Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On 2008-06-05, Topp@Work <topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:vclf44d99iqbindik9i3fanbclnblnlmmt@4ax.com...
>
>> >The solution is to let the price continue to be determined by supply
>> >and demand. If the price gets so high that people start actually
>> >curbing their use of fuel, the price will drop. It has probably
>> >already hit that point, and the price will likely settle around $3.75
>> >per gallon for regular unleaded.
>> >
>>
>> One large factor in rising gas prices is the falling dollar. It's
>> falling because we're spending a $trillion on a war to take over Iraq.
>
> If that were true the great problem would have started a few years ago, and
> not right after
> the Dems won the congress in 2006, claiming of all things, to lower gas
> prices....
>
>

To be fair, one of Bush's big campaign promises in 2000 was to lower
gas prices. He hasn't been very successful.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On 2008-06-05, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:43:46 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The oil companies have no responsibility to the customer other than to
>>provide the product at whatever price people are willing to pay for
>>it. The price at which they are able to sell all the oil they want
>>for the most amount of cash. This is good for the stockholders, and
>>therefore exactly what the executives should do.
>
> However, collusion for the purpose of monopoly is still illegal on the
> books of the US (although not enforced at all since January of 2000).
> Note the Enron case in CA and the current US investigation of such
> alleged actions. When "product at a price" moves into "manipulate the
> market" then there is an issue. Those same executives bear
> responsibility for that too.

What collusion? The oil companies make a small percentage of the
price of gas. Pennies on the dollar. That hasn't changed. They
still make the same percentage. The price increase isn't their fault.
It has gone up because of several factors, but none of them were oil
company greed.

>
> But, at the end of the day, some of us still believe in honesty,
> integrity, and doing the right thing for our customers our country,
> and our society - other (like you I have to guess) believe that greed
> is the guiding principle and model for our lives.
>
>

You do the right thing for your customers because they pay you for it.
You don't do it for free, or you cease to have a company, and
therefore cease to have customers.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Bill Putney wrote:

> Just Me (remove <nospam> to reply) wrote:
>
> > What we should do is raise the tax to cut wasteful consumption. Then
> > offset the increase by giving a limited tax credit to family tax payers
> > with under 100k net income (single filers 50k,) $0 credit for those
> > over. That way we keep the tax of the backs of those that can least
> > afford it and punish the Hummer drivers. This will spur growth of
> > Hybrid and alternative fuels. You know damn well that if it hurts the
> > rich that they will start doing something about it. Increase the tax
> > monthly until they cry uncle.
>
> You're forgetting/ignoring the serious overhead cost of employing people
> (within gubmint) to administer your system that does nothing but move
> money around.

What is the cost? Most people who complain about the inefficiency of
government can't seem to cite the dollar amounts with any authority.
In this case, collecting the tax wouldn't cost any more because the
mechanism is already in place, and the feds already send out income
tax refund checks anyway, so what's the extra cost of including a gas
tax credit, other than the likelihood that more refund checks will be
mailed out (or electronic transfers made) than usual?

While you're trying to prove how inefficient government is, show me
where private health insurance is cheaper than Medicare. Betcha can't
do that, either. ;)

> Like most liberal schemes, there will be pretended "unintended
> consequences" and a net unavoidable loss to the economy and the quality
> of life. Liberalism always achieves the exact opposite of it's stated
> intent (better quality of life vs. degraded quality of life).

Unlike conservatism, real or merely self-identified, which has never
resulted in any negative consequences, whether in peace or in war.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Joe wrote:

> The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes.

Prove it. Tell me why Mexico, where government spending is only about
10% of GDP, compared to roughly 30-35% in the US, is doing relatively
much worse. Even Forbes magazine, which hardly sympathizes with
socialism, ran an article saying that economic output was maximized
when government spending was around 20-24% of GDP.

> It is not the government's job to regulate the actions of the people.

So there should be no government police force, no government courts,
no government jails, and only you and private parties you hire,
befriend, etc., should protect your rights?

> The solution is to let the price continue to be determined by supply
> and demand. If the price gets so high that people start actually
> curbing their use of fuel, the price will drop. It has probably
> already hit that point, and the price will likely settle around $3.75
> per gallon for regular unleaded.

The big problem with your argument is that the oil industry isn't
totally free market but gets great subsidies, such as very cheap
drilling rights on public land and having the US military invade oil
producing countries.

