 

new technologies?

 

maintaining clean and safe food and water?

 

public entertainment like parks, zoos, stadiums, museums, and other recreational things?

 

a policing force to maintain the general peace?

 

national symbols like the capitol building, the washington monument, and many others across the country?

 

a public welfare system as a safety net for people down on their luck?

 

public schooling to educate our children?

 

None of those?

 

 

 

 

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

The economic sense of this is based in the deceptions regarding the measurement of units of work and the various falsehoods of the measurements of worth.

 

The whole issue of where does Oil come from might as well get opened up as well.

 

There are huge controversies all over each and every inch of oil issues and scientists and economists only seem to agree when they are being paid by people who agree......or they people who are affiliated with one another on some level.

 

We can all try and pretend that conspiracy is not part of human history all we like but the truth is that conspiracy is inherent in all things public and political or they would become so the first time that someone of a trade gathered with others of their profession.

 

ONCE AGAIN I QUOTE this rather important point for the sake of comprehension on the issues that are the core issues of this.

 

 

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies...

 

A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.

 

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. -The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X, Adam Smith,1776

 

Oil? Money? Banking? Stocks? Professions?

 

The problem is more simple than these issues....it is the fact that an underwhelming amount of the few have too big a hand in the lives and pockets of the overwhelming many. It is a people problem and one that is best answered by holding those directly responsible instead of those indirectly responsible.

 

The people who control the particular items in question instead of letting those same people dictate and regulate who is held responsible for the things they do.

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

The bulk of my point is exactly what Sag is saying and the current way of doing things is making that goal even harder. How am I supposed to afford anything new/used when I'm paying more and more, everyday, no less. Even to build the new technologies, oil will have to be involved, so before we know it, we're paying $10.00/gal and it will be too expensive to even start developing anything, and the only hope is it comes from another country, but that idea aside, we will be frozen nonetheless.

 

Drilling plays a huge role in solving our energy independence problem, I can not see how anyone could not agree on some level. Your stance on alternatives can vary greatly and how much we should invest, fine, but drilling=no choice about it.

 

@HGF: There's more people responsible for this than we could even imagine, and the sad thing is, most of them probalbly don't even believe for a second that they are, and many probably have never met, and many hate each other as much as we the common people could hate them.

 

Either that, or a couple thousand people know full well what they are doing. Or they are all controlled by a few. At the moment it seems there are a couple of thousand but I guess I could be wrong, but it seems the reason we are in this mess is because so many parties are fighting so vigorously for their own cause.

 

Or maybe I missed the point completely.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420

[Saggy]

drilling=no choice about it.

 

That's pretty much the most concise way to put it.

 

However, the one thing I wonder about is whether we should really turn a blind eye from industry. You brought the cost of manufacturing up because it would require oil, and that's a good point. I think that industries would be much more willing to invest in new technology, because they always are. Often the consumer is just left just trying to keep up in a financial sense, they don't really have that much money to risk on this stuff in the first place.

 

The only thing that I think is really in question is how much industrial use of oil comes into play. I think that it would be a tremendous way to lower our demand for oil, and thus lower the price, if it is a major contributor to the demand for oil as it stands. I'm pretty sure that the consensus is consumer automobiles drive most of the demand for oil at this point, but if we addressed it from industry outward, consumers could enjoy benefits that would only make it easier and more likely for them to adopt the technology as it becomes more available to them, no matter what the level of demand for oil industry is having, it will have an effect on the price in some way.

[voteneg]

 

Overall I think you are taking a more pessimistic look at it all. And it's easy to, but I think people really need to be optimistic and adopt a can-do attitude. We need to work this out together... no one individual can bring about a solution.

Bringing "pessimism" and "optimism" into this context is pretty idealistic. I'm simply trying to be realistic. The average consumer today has to buy a used car because the high price for vehicles. Couple that with the higher prices for alternative fuel/engine cars, and you get what is essentially a very unappealing aspect to most portions of the society. The problem with the ideal that, "People should just look toward their future," is that, we can't control what people do; we can't will them to adopt a gung-ho attitude, we can only really analyze trends. Trends show that most people are too worried about their present day life and stresses ( i.e. The Rat Race ), that the only thing they really care about is lower fuel costs.

 

What I'm essentially saying is that we're jumping the gun. Simply because we have viable options for technology and infrastructure ( just not perhaps in place yet ), it means nothing without consumer interest. Unless there's a very sudden demand for these types of vehicles, I don't think that anyone is going to be willing to shift over to the infrastructure that the new technologies rely on. Because of that, I think that alternative fuel/engine cars are just going to be somewhat of a niche for the first few decades of their lives. The majority of consumers who wish to drive them are going to have to pay high prices in the beginning, and high prices just don't mesh with what the consumer wants these days.

 

 

The best way I see to launch a successful alternative fuel/engine for vehicles is to put more of an emphasis on traveling than city driving with these cars. One of the best features of vehicles like these is the extended fuel millage, and if someone has the money to go on a trip, they're likely able to afford the high prices of gas, so if these alternative sources are just going to make it even cheaper for them to travel long distances, why wouldn't they go for it? With city-driving, I think the idea that you can get 300+ miles per gallon doesn't really come into the picture if the car costs $45,000 more than your budget.

 

Simply put, the technology needs to be marketed to consumers that want it and will invest in it, not attempted to be forced upon them. I mean, unless the government wants to come out with extremely affordable, extremely clean, extremely high-millage cars, it won't work like that. Not until the technology has enough consumer interest and support to actually begin offering the technology at affordable prices for the average consumer.

 

In any case, I think motivating the consumer to want the product has never really been a successful strategy. The technology, and the vehicles using them need to have a broader array of consumer interested in them before any of it--the technology, the vehicle, and the infrastructure-- becomes viable and affordable.

I'm an idealist... your a pragmatist. but just because I have high hopes and dreams for what I'd like us to accomplish doesn't mean I'm incapable of trying to find practical solutions to accomplish them... It will just require more work and effort... fortunately some of us have the will to make something happen.

 

You underestimate the power of inspiration.

 

People are too concerned with their daily lives and the price of fuel and how that effects them... how do we change that and bring into focus the things that are gonna matter 10 yrs down the road? I don't have all those answers, but sitting around and waiting for it to happen surely won't accomplish it that's for sure.

