Democrats solution to an ailing economy - increase gas tax (Harry Reid, Iraq)

[silas777]

Originally Posted by HubbleRules

What is truly insane is perpetuating a situation where our country's economy is dependent upon foreign oil - some from some places where the governments and people hate us and wish us ill.

If you want to get off oil, it has to be expensive enough for people to seek alternative sources, and to demand a Manhattan-Project effort to explore the top 2 or 3 alternatives to oil. I think we passed the 'pain threshhold' when gas hit $4 per gallon.

A tax-holiday is a totally stupid idea - it just makes the problem worse but makes people feel a little better temporarily - and then - WHAMMM- one hell of a payback period for being stupid earlier on.... Sounds like the Republican philosophy since Reagan to me....

If you want to solve the energy problem, write or call your representative and ask for more money for mass-transit, much more research into Fusion and Hydrogen power, more nuclear plants, and some investment in renewable sources - but nothing as stupid and totally insane as Ethanol from a food source (corn) - that has to be the bonehead decision of the 21st century - I wonder which Bush Buddies are getting filthy rich on that one.

Oil resources are limited and with China and India rapidly increasing their demand, I don't care where you drill, you won't keep up with demand. Eventually the cheap oil days will end and if we don't start working now on transforming ourself from an oil-dependent economy, then we will really be screwed 15-20 years from now.


HubbleRules

well we are obviously coming from very different views. I dont "want" to get off oil, the reality is the world is going to be operating as a oil based economy 20 years from now, absolutely companies can and are looking at alternatives, but the government should not be involved and I certainly dont think we should be spending tax dollars on boondoggles like mass transit! If someone was getting filthy rich from solar power would they also be a Bush buddy?

[silas777]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I wouldn't have a serious problem with raising the tax on gas a little if the money was fully dedicated towards standing up new nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal generation capabilities.

However, I'm sure the money would instead be spent on other items, or wasted on contracts with questionable deliverables (much like the current DoD weapons contracts fiasco).

So no, I'm against it.

I will kind of agree, any tax increase should go toward the expedition of new drilling and refining!

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by silas777

I will kind of agree, any tax increase should go toward the expedition of new drilling and refining!

Yeah, I would include those on my listing too.

Actually, I was thinking about long term energy independence, but we need to address the short run too.

One area we may disagree though (don't know your sentiment here), I wouldn't put a dime of any extra revenue towards mass transit.

[silas777]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Yeah, I would include those on my listing too.

Actually, I was thinking about long term energy independence, but we need to address the short run too.

One area we may disagree though (don't know your sentiment here), I wouldn't put a dime of any extra revenue towards mass transit.

My sentiment from my post #11, no disagreement. (but the government should not be involved and I certainly dont think we should be spending tax dollars on boondoggles like mass transit!)

[HubbleRules]

Originally Posted by silas777

well we are obviously coming from very different views. I dont "want" to get off oil, the reality is the world is going to be operating as a oil based economy 20 years from now, absolutely companies can and are looking at alternatives, but the government should not be involved and I certainly dont think we should be spending tax dollars on boondoggles like mass transit! If someone was getting filthy rich from solar power would they also be a Bush buddy?

If you think that we'll be an oil based economy way down the road (more than 20 years - like 50 years from now), and that we should not be putting money into mass transit, then we're not just on a different page, we're in a different universe.

Mass transit is most certainly a critical part of the equation that I think both Republicans and Democratic leaders are on board with....

"Bush Buddy" is just my way of being sarcastic about Dubya and the current generation of Republicans - I wouldn't trust them to be dog catchers let alone run the country. I think they rule to enrich themselves, and their campaign contributors - period. I don't think they give a damn about the average American. Just my humble opinion, but one that I think is shared by a large percentage of the country. We'll see if I'm right the day after the November elections...

Until then - get used to $4+ per gallon gas, rising natural gas and electic, and sky-high food prices.... all benefits of a oil-based economy in a time of declining production and increasing demand - trends which some have been predicting since the 70s - their timing may have been off - but the end result is the same...