> The oil companies have no responsibility to the customer other than to
> provide the product at whatever price people are willing to pay for it.

And no responsibility to avoid polluting the environment, right?

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Klark Kent wrote:

> In message news:vclf44d99iqbindik9i3fanbclnblnlmmt@4ax.com, dgk
> <dgk@somewhere.com> burned some brain cells writing:
>
> > And of course it's the government's job to regulate the actions of
> > people. That's why we have a government.
>
> Thomas Jefferson on Line One. And he's pissed.

Because he hurt his hand while enthusiastically beating one of his
slaves and now can't write his speech about personal liberty.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Joe wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.autos.honda.]

> On 2008-06-05, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 05 Jun 2008 12:28:59 GMT, Klark Kent <stewart@copeland.com`> wrote:
> >
> >>> And of course it's the government's job to regulate the actions of
> >>> people. That's why we have a government.
> >>
> >>Thomas Jefferson on Line One. And he's pissed.
> >
> > He's been pissed since Bush started ignoring his duty to protect the
> > Constitution = and in fact, directly violating it - around 2001.
>
> Bush isn't the first, or the worst, to wipe his ass with the
> Constitution. The first BIG foray into ignoring it was probably FDR,
> though it was done incrementally even before him...

You're forgetting the Federalists' Sedition Acts.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Elle wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote
>> Like most liberal schemes, there will be pretended
>> "unintended consequences" and a net unavoidable loss to
>> the economy and the quality of life. Liberalism always
>> achieves the exact opposite of it's stated intent (better
>> quality of life vs. degraded quality of life).
>
> And you think this lunatic Bush has not degraded quality of
> life with the costs of this insane war and letting banks and
> Wall Street manipulate the mortgage and credit market so we
> are in a serious recession, with the little people getting
> thrown out of their homes and the big people seeing their
> assets in financial stocks plummet? You think it's good
> things were allowed to go hog wild?

Presumably the corollary to his statement is that schemes hatched by
non-liberals only have intended consequences, i.e. the consequences of
Bush-Cheney policies were all intended. Interesting hypothesis ...

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-04, Just Me (remove <nospam> to reply) <2000-nospam-cam@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Cheny is a wad, but he is right. Increasing demand does not lower
>> the price.
>>
>> What we should do is raise the tax to cut wasteful consumption. Then
>> offset the increase by giving a limited tax credit to family tax payers
>> with under 100k net income (single filers 50k,) $0 credit for those
>> over. That way we keep the tax of the backs of those that can least
>> afford it and punish the Hummer drivers. This will spur growth of
>> Hybrid and alternative fuels. You know damn well that if it hurts the
>> rich that they will start doing something about it. Increase the tax
>> monthly until they cry uncle.
>
> The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes.

A simple rule for simple-minded people.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

SMS wrote:
> Just Me (remove <nospam> to reply) wrote:

> > What we should do is raise the tax to cut wasteful consumption. Then
> > offset the increase by giving a limited tax credit to family tax payers
> > with under 100k net income (single filers 50k,) $0 credit for those
> > over. That way we keep the tax of the backs of those that can least
> > afford it and punish the Hummer drivers. This will spur growth of
> > Hybrid and alternative fuels. You know damn well that if it hurts the
> > rich that they will start doing something about it. Increase the tax
> > monthly until they cry uncle.
>
> Actually, we should raise the gas tax with an offsetting tax credit up
> to a certain limit.
>
> I would NOT limit the tax credit by income or filing status. You want to
> get buy-in from the general public, and encourage them to buy smaller
> vehicles, at least for commuting (keep the SUV or minivan for times when
> it's really appropriate). $50K is still pretty low income.
>
> Every licensed non-commercial driver with a vehicle registered in their
> name gets the credit for one vehicle. Maybe a $5/gallon tax, with a
> $5/gallon tax credit for 365 gallons a year, i.e. an $1825 tax credit.
> Use less than 365 gallons a year and you're ahead of the game. Use more,
> well it's up to you to commute solo in an SUV, or to drive the kids
> around in a minivan, or to live 50 miles from work.
>
> No tax credit for unlicensed drivers.
> No tax credit for those that don't file income taxes.
> Some sort of program for commercial vehicles to exempt them.