 

Your main argument is that consumer interest in these sorts of vehicles is too low, I disagree. The demand for alternative energy cars is high... people want to buy green, they do want to save on gas... look at Hybrid and ultra efficient compact sales for example. People would jump at the chance to buy an electric car provided it's in comparable price to a petrol counterpart.

 

So now it's down to whether or not we can actually manage to bring that price down far enough to spur demand. I say yes. You say no. Many people in academia and industry agree on the fact that it is possible to bring the price down enough... They just say we need significant funding and investment to make it happen.

 

Of course demand will run low if alternative energy cars are too pricey. My whole point is too find a way to make it so they aren't. If we allow things to run at their natural course without giving the market a big jumpstart we will see things shape up like you suggest. However I believe it's necessary to spur the change through investment in order to create a relatively oil independent automotive industry, one that's better for the environment, and one that's better for our national security. Here's to the future...

Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

 

The american people already get a great share in the profits of oil. Pensions through stocks are often funded by the profit big oil makes. Same goes with many other jobs. There are big execs making big money, yes, but not as big as the leftist media wants you to think, and a lot of people are getting more money from those profits than they want you to think. There's no need for their taxes as we can already see what our government spends the taxes on, which is nothing I certainly voted for.

The media is not leftist... the media largely right leaning... they are after all funded and owned by a small amount of corporations... I'm a die hard liberal... and I rarely see anything on the news closely advocating anything I stand for.

 

The American people get a great share of the oil profits... bullsh*t... first tell that to all the people who lost everything in the enron disaster.

 

Second the United States has a very unequal Lorenz curve for wealth distribution.

 

THE RICHEST 1 (ONE) PERCENT of Americans own more wealth than:

 

1) ALL of the wealth of ALL of the MIDDLE class

COMBINED WITH

2) ALL of the wealth of ALL of the LOWER class

AND ADDED TO

3) ALL of the wealth of the bottom HALF of the UPPER class

 

-Forbes.

 

Don't tell me that things are relatively equal. It's clear where the majority of the money goes... the top 1%. And that's a plain fact. Yes people do make a living off of oil, working in the field, but those people don't have to be dependent on oil for their jobs... why don't we create green collar manufacturing jobs making windmills and solar panels... I'm sure there is a great need for scientists and engineers to develop the tech of tomorrow... lets get them working on that. And those that invest in oil could also make big money by investing in wind and solar and alternative fuels if the government were to officially and wholly take action to sponsor that sort of development. But I'll tell you one thing... the great majority of those in the lower and middle class aren't making money off oil investments... for they have/had no money to invest in the first place... instead they're stuck paying out the ass to make it to their job and back so they can wake up to do it again the next day.

 

 

Third.

 

Huh? 50% of the countries taxes are paid by the top 1%.

 

No, they don't get a great share at the present, that's not what I said.

 

What the hell don't you mean that the media isn't leftist? All they've been doing for the past 20 years is talking up the story you're talking now. Viacom is a HUGE corporation, btw.

 

 

You don't want the government to spend tax money on roads?

 

a national defense?

 

healthcare?

 

new technologies?

 

maintaining clean and safe food and water?

 

public entertainment like parks, zoos, stadiums, museums, and other recreational things?

 

a policing force to maintain the general peace?

 

national symbols like the capitol building, the washington monument, and many others across the country?

 

a public welfare system as a safety net for people down on their luck?

 

public schooling to educate our children?

 

None of those?

 

The first two, yes.

 

EDIT: I've deleted some of this post cause I don't feel it wise to start diving in to a point by point argument about how taxes should be used, as I was starting to, but to say the least, my opinion ranges from "holy sh*t, no" to "are you kidding me"?

 

Even if things are unfairly (I never said they WERE) balanced concerning wealth, the fact of the matter is now we are definitely all making less money as the bottom 99% with higher gas prices, and that's why we should go ahead and drill cause it certainly is not getting any f*cking better by waiting for that battery car.

 

Since when does government do anything right?

 

 

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420

[voteneg]

 

Huh? 50% of the countries taxes are paid by the top 1%.

 

No, they don't get a great share at the present, that's not what I said.

 

What the hell don't you mean that the media isn't leftist? All they've been doing for the past 20 years is talking up the story you're talking now.

 

The first two, yes.

 

The rest, they've sucked balls at doing all those things and I don't trust them in any of those areas with what I pay, sorry.

 

Welfare systems have been getting way out of hand recently as I even heard a California ad talking about how easy it is to get food stamps, and just swipe them right on through with a card that acts like a credit card. Connecticut, it's still a pretty big pain in the ass to get TA, but it's starting to head way into the wrong direction.

 

Public schooling is half the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

Say the top 1% do pay 50% of the taxes... it still doesn't negate the fact that they still sit on 90% of the wealth after taxes. Not only that they are the ones who benefit the most from the infrastructure that supports their ability to make as much money as they do... without it they would have never been able to build the fortune they have.

 

One man working for himself isn't as productive as everyone pooling in to achieve a common goal. Those who can afford to pay more should, for without those underneath their wouldn't be a system to facilitate their wealth accumulation.

 

The media is not leftist... they ARE right leaning. Just because the media does talk about something you disagree with doesn't make it wrong... and it certainly doesn't make it Liberal.

 

You agree to the first two of Military and Healthcare... good... that's where most of the tax money goes.

 

The government does a good job with many of the others... I am very satisfied with what has been built... I live in a state that until recently was really really progressive... with some of the highest tax rates... and as a result we have some of the best public schools, arts facilities, parks and other public works projects that facilitate a great and healthy environment. All because these things were properly funded and payed for... don't bitch about failed sh*t in your state because things weren't done as well as they were in mine. There is a well documented pattern... those states that fund there schools less have lower performing students. As such it's no surprise that those states with higher tax rates have the money to invest into their society... as opposed to those that don't. Taxes are the price of civilization, without them we'd have nothing. There certainly are problems in the welfare system that allow people to mooch off the system... but the great majority use it because they need it. Of course conservatives point out the most flagrant abuses... it's not their goal to show how social programs have helped countless many.

 

Foodstamp cards have been around for years... my mother was able to get one when he was raising me by herself while doing college by herself in 1992.

 

Inadequate funding and wrong approaches to education are why so many students under perform these days... fortunately in my state the effects of a well funded public school system has shown it's benefits... States like Mississippi and Louisiana are really worse for the wear... low taxes... low funding... lower results.