HubbleRules


HubbleRules

[eagle7]

Its bad enough were paying record high gas prices now congress want to increase the gas tax.Its seems to me congress/us govt is not working for the people & looking out for their best intrests.They are all just greedy creeps. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/art...1&aid=25751775

[baystater]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_on_go_co/gas_tax_highways;_ylt=AuEv5xwvEnWZtv.pN9w9l5es0NUE (broken link)

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. James Oberstar, and the chairman of the highway subcommittee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, presented fellow lawmakers with a list of how many jobs and how much money each state would lose. It ranged from $30 million and 1,000 jobs in Vermont to $664 million and 23,000 jobs in California.

"Because the trust fund is already looking at a looming shortfall, it would have moved project cancellations into the construction season," DeFazio, D-Ore., said in an interview. He said it was "highly unlikely" that oil companies would have passed savings along to consumers.

The consequence is that only about $27 billion in federal money will be available next year to states and local governments for new infrastructure investment even though the current highway act calls for spending $41 billion a year. For many, the solution is to raise rather than suspend or cut federal fuel taxes, which haven't changed since 1993.

The Transportation Construction Coalition, a group of industry companies and unions, said that if Congress does not do something about the shortfall, states will lose about one-third of their road and bridge money in the budget year starting Oct. 1. That would put 485,000 more jobs at risk.

That message carried the day this summer. But now Congress has the bigger task of dealing with the short-term deficit crisis in the fund and coming up with a new spending plan, including revisiting the gas tax issue, when the current six-year, $286 billion highway-transit act expires in September 2009.

The nonpartisan National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission concluded in a report this year that the U.S. needs to spend $225 billion annually over the next 50 years to create a highway and transit system capable of sustaining strong economic growth. Current spending, at federal, state and local levels, is about $90 billion a year.

Among other revenue-raising possibilities, the commission recommended gradually increasing the current federal fuel taxes to 40 cents a gallon.

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association is calling for a 10-cent-a-gallon raise and indexing the tax to inflation. With construction costs soaring because of competition for building materials from China and other developing nations, the tax rate would have to be about 29 cents a gallon to achieve the same purchasing power as the 18.4-cent rate imposed in 1993, the association says.

Other ideas that will be on the table when lawmakers write a bill next year including more toll roads and public-private partnerships, congestion pricing and user fees where drivers pay a tax based on how many miles they drive.

Well as I see it. We're damned if we do and damn if we don't. I'm A little bit torn because. I do see the need to work on our nations infrastructure and understand that we have raise money somewhere. But then I again I want it done efficiently,fast, and at reasonable cost. And from my observations I haven't seen any of these qualities out of any road work project at anytime, anywhere. Heck I was raised in MA. and we all know about the "Big Dig" and it's major cost over runs and shotty construction practices. If I'm going to pay a tax or tax increase (which I'm willing to do for the right reason). Then I want real result in a timely manner.
One last thing the article mentions that some politicians think they can raise the money by cutting government spend. OK I good with that. But what would would we be cutting and or shifting the money from? It's nice to say that we need to cut back, But there no clarity on what we need to cut in order to avoid a tax increase. Anybody know specifically what pork programs we need to cut in order to fix our countries infrastructure?

[saganista]

The federal excise tax on gasoline has been frozen at its current level since 1993. Our population and economy and hence the need to build new and maintain existing highways, bridges, and transit systems have not been frozen. As the result, we are currently able to spend less than half of what we need to spend merely to keep pace with our own progress. The gas tax should and will be increased. Knee-jerk taxophobics will just have to bite the bullet in this and various other areas...

[k350]

The tax does not need increased, it needs to be spent more wisely.

Plus considering they manage to find billions for other things, how about quit giving Africa and Israel money first before taking it from tax payers even more.

America spends way too much on its highway system, the highway sytem has turned into an earmark and job program in which the purpose is to do not too much more than employ people.

I guarantee the highway construction industry is lobbying hard for this one.

[swagger]

If they stopped overspending and wasting our tax money, they could lower every form of taxation and still get more done. I'm against ANY tax increase not because I'm against taxation in principal, but because tax hikes never get anything accomplished other than lightening my wallet.

For instance, in California (where I'm originally from), they dump billions into an educational system that never gets better. When they started the California Lottery, the big selling point to the public was that the schools would get 1/3 of the money. All those billions and still nothing improved.

I say freeze all taxes at current levels (or lower them - no hikes) and FORCE the government to spend our money more efficiently.