I'd give the credit quarterly to every working adult under a certain
income level, the same dollar amount to each person, no matter how
much or little hydrocarbon fuel they consumed or even if they didn't
drive at all. That method would have the lowest bureaucratic
overhead, be the least prone to fraud, and offer the greatest
incentive to not waste energy. Government credits don't work well
when they're complex.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Jeff wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>>> The solution is to let the price continue to be determined by supply
>>> and demand. If the price gets so high that people start actually
>>> curbing their use of fuel, the price will drop. It has probably
>>> already hit that point, and the price will likely settle around $3.75
>>> per gallon for regular unleaded.
>>
>> This approach is extremely short-sighted.
>>
>> Oil is needed for products other than just than gasoline and diesel
>> fuel. The supply and demand need to be managed carefully, as many
>> countries already do.
>>
>> The actions of those not curbing their use of fuel, directly affect
>> the rest of us. These people need to be penalized.
>
> You mean like the people of the US, who use more fuel, per capita, than
> just about any other country?...

Well the liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth on this. For
example, regarding the fact that Al Gore's house uses over 18 times the
energy that the average U.S. house uses - hold on a minute - I need to
wrap my head in duct tape so it doesn't explode while explaining the
liberal "logic" - so Al Gore's house uses over 18 times the amount of
energy that the average U.S. house does - but he pays fees into the
utility for that usage that go into producing carbonless energy sources
like windmills based on the "excess" amount of energy he uses. Becuase
he is using so much energy and is therefore funding better sources of
energy, not only is he not a hypocrite, but he's actually a hero for
using more than his fair share of energy so that he's funding so-called
"green" sources. (removing duct tape)

So my question is: Which is correct: To *punish* (like liberals want to
do) people who use more than their fair share, or to *praise* and make
excuses for (like liberals do) those who, like Gore, use more than their
fair share. Or is the answer dependent on who the user is, i.e., is
he/she part of the liberal elite?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:48:32 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote:

>On 2008-06-05, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:43:46 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-06-04, Just Me (remove <nospam> to reply) <2000-nospam-cam@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Cheny is a wad, but he is right. Increasing demand does not lower
>>>> the price.
>>>>
>>>> What we should do is raise the tax to cut wasteful consumption. Then
>>>> offset the increase by giving a limited tax credit to family tax payers
>>>> with under 100k net income (single filers 50k,) $0 credit for those
>>>> over. That way we keep the tax of the backs of those that can least
>>>> afford it and punish the Hummer drivers. This will spur growth of
>>>> Hybrid and alternative fuels. You know damn well that if it hurts the
>>>> rich that they will start doing something about it. Increase the tax
>>>> monthly until they cry uncle.
>>>
>>>The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes. It is not the
>>>government's job to regulate the actions of the people.
>>>
>>>The solution is to let the price continue to be determined by supply
>>>and demand. If the price gets so high that people start actually
>>>curbing their use of fuel, the price will drop. It has probably
>>>already hit that point, and the price will likely settle around $3.75
>>>per gallon for regular unleaded.
>>>
>>
>> One large factor in rising gas prices is the falling dollar. It's
>> falling because we're spending a $trillion on a war to take over Iraq.
>
>That has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. Go back to
>school and get a lesson on economics. The largest pressure on the
>value of the dollar is the plummeting interest rate, resulting in the
>flooding of the economy with new currency, which reduces the value of
>the currency. Spending money on the industrial complex has never been
>a burden to any economy, and has been used repeatedly in the past to
>dig out of recession.
>
>>
>> And of course it's the government's job to regulate the actions of
>> people. That's why we have a government. Otherwise we have a free for
>> all.
>
>No, it is the job of the government to preserve the freedom and
>liberty of the people. The government is not your daddy, it is your
>employee. I don't need a big brother. I need someone to do the
>things that I cannot do on my own. Maintain the roads, protect the
>borders, and preserve the freedom of myself and my fellow american.
>
>>
>> I don't mind tax and spend Democrats; that's the way government is
>> supposed to operate. My problem is the borrow and spend Republicans.
>
>If you think that's how government is supposed to operate, you belong
>in a pen, just bahhhing along and eating your feed. You do not belong
>in anything that was once called a great nation. You are an
>abomination. You ARE the problem.