 

And again your missing the point drilling for oil WILL NOT make a dent in gas prices. The USGS and the EIA reports as quoted in my post about ANWR a few pages back attest to this. Drilling for oil will only prolong the death of a dying industry. If the government we're to invest in battery technology so auto manufacturer's could sell electric vehicles at cheap reasonable prices I feel that could solve lots of our problems. Drilling now won't yield oil for another ten years... we could have fully electric cars by then that aren't dependent on gas.

Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg

[Saggy]

Quote Train

The power of inspiration means nothing to the consumer that can't afford it. Sad but true. I'm not saying that it is impossible to motivate people towards a certain goal, however I think it is only realistic to admit that the power of poverty and desperation is much more powerful than inspiration.

 

I think that there are many segments of society that wish to "buy green", but the problem, and I may be generalizing here, is that most of the people that are interested in "buying green" are economically stable, and capable of concerning themselves with what other more economically desperate people would call trivial matters. Basically, the guy that has to worry about how he is going to drive to work on the East Side of the state because he's unemployed, is probably not going to be taking into consideration what effect on the environment his choice of car will have. Of course you can offer perks like higher gas mileage, but can he afford it?

 

Then the part that we can't ignore at all is the fact that so many Americans today cannot even afford new cars at all. The only way to do this in my opinion is to find an alternative fuel source that will work in existing internal combustion engines. The reason I say this is because the majority of Americans who can afford to buy a car, get an older used vehicle. Buying a brand new vehicle is a luxury that few can enjoy in America, and it's going to be awhile before the few that can enjoy that luxury stimulate the market to the point where your average American consumer can go to the used car lot and buy an electric car, or a gas/electric hybrid, or perhaps a hydrogen vehicle, whatever the technology may be.

 

The way I see it, it makes more sense to try to develop a new infrastructure around a a pre-existing technology if we want things to work fast and see effects fast. I don't thing that drilling for oil is going to ease the strain on people's wallets in less than a few years, but I think that the couple of decades for cars with new technology to become available on used car lots will prevent new technology from being the solution.

 

 

Here's the problem. On one hand you say that sitting around and waiting won't make it happen, and on the other you say that you are not incapable of thinking of a solution. At what point do we discuss applying it in a practical manner? To simply assume that it is going to happen in the face of realistic expectations is being idealistic, and does nothing to actually help. Even if we decide to invest in one technology over the other, it doesn't solve the problem of actually adopting it. The only way to push toward adoption of new technology, and new infrastructure, is to wean ourselves off of the current technology and infrastructure. The question of course is how to do that, and to make things more simple and the shift easier, I think we should concern ourselves with how to better develop the infrastructure for technology everyone already has, and I think that drilling for oil is only congruent with that. In a way, drilling for oil can be and is something we can do to push toward alternative technologies that is probably going to work much quicker and to the benefit of many more than just trying to increase demand for alternative technologies.

 

 

I'm not saying in the least that I don't think it's possible to switch over or stimulate demand, I'm just saying that at this point in our economy, the American consumer is generally unable to adopt new technologies, even if they are inspired to do so. The best way to address that problem, like I already stated, as to try to address the problems through industry before-hand, and to preserve and improve the infrastructure we already have in place. However, the bottom line, is that we cannot just simply abandon oil, we have to wean ourselves off of it, and I don't see any reason why we should avoid trying to find more affordable, local supplies of that oil to improve the infrastructure, rather than trying to tear it down.

 

There are probably other beneficial things we can do than drilling in Alaska too, but for now, it's what we can do.

[voteneg]

 

The power of inspiration means nothing to the consumer that can't afford it. Sad but true. I'm not saying that it is impossible to motivate people towards a certain goal, however I think it is only realistic to admit that the power of poverty and desperation is much more powerful than inspiration.

 

Inspiration may not make a person able to go buy something beyond their means... but it sure can motivate people to find ways to make it within the reach of the average working person. We need to make electric affordable. As in priced anywhere from 10-15k entry level affordable... and up from there for better vehicles with more luxuries etc. People do buy petrol cars at the entry level price... and they do buy cars at the higher end too... it all depends on the individual/family earnings.

 

 

I think that there are many segments of society that wish to "buy green", but the problem, and I may be generalizing here, is that most of the people that are interested in "buying green" are economically stable, and capable of concerning themselves with what other more economically desperate people would call trivial matters. Basically, the guy that has to worry about how he is going to drive to work on the East Side of the state because he's unemployed, is probably not going to be taking into consideration what effect on the environment his choice of car will have. Of course you can offer perks like higher gas mileage, but can he afford it?

 

Those in more financially stable situations are obviously able to do more to make themselves "green" including doing something like buying an expensive hybrid vehicle or exotic electric like those from Tesla for the real wealthy. And that's the way it stands today. You still aren't addressing my suggestion/goal/wish that we find ways to make petrol independent vehicles affordable in the near future. If that were to be accomplished people would be in a position where they were more able to make the purchase of an electric car. And I certainly don't think that the wish to go "green" is only limited to those that are more wealthy. Poor people can care about the environment too, despite the fact that it's generally harder for them to make green changes at the moment.

 

 

Then the part that we can't ignore at all is the fact that so many Americans today cannot even afford new cars at all. The only way to do this in my opinion is to find an alternative fuel source that will work in existing internal combustion engines. The reason I say this is because the majority of Americans who can afford to buy a car, get an older used vehicle. Buying a brand new vehicle is a luxury that few can enjoy in America, and it's going to be awhile before the few that can enjoy that luxury stimulate the market to the point where your average American consumer can go to the used car lot and buy an electric car, or a gas/electric hybrid, or perhaps a hydrogen vehicle, whatever the technology may be.

 

Your right... That's why strong tax incentives are needed. I did some researching and I found that 17 million new vehicles are purchased every year... out of a population of 300,000,000 million in the U.S. it would take around 17.6 years for enough electric vehicles (assuming all sales are electric) to proliferate into the market so that there would be nearly enough for every individual, despite age, or ability to drive. However it's obvious that some of those sales are fleet sales... but also not every person in the country needs a car. So I'm sure that 17.6 year figure for used electrics to reach the bottom of the used vehicle market is likely much less. Say 10 years perhaps (more research is needed.) I also feel that the ability to become free form gas is a strong incentive for the less wealthy to find ways to make the purchase of an electric vehicle happen. In all I still feel you are underestimating the hunger for alternatives.

