Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes sir- increase taxes and then push cap & tax...ummm I mean trade
The administration is DEFINITELY going to use this HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE disaster to further their agenda and push C&T on us. I am starting to get very suspicious of all the "so-called" coincidences that have been happening over the last several months. A terrible mine explosion, an entire oil rig blown up and sunk, then yesterday with that gas refinery that blew up. I know these things happen from time to time, but all 3 only months apart? I'm sorry, but I find that suspicious especially when it all comes right around the time they want to push C&T. If someone thinks I need a better tinfoil hat, please toss me the roll!
Of course I do.... I don't drive very much having cut back a lot over the years. But, what does that have to do with what I asked? Just because I have a car (pretty fuel efficient one) doesn't meant that I wouldn't like to reduce my dependence on oil. For example, public trans improvements is one thing I'd love to see in the South Bay. When I commuted to my office, I used light rail but it definitely could be improved upon.
What do you propose to reduce our usage of oil and current dependence upon this expensive (look at the cost of this clean up and past clean ups) commodity?
What do you propose to reduce our consumption of oil?
Face the facts, we are not getting away from oil anytime soon. We have no choice as the friggin' world runs on it and it goes into virtually everything we use. Until there is some alternative, we're stuck with oil.
Slapping a tax on it isn't gonna do squat other then fill the Democrats coffers with yet more money blow on their laundry list of unnecessary programs/pork projects all coming at the expense of the middle-class.
And they say the Dems are the defenders of the middle-class.
Given that the corrupt lobbyists and the Bush administration not only allowed the oil companies to pump oil out of public lands without paying for it but actually had the government give the oil companies money to do it... I think the proposal is great. There is no reason to give the oil companies a free ride or even to subsidize them because oil is an immensely profitable business and they'll do the exact same amount of drilling if we subsidize them or not so if they're using public land and resources the we, the owners of those resources, deserve to get paid when a private for profit company exploits those resources.
TAX and SPEND tax and spend the way to solve everything....you gotta love it...eyhh
Democrats: Tax and spend.
Republicans: Don't tax but spend, spend, spend anyway.
Gee, which one is more responsible? And don't you try to claim Republicans will cut a net amount out of the budget because literally the last Republican administration to net cut the budget was the Hoover administration in 1930. Republicans ALWAYS increase the size of the budget. So we're back to tax and spend vs don't tax but spend anyway.
Face the facts, we are not getting away from oil anytime soon. We have no choice as the friggin' world runs on it and it goes into virtually everything we use. Until there is some alternative, we're stuck with oil.
Slapping a tax on it isn't gonna do squat other then fill the Democrats coffers with yet more money blow on their laundry list of unnecessary programs/pork projects all coming at the expense of the middle-class.
And they say the Dems are the defenders of the middle-class.
I agree that we aren't getting away from oil anytime soon. But, I also think we're making it take longer by not encouraging efficient use of it. I think that by not increasing the price of oil (removing our subsidies for it or taxing it more) means we'll be dependent upon it for a longer period of time. Why not subsidize alternatives or try something to make the use of alternatives more attractive? Maybe more tax incentives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin
Given that the corrupt lobbyists and the Bush administration not only allowed the oil companies to pump oil out of public lands without paying for it but actually had the government give the oil companies money to do it... I think the proposal is great. There is no reason to give the oil companies a free ride or even to subsidize them because oil is an immensely profitable business and they'll do the exact same amount of drilling if we subsidize them or not so if they're using public land and resources the we, the owners of those resources, deserve to get paid when a private for profit company exploits those resources.
I agree that the government helps keep the price of crude artificially low. We in effect subsidize the very thing we need to move away from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