Too much blather, but if you want the government to build roads, then
it needs to tax. What I don't want my government doing is lying about
the need to go to war, which is what the republicans did.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:slrng4hhon.hq4.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-06-05, Topp@Work <topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:vclf44d99iqbindik9i3fanbclnblnlmmt@4ax.com...
> >
> >> >The solution is to let the price continue to be determined by supply
> >> >and demand. If the price gets so high that people start actually
> >> >curbing their use of fuel, the price will drop. It has probably
> >> >already hit that point, and the price will likely settle around $3.75
> >> >per gallon for regular unleaded.
> >> >
> >>
> >> One large factor in rising gas prices is the falling dollar. It's
> >> falling because we're spending a $trillion on a war to take over Iraq.
> >
> > If that were true the great problem would have started a few years ago,
and
> > not right after
> > the Dems won the congress in 2006, claiming of all things, to lower gas
> > prices....
> >
> >
>
> To be fair, one of Bush's big campaign promises in 2000 was to lower
> gas prices. He hasn't been very successful.

They did go down until 9/11...

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ee_1k.3763$N87.596@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Joe wrote:
>
> > The solution is to let the price continue to be determined by supply
> > and demand. If the price gets so high that people start actually
> > curbing their use of fuel, the price will drop. It has probably
> > already hit that point, and the price will likely settle around $3.75
> > per gallon for regular unleaded.
>
> This approach is extremely short-sighted.
>
> Oil is needed for products other than just than gasoline and diesel
> fuel. The supply and demand need to be managed carefully, as many
> countries already do.

You are a moron if you think this is how the world works and that the
"state" is a nanny.....
>
> The actions of those not curbing their use of fuel, directly affect the
> rest of us. These people need to be penalized.

Penalized? Screw you you gestapo commie


> > The oil companies have no responsibility to the customer other than to
> > provide the product at whatever price people are willing to pay for
> > it.
>
> That's right. It's the government that needs to help set the pricing at
> a level that is optimal for society as a whole.

That is Communism, not capitalism.

>
> The price at which they are able to sell all the oil they want
> > for the most amount of cash. This is good for the stockholders, and
> > therefore exactly what the executives should do.
>
> The government is under no obligation to keep the taxes on fuel
> artificially low in order to help the oil companies make more money, nor
> are they required to institute policies that drive up the cost of oil.
> This is what has happened under Bush, and it was not unintentional.
>
> What the Obama administration should do:
>
> 1) Adjust the tax system on motor fuels to discourage consumption and
> reward conservation

So Government control....

>
> 2) Raise CAFE standards significantly

And put millions out of work the next day......


> 3) Encourage the development of plug-in hybrids

And burn more coal than oil and pollute the environment more than with
gas....

>
> 4) Encourage the expansion of nuclear power for generating electricity

You "greenies" are the ones that have prevented that for 30 years in the
USA.

>
> 5) Work on the creation of high speed rail, powered by electricity,
> powered by nuclear, to replace short hop air travel which is an
> inefficient use of fossil fuel.

Are you gonna buy the land to lay the tracks????

>
>
> We just can't afford any more Republican presidents and their huge
> deficits, lack of foreign policy expertise, and their ties to big oil.

BWAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA

FDR (DEMO-CRAT) got us in WWII....We didn't pay that debt off until 1978....

GO LEARN BEFORE YOU SPEAK

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:qfX1k.3635$ZE5.2357@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Every licensed non-commercial driver with a vehicle registered in their
> name gets the credit for one vehicle. Maybe a $5/gallon tax, with a
> $5/gallon tax credit for 365 gallons a year, i.e. an $1825 tax credit.
> Use less than 365 gallons a year and you're ahead of the game. Use more,
> well it's up to you to commute solo in an SUV, or to drive the kids
> around in a minivan, or to live 50 miles from work.

I use 365 gallons a month, just for work and groceries...

You are a friggin Communist Tyrant

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> I'd give the credit quarterly to every working adult under a certain
> income level, the same dollar amount to each person, no matter how
> much or little hydrocarbon fuel they consumed or even if they didn't
> drive at all. That method would have the lowest bureaucratic
> overhead, be the least prone to fraud, and offer the greatest
> incentive to not waste energy. Government credits don't work well
> when they're complex.

It's too complex to do what you propose, and too revenue negative. How
are you going to account for the different cost of living in different
areas of the country?

The federal gasoline tax and the tax credits are already in place. Just
increase the gasoline tax, and then give the money back to those that
are not wasteful, so it's no net loss to them. You don't need any big
bureaucracy to manage it.

You have to be careful when you change tax policy to avoid unintended
consequences.

Ross Perot was a nut case, but the one thing he proposed that made sense
was the increased gasoline tax.