 

 

The way I see it, it makes more sense to try to develop a new infrastructure around a a pre-existing technology if we want things to work fast and see effects fast. I don't thing that drilling for oil is going to ease the strain on people's wallets in less than a few years, but I think that the couple of decades for cars with new technology to become available on used car lots will prevent new technology from being the solution.

 

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nation...oil-prices.html

 

The above article points out that ANWR drilling would do little to impact prices on the consumer... rather the biggest impact would be to reduce oil dependence... but if that's the priority why don't we find something that will rid us of all oil dependence for good. If we were to authorize drilling in ANWR and the CS we wouldn't see any of it until ten years from now. And peak production won't hit until another ten years after that... by then we could have developed alternative fuel/electric vehicles... aaand had about 10 years for the cars to proliferate into the used car market like you are concerned about. Prices are set by the global market... increased production here... will cause decreased production elsewhere to offset the extra. And with oil prices expected to skyrocket even further gas would still cost an arm and a leg too much for the average consumer, even if we practically gave away locally drilled oil for free.

 

 

Here's the problem. On one hand you say that sitting around and waiting won't make it happen, and on the other you say that you are not incapable of thinking of a solution. At what point do we discuss applying it in a practical manner? To simply assume that it is going to happen in the face of realistic expectations is being idealistic, and does nothing to actually help. Even if we decide to invest in one technology over the other, it doesn't solve the problem of actually adopting it. The only way to push toward adoption of new technology, and new infrastructure, is to wean ourselves off of the current technology and infrastructure. The question of course is how to do that, and to make things more simple and the shift easier, I think we should concern ourselves with how to better develop the infrastructure for technology everyone already has, and I think that drilling for oil is only congruent with that. In a way, drilling for oil can be and is something we can do to push toward alternative technologies that is probably going to work much quicker and to the benefit of many more than just trying to increase demand for alternative technologies.

 

Again you're assuming drilling for oil will alleviate the prices... it simply will not, or at least not enough to make a difference in a price that's quickly becoming more and more determined by demand in the world market. What we could produce and when we could have it by would be nothing more than a drop in a bucket compared to global demand by the time it comes online.

 

You say you think oil is needed to drive new change, because obviously we need our world to function while new technology is pursued and implemented. I agree. The debate is whether or not we need new oil to allow that to happen and whether it'd make any impact. Many don't think it will. But I'll say fine, lets go ahead and drill... only so long as we make a comprehensive plan to develop A. Alternative fuels that can be made/grown... or B. Electric cars that come in at affordable price points along with infrastructure investment to convert gas stations into charging stations within 10 years. That way we still get alternative fueled vehicles within the time frame I want, and you get the minimal drop on oil prices you want (and falsely believe will actually alleviate pressure on low income individuals/families.)

 

 

I'm not saying in the least that I don't think it's possible to switch over or stimulate demand, I'm just saying that at this point in our economy, the American consumer is generally unable to adopt new technologies, even if they are inspired to do so. The best way to address that problem, like I already stated, as to try to address the problems through industry before-hand, and to preserve and improve the infrastructure we already have in place. However, the bottom line, is that we cannot just simply abandon oil, we have to wean ourselves off of it, and I don't see any reason why we should avoid trying to find more affordable, local supplies of that oil to improve the infrastructure, rather than trying to tear it down.

 

So if the problem is that the American consumer is unable to afford new electric vehicles, how do we make it so they can? Like I said before we create incentives for the purchase of one. We as a nation pickup the cost of things like healthcare so businesses and families aren't burdened with the cost, thus allowing for the manufacture of cheaper goods (cars) and creating extra income for families to spend. We implement higher wage standards so people earn more, and we invest public education (particularly at the higher level) so that school isn't so expensive. Basically things aimed at leveling the playing field, a more equal distribution of wealth, and social programs to bring some of the expense off of the families. This will require the reallocation of funds and perhaps changes to the tax brackets and rates. In all we might be paying more in taxes a little... but the idea is that we get more in return.

 

Finally I'm not advocating we abandon oil... it will be needed for many a year to come... my main argument is that further drilling will not alleviate prices within ten years... and even hardly a little another ten years after that. I feel the potential environmental risk is not worth the potential gains... especially when we allow oil to remain our main source of energy for the expected future. We should have comprehensive plans in place to be oil independent (for personal automobiles at least) by 30 years from now. That's an accomplishable goal... so why not go for it?

 

 

There are probably other beneficial things we can do than drilling in Alaska too, but for now, it's what we can do.

 

There's natural gas up there and on the Continental shelf too, however I feel solar, hydro, and wind can create enough energy to supply homes and businesses with heat and power in a "green" manner, which to me is a much better alternative.

Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

Yes, we have read your post on the speculative effects of drilling in ANWR, but you still haven't mention what the other billions of gallons of oil we have available in our immediate vicinity for drilling. It is undeniable that all of that oil and natural gas will not bring the price down. Hell, if we put our minds to it, we could probalbly start getting some of it out of the ground in less than 10. Where did this number come out of anyways? I can only imagine if we said this at other points in history, how they would have turned out.

 

Now, you also keep factoring in that this will be available to the world when most of the debate here is how do we make it benefit the U.S. Well, since you're so gung-ho about government run industry because a couple of guys make a couple hundred million a year (And there are more than just oil people that make hundreds of millions a year) then why don't we just take over the damn industry, and put it directly in to our own reserves only for our use? Lets get back at the middle east and charge them whatever the hell we want like they do to us for a barrel of crude. We could sell it to Britain cheap for sticking by our sh*t policies, too. Still, lets keep most of it for ourselves.

 

You say that we should still tax the hell out of the rich oil men when the fact is they don't take that much money from the current price, and the current price they are not responsible for.

 

My failed sh*t state, lmfao. I live in Connecticut, the richest, or if not, in the top 3 richest. State taxes are a different matter,, I've been talking FEDERAL taxes, and need I remind of the failing social programs the Feds have put into place? It's not like the state of f*cking South Dakota is going to subsidize the oil industry and the whole world is going to answer to them.

 

The fact is taxes slow the economy down, which is exactly what they are doing. A $400 ticket L.A to NYC, $160 was said by a recent report on the Travel Channel to be taken by the federal government. Why the hell would anyone want to go on a holiday or whatever bullsh*t people do for the illusion of fun when they get their wallets ass reamed by the Feds? Nobody wants to travel, because of this. The founder of Jet Blue was also on this same program talking about how it's literally impossible to turn any profit in the U.S, so what does the guy do? He just started his own airline in Brazil, where there is no government rapeage of his industry, and he makes tons of f*cking money, again!

 

State taxes are a completely different issue, state taxes are much more fair in the grand scheme of things because they represent the interests of the few million that are in them, rather than the whole 300 million picture. Only the first point, national defense, do I agree the Feds tackling. If they start taking over healthcare, whoa nelly.

 

Wrong approaches to education are just it, period. Sure in some areas there are inadequate funding, I will not say there isn't. What they teach too isn't all that enlightening whatsoever. I live out here in the suburbs man. All our town tax money goes to our school, which I found had a lot of ups, but many, many downs.

 

The fundamental flaw with your point of view is you think the common good applies to everyone, when it really does not. Federal taxes often do not benefit the common good in this country and are usually found being tossed away in earmarks, bloated salaries and accomadations, different government organizations that could be debated straight in to the toilet with relative ease. Our money that goes to the Feds never comes back to us except when we are getting blown up because we start blowing their sh*t up even harder.

 

The goal should be to make everybody richer, not make a couple of guys poorer because you're pissed they decided getting in to oil was their way of making sh*t work for themselves. How could their fathers have known 50 years ago that oil was going to be used strictly today? Lets even go back to the late 1800's, who would have thunk it then.

 

The way the government is handling things now is just making the common man poorer, and them looking like they care by staging their hearings, while those oil men you bitch about are getting richer sitting in front of them. Wow, a lot of good those hearings are doing. We should just give the government all of our money and f*ck oil because they sure know how to piss it all away faster than any of us can, and I can damn well assure you they won't be putting much of it in to alternatives research.

 

EDIT: I just heard on the radio that raised taxes in California have caused Toyota to not go ahead with the building of a plant for their Hybrid, the Prius, in San Francisco. I'm going to put this the way the host put it: "Is there any other place in this country that deserves that plant more than San Francisco?"

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420

[voteneg]

Taxes.

 

Please take the time to read this paper on taxes. It's a defense of a vital institution and as such taxes as well. It's entitled "Taxes Are Good" -By Professor Douglas Amy of Mount Holyoke College.

 

Page 1 Taxes Are Good. http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=1

Page 2 The Big Disconnect. http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=2

Page 3 The Connection in Europe. http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=3

Page 4 Americans Are Not Over Taxed. http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=4

Page 5 Taxes Aren't Hurting the Economy. http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=5

Page 6 Are We Better Off Paying Less Taxes. http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=6

Page 7 Seeing Government As "Them" Not "Us." http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=7

 

I believe it does an excellent job of debunking some the more popular myths associated with the taxation system and it backs them up with undeniable statistics from credible institutions. Please read it. Putting the links here is much cleaner than copy and pasting/quoting the whole thing right here in the thread. Largely I agree with his assessment and it reflects my personal opinion of taxes... many of the arguments you use are simply half truths and or obscure examples that don't accurately reflect the real situation. Read the article and you'll see what I mean. Reading his other articles on "why is government good" is also a suggestion I have... if not to convince you at least so you can better understand the opposing viewpoint.

 

National Healthcare.

 

In short if the government were to take over the health care industry we would see a small raise in taxes... but an even larger decline in current insurance healthcare burden. This is because the government could negotiate cheaper prices on drugs and medical supplies because the shear sizes that would be purchased in bulk and the fact that the gov would have more weight in saying what it's willing to pay for. The economies of scale really work well here. Quick efficient and excellent care is managed in each and every other western european country... the evils of national healthcare are exaggerated by a right leaning media that's largely funded (through ads) by the current pharmacutical companies, health providers, and insurance agencies. The other great benefit is that small and large bussinesses alike won't have to pay for healthcare for their employers. Take General Motors for example... they are burdened down by the cost of healthcare for their current and former employees... taking that burden off them and onto the government would allow them to be more competitive with Japanese automakers that currently do not pay for healthcare for their workers because the government picks up the tab. This would allow GM to be more competitive, keep current jobs... and potentially expand to create new ones... and they could make better cars as well.

 

Next time you hear about how sh*tty universal state run care is on tv news think about who advertises on that channel... how many viagra, cialis, zoloft, lunexa, nuva ring, etc etc etc etc etc ads do you see on TV... a sh*t ton. The media is in the pocket of the companies who advertise on them. Pointing out the obscure and the worst of it all is not indicative of the general situation and certainly not the norm.

 

Oil & Gas.

 

World demand is going up. So much so that whatever we good get would be off set and neutralized by higher prices elsewhere. OPEC would cut production to meet our increased production... all in order to protect the current prices that they are getting.

 

I believe it would be more of a strategic advantage if we save the oil reserves we have now... there may be time... during a war perhaps when we might want to have that oil ready to go... We'll still need petrol for jet engines and naval craft for a while to come... draining it up now and wasting it on automobiles is fool hardy.

 

By the time this oil comes online I suspect the price might have risen twice fold what it is now... or more even. At that point the amount of supply the Continental shelf and ANWR would/could bring in would have minimal impact on price. A few cents per gallon won't matter when prices are reaching 8 dollars. That's the reality we face. The sooner we find alternative solutions the better. End of story.

 

If you make a reply I won't have a response till much later... I've got some political canvassing to do within my precinct. I am happy this debate has gone on fairly well civilized... it's nice to find someone who actually makes an argument as opposed to just saying something lame like a "f*ck you" or "liberals are fags" or something equally childish. Props there at the very least.

Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

Wow dude, I don't think we are listening to the same media. The media meaning CNN, P-MSNBC, all they gloat about is alternatives, big evil oil, and national healthcare.

 

I don't need to read those papers to know they are full of sh*t. My very first job I worked 10 hours a week on the books, I earned $70 gross, taxes took away $25 leaving me with only $45 net. I sure felt like spending, then. I try to stay off the books as often as possible after that. It seems to me government has no sympathy for any amount of money made.

 

Lets raise the gas tax even more then if taxing is so good, so that way it takes someone on my income $50 to go twenty miles. That sure will increase productivity and stimulate economic growth.

 

Taxes are hurting the economy, I just told you about the founder of Jet Blue not even giving a sh*t about this country anymore because the government take away so much of their money. You tax the hell out of the rich, they will all just leave, rich people are needed no matter what way you look at it.

 

The government is bad, period. Social Security is a disaster because it is put into the general pool rather than into it's own pool, so everytime the government wants to do something, they are dipping into their own social programs without any regard for them, or us. They are not for "Us" as your article tries to put it, so many United states are just begging to drill for oil and congress will not let them.

 

I could see if the government was run right, made a lick of f*cking sense, then maybe nationalized healthcare and such would not be such a bad idea, but the fact is our government takes so much for themselves, that the papers you bring up can't even stand by this government.

 

BTW, the reportedly 35 billions barrels of oil imported over the past 50 years would be matched by all of the oil deposits we know of, and then some. Some areas, we don't even have to drill because the drills are already set up, but congressional and pro-enviroment blocks are keeping them from sucking it up. We could be getting extra oil right now, but our government is blocking it.

 

Congress passed a ban last year on shale drilling for coal and etc. Don't tell me they aren't blocking anything, because they are.

 

 

I am happy this debate has gone on fairly well civilized... it's nice to find someone who actually makes an argument as opposed to just saying something lame like a "f*ck you" or "liberals are fags" or something equally childish. Props there at the very least.

 

Same here.

 

I did hear some good news though, I just read that thanks to nanotechnology, solar energy can become affordable for even people in the lower-middle within 5-10 years. I sure hope that is true.

 

You'd be surprised at how liberal I actually am, I used to sing the same tune about U.S big oil a couple of years back, but then I started reading in to the other side, only to find some of it true.

 

***LET ME ADD FURTHER: I saw Al Gore brought up on that last page. Did you know Al Gore has invested lots of money in to green energy? He has to make the green movement pay off in order for his investments to pay off in companies such as General Electric. Did you also know Al Gore has bought property in the areas where he himself says will be flooded by climate change? Guy is so full of sh*t I can't believe anybody can take him seriously.

 

Just remember people, don't buy your LED light bulbs from GE, don't give that asshole your money, even if he is right about the coming catastrophe, (Which India just published they have found no conclusive evidence of) There's plenty of independent companies who sell LED's.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420

[voteneg]

 

Wow dude, I don't think we are listening to the same media. The media meaning CNN, P-MSNBC, all they gloat about is alternatives, big evil oil, and national healthcare.

 

Nope that's the same big media I'm talking about. That and Fox news as well. I rarely hear something positive about national health care ever. Many people in a lot of places emphasize the need for alternatives... why? Maybe because we actually need them. Imagine that! Admitting that isn't liberal nor conservative... it's just plain true. Oil gets away without any criticism on the news... after all why shouldn't they... they do advertise like crazy.

 

 

I don't need to read those papers to know they are full of sh*t. My very first job I worked 10 hours a week on the books, I earned $70 gross, taxes took away $25 leaving me with only $45 net. I sure felt like spending, then.

 

They aren't full of bullsh*t. You just don't want to read them. The author uses findings and cold hard numbers from government studies to back up his points... if they're wrong try and refute them. Its hard to make a change in perception that you've been told is bad your whole life... but just dismissing a valid point isn't any way to back up your own beliefs.

 

At $95 per week you'd make under 5k in a year... that's the lowest tax bracket at 10%. Did you file a return to get the rest back...? Often times employers will deduct more out than necessary for taxes automatically. You should have took that up with payroll. You could have gotten away with only having to pay around 10 bucks per week (without any return.) You work 1 hour out of every ten to have the option of living in this society and reaping it's benefits. Because the wealthy get more out of society they also contribute more... it's only fair.

 

 

Lets raise the gas tax even more then if taxing is so good, so that way it takes someone on my income $50 to go twenty miles. That sure will increase productivity and stimulate economic growth. dozingoff.gif

 

I'm not advocating a raise in gas tax. Elsewhere yes. Gas no. Again the numbers are clear and they are laid out in the article I linked... tax rates don't have a direct effect on productivity or growth. It's what is done with the money collected that matters.

 

 

Taxes are hurting the economy, I just told you about the founder of Jet Blue not even giving a sh*t about this country anymore because the government take away so much of their money. You tax the hell out of the rich, they will all just leave, rich people are needed no matter what way you look at it.

 

...Yet business and industry still finds a way to survive in western European and other industrialized nations where the tax rate is higher, sometimes twice what we have now. Saying taxes are hurting us is only a myth perpetuated by the wealthy so that they can accumulate more money.

 

 

The government is bad, period. Social Security is a disaster because it is put into the general pool rather than into it's own pool, so everytime the government wants to do something, they are dipping into their own social programs without any regard for them, or us.

 

The government is not bad. We would not be anywhere near as successful without it. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, we need to make sure it's used to our advantage. Don't drive on the roads, consume inspected foods, go to public school, and do not utilize your rights... cause the government from which those good things came, are too far below you.

 

 

I could see if the government was run right, made a lick of f*cking sense, then maybe nationalized healthcare and such would not be such a bad idea, but the fact is our government takes so much for themselves, that the papers you bring up can't even stand by this government.

 

The government is us... and we do take money for ourselves and we invest back into ourselves. There are wastes... and there are inefficiencies... but overall government does much more good than harm. Lets work together to improve government instead of letting collapse so we have nothing.

 

 

BTW, the reportedly 35 billions barrels of oil imported over the past 50 years would be matched by all of the oil deposits we know of, and then some. Some areas, we don't even have to drill because the drills are already set up, but congressional and pro-enviroment blocks are keeping them from sucking it up. We could be getting extra oil right now, but our government is blocking it.

 

Source please. There are large sums in select places... however at the rate of extraction and by the time of extraction the situation would be too far gone to alleviate the price. I'd be interested in learning about the wells already set up that could pump out large portions of oil as you say... I haven't caught much if anything about that. Again a reference to that would be nice. I would say that more refineries at the moment could help prices... the turn around from crude to refined fuel is backed up and is taking too long... perhaps that might help some first. Drilling for new oil and having to wait just as long to get it because the refining process is too slow would be useless.

 

 

Congress passed a ban last year on shale drilling for coal and etc. Don't tell me they aren't blocking anything, because they are.

 

Because they and I think we need to push alternatives. And we do. Plain and simple.

 

 

I did hear some good news though, I just read that thanks to nanotechnology, solar energy can become affordable for even people in the lower-middle within 5-10 years. I sure hope that is true.

This is what I'm saying man, push these sorts of breakthroughs. We can do it.

 

 

You'd be surprised at how liberal I actually am, I used to sing the same tune about U.S big oil a couple of years back, but then I started reading in to the other side, only to find some of it true.

You'd be surprised how conservative I was until I got into debate and speech and had to cover and research issues like these in depth.

 

 

***LET ME ADD FURTHER: I saw Al Gore brought up on that last page. Did you know Al Gore has invested lots of money in to green energy? He has to make the green movement pay off in order for his investments to pay off in companies such as General Electric. Did you also know Al Gore has bought property in the areas where he himself says will be flooded by climate change? Guy is so full of sh*t I can't believe anybody can take him seriously.

 

Not a fan of Al Gore... he has too much stake in his investments. I'll agree there. However there are tons upon tons of other people who aren't as personally vested in the green market that do agree. I'll use them to backup my points... not Al Gore.

 

 

Just remember people, don't buy your LED light bulbs from GE, don't give that asshole your money, even if he is right about the coming catastrophe, (Which India just published they have found no conclusive evidence of) There's plenty of independent companies who sell LED's.

 

GE owns NBC... GE also makes jet engines and benefits from defense contracts quite a bit... GE and NBC have an interest to keep that happening... that's why there's little criticism of things like no-bids contracts (and we wonder why government is wasting so much money.)

Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

Every month there's a news station talking about how we need to go green. Green weeks, campaigns. Green is all over the place. I'm puking green. I watch other T.V networks for my favorite shows and they are running green weeks and offering up all these little tips about how to be green. Oil is getting criticized all the time. They've been getting grilled by the press and congress, this is the way it has been. How have you been missing this?

 

Government funded studies, it's funny that they'd be in favor of the current government agenda of raising taxes. Bush's input are the only thing keeping the taxes from being put through the roof.

 

And western european industries are also finding it very nice that Asiatic countries are giving them huge tax breaks and are moving to these places I mentioned, also. The economies of all of us are falling, not just the U.S.

 

statistic- There ya go for the oil statistic about our deposits matching imports.

 

I wasn't around long enough to file a tax return on that job.

 

The elected democrat congress ran on lowering the price of oil and gas and getting us out of Iraq, neither of which has happened, and neither has their doom and gloom outlook of Iraq worked. Because of their outlook on Iraq, I don't believe them entirely about the oil crisis, I don't believe them about that it's going to take 10 years to drill out of ANWR. I don't believe them at all when they mention drilling is not even part of the answer. It may not be the entire answer, but it IS part of it.

 

The government is bad, there's a side that wants to take away your liberties through the threats of terrorism, and the side we have now wants to take away your liberties through enviromentalism. Sure, it can be said the government works for us, but then why are we in this mess? Partly because of big oil and there dilly dallying in the '70s and so on, but also because of the governments overresponse to those problems. Our congress is talking about imposing penalties because of your pollution output, which will just hurt meager income families like mine, and small bussiness that create products that emit. I had to go out and spend a $1000 of emissions work on my car earlier this year because of the penalties for not passing and getting a waiver. There's a $1000 gone for that battery car. From what I already had to put up with, they could careless about the safety of the enviroment, and would rather just make it so you can't drive your combustion car altogether, but maybe that's becasue I'm poor. But they certainly are NOT helping me save money. Yes, my car is old, but if they increase the penalties even more and raise standards even more, the it will just get worse.

 

There's not just some wasting, there's too much wasting of tax money. Social security again being the example. They talk about it running out in such a few short years. Why the f*ck is that? Because the government is not wasting money? Oh, please. They can build some roads and bombs and keep checking the food, that's all well and good. Everything else? No, they can't do it and they've demonstrated that they fail miserably at it.

 

Taxing as I said has already hurt your alternative hunt, (copy and pasted from a previous post) raised taxes in California have caused Toyota to not go ahead with the building of a plant for their Hybrid, the Prius, in San Francisco.

 

What the government does with the money certainly matters, but so little of it ends up going to anything good. All the roads and highways in my rich ass state are failing. We can't even get any companies to take the contract to repair a bridge vital to keep Interstate 95 flowing, and that runs up and down the whole east coast.

 

Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the U.S Federal Reserve said himself before Congress yesterday the reason oil prices are high is because of supply and demand, not speculators. So just the act of removing drilling bans, will bring down prices because the supply outlook is then much better, with demand in the U.S rising only marginally, and even maybe decreasing if we get an affordable alternative, soon.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420

[Vercetti21]

About time. I've always said we need to up the energy production in Alaska as a means of keeping us occupied with gas until we can find a better solution to the fuel crisis. Although this should be a costly process, and it endangers wildlife, I'm more worried about the economy going to sh*t and falling into Great Depression 2.

[illspirit]

 

I believe it does an excellent job of debunking some the more popular myths associated with the taxation

I stopped reading at the domain name.

 

Your precious system of taxation works on the implied threat and, ultimately, the application of coercive, lethal force. Now, it could be argued that this is a "necessary evil" of sorts, to be sure. But to call this good is a perversion of language which could come only from a propaganda artist, or the diseased mind of a subject suffering from Stockholm syndrome..

[voteneg]

 

I believe it does an excellent job of debunking some the more popular myths associated with the taxation

I stopped reading at the domain name.

 

Your precious system of taxation works on the implied threat and, ultimately, the application of coercive, lethal force. Now, it could be argued that this is a "necessary evil" of sorts, to be sure. But to call this good is a perversion of language which could come only from a propaganda artist, or the diseased mind of a subject suffering from Stockholm syndrome..

Your opinion.

 

Taxes are the price of civilization. Collectively working together to achieve a common goal has allowed us to accomplish quite a bit as a species. There's no denying it.

 

I feel it's my civic duty to pay taxes, it's the price I must give to live in this society. Until people stop thinking of taxes as money going to "them" instead of "us" there will admittedly be very few people like myself who see the virtue in it.

 

I like the things I get for my tax dollars... like a strong national defense, a transportation system, clean water and safe food, schooling, among many others. These sorts of things aren't free.

 

But by all means if you feel taxation is so evil than go ahead and try living in a world where we don't put emphasis on the collective well being, it'll be every man for himself... and there wouldn't be the kinda luxuries you're used to because you'll be too busy fending off the proverbial wolves day in and day out.

 

I'm not for wasteful spending, and I don't think it's great that some manage to get a free ride off the system. I think there are many improvements we can make to ensure we all do our part. In the end I think working to make government better and more efficient will ultimately be more effective than tearing it down.

Edited July 18, 2008 by voteneg

[mark3boyz]

There will be no drop in price... it's a world market that that added supply is going to... peak production won't hit until decades from now... and even so it's projected that it will effect prices by 2.00 dollars per barrel tops... and that's a generous estimate... thats 2.00 dollars per barrel... not gallon.

 

Yeah I'm a whiny fag who has no real ideas...

You do realize that the price of a barrel of Oil dropped 10% in the last 4 days right... Oh wait no you wouldnt.

[Picolini]

There will be no drop in price... it's a world market that that added supply is going to... peak production won't hit until decades from now... and even so it's projected that it will effect prices by 2.00 dollars per barrel tops... and that's a generous estimate... thats 2.00 dollars per barrel... not gallon.

 

Yeah I'm a whiny fag who has no real ideas...

You do realize that the price of a barrel of Oil dropped 10% in the last 4 days right... Oh wait no you wouldnt.

Also nice news!

 

One thing that's been getting me... I searched around on news sites, even Fox news who'd be most likely to talk about this and I found nothing.

Is this actually real news?

 

If so, what the f*ck? Why isn't it in all the headlines... not to sound all conspiracy-theorist but I don't see how this wouldn't be one of the biggest things in the news, seeing how nothing else is really going on. It's huge for those that think it'll help as well as those against/indifferent to it (since it gives them something to bitch/piss/moan about as you seen in this thread).

The fact that it hasn't caused a buzz across the country is the reason I'm not going to go fill up my tank at $3.00/gallon tomorrow.

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

Taxes can be good, but our government has too much power to decide what to do with it, and they often choose the wrong thing to do.

 

It is a "them" issue because even you say so often over the past couple of posts how our government is in the pockets of big oil. A lot of our government now is also in the pocket of "big green."

 

Anybody like Iran firing those stupid missles? I think it was all a desperate attempt to keep the price from going down. We should have setup some missle bases in Iraq and shot those f*ckers down. Those guys would need a tanker full of kleenex after that.

[illspirit]

 

Your opinion.

My opinion?! So, if a dozen men burst who aren't wearing state-issued costumes and shiny bits of metal burst through your door at 3am, rob you at gunpoint after kicking your ass a little, then sell your possessions to feed homeless children and/or puppies, is that good or bad? But, then, I suppose your "opinion" on the subject wouldn't really matter if the guys with large weapons claimed it was "good."

 

 

Taxes are the price of civilization. Collectively working together to achieve a common goal has allowed us to accomplish quite a bit as a species. There's no denying it.

That's a bit of a strawman, isn't it? I mean, the Federal government functioned for the first half of its existence without taxing income. Even today, a number of States get along just fine without an income tax. There are other ways to raise money you know..

 

 

I feel it's my civic duty to pay taxes, it's the price I must give to live in this society. Until people stop thinking of taxes as money going to "them" instead of "us" there will admittedly be very few people like myself who see the virtue in it.

And you're free to send as much money as you want to the IRS. If you enjoy it so much, start donating more. If, however, you really want my money so bad, come and take it yourself. I have more respect for common thieves than for moral relativists that sit behind a desk and ask others to do their dirty work for them.

 

 

I like the things I get for my tax dollars... like a strong national defense, a transportation system, clean water and safe food, schooling, among many others. These sorts of things aren't free.

..and a junkie really likes all the crack he can get by selling your TV. Does that, in and of itself, make stealing your TV a good thing?

 

Look, I said above that the tax system might be a "necessary evil," so what it pays for is beside the point. But, hey, I'll take the bait.

 

National defense? Well, if statists such as yourself hadn't constantly granted more powers to the Federal government to "do something" since before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, maybe DC wouldn't be so drunk on authority that it feels the need to be the world police? Maybe we wouldn't be spending massive ammounts of money on bases in other countries? Not to mention fewer preemptive wars and stuff? Who knows, maybe we could actually afford to pay for national defense by other means if it was only used for, you know, defense. But that's a policy question outside the scope of this argument..

 

At any rate, had the income tax been a temporary measure to pay for the war like most assumed it was, I wouldn't find that so noxious. Likewise if it were resurrected later for a defensive war, given that an external enemy changes the coercion dynamic completely. As in, even if you could chose not to pay for defense, that would potentially leave you the choice of being destroyed/enslaved by a foreign government instead.

 

A transportation system? You mean like roads and stuff? Which are mostly paid for by excise taxes on fuel, toll roads, and vehicle registration fees? You don't need income tax for any of that. Nor do I have a real problem with any of that, as you still have a choice in the matter. If you don't like paying licensing fees, you are generally free to drive on private property without license. Nobody is forcing you to drive anywhere. If one really don't like paying the excise tax on gas, they can make their own biodiesel or some sh*t. If one really hates the taxes, they can live in a goddamn hut and grow their own food so as not to pay the cost of fuel taxes passed on from transportation to retail.

 

Clean water? Usually a local function. Sometimes provided by private companies. More often than not, it's paid for with your water bill. Again, you usually have a choice in the matter. Don't like it? Dig a well.

 

Safe food? I hope you don't mean the FDA... But, umm, yea. Again, you can pay for this with excise taxes (especially if you factor in pharmaceuticals). Or by fining the growers who screw up. And, again (Wickard v. Filburn aside), you should have a choice to grow your own food if you don't want to pay for the gov to monitor it.

 

Schooling? Another traditional local and State function. Federal involvement has done little more than f*ck it up. Several States pay for education with proceeds from the lottery. Which is entirely voluntary and isn't even a tax on something useful like food or fuel.

 

And for the most part, the government isn't going to send Darth Vader lookalikes to kick in your door at 3am, stomp your pets, and possibly shoot you in the face repeatedly because you choose not to own a car, not buy retail consumer goods and lottery tickets, or whatever.