I am a BIG supporter of our military, but I see an awful lot of our military used to protect the flow of oil (in general) and not just to the US (because it is fungible)... which is absolutely wasteful. I don't really care that much if Russia craters under heavy oil costs... let THEM "take the fight" to the middle east... Which is why I support drilling everywhere in the US... and ethanol (particularly things other than corn) and conservation and alternatives (where they exist... CNG?) and perhaps most importantly... BUILDING NEW/CLEANER REFINING CAPACITY here.

If we could substitute ANYTHING for middle east supplies of oil, we'd be better off. There are so many rare-earth metals in the best battery technology that I fear we run the risk of trading one problem for another... most of the places I know of for these metals are in war-torn countries as it is... So yeah, I think I'd support a floor on gas, even as I reduced our demand by creating/increasing alternatives.... but I just don't see how you get there without domestic drilling and ethanol, because it will take a generation to make a dent in the number of engines we have that run on gasoline.... and having the oil isn't helpful unless you can turn it into gasoline. In MY world, I think I'd start the floor at $3 to encourage the economy while reducing regulation to encourage domestic production and refining hopefully to push REAL gas prices back towards $2... that would take little public funding to stimulate the economy as most of the funding would come from investors and generate much revenue (at a 33% tax) to be invested in ethanol generation, natural gas conversions, and ULEV subsidies...

Too often, politicians plans start with reliance upon technology that doesn't exist, and funding it today with revenue from 10 years from now. Sounds great in a speech and they can claim neutrality in ten years, but when the innovation doesn't happen on time and the costs exceed the revenue projections (because businesses seek to avoid expenses they can see coming) MOST of those people are out of office before people realize the problem and we're stuck with a trillion dollar budget shortfall. Doing it MY way means allowing US companies to do what US companies do best... and that is generate maximum revenue for minimal expense... and just make sure they stay safe... letting market competition protect the consumer (again, merely overseeing) and then as things work, take a little of the cream... i.e. increase taxes when people can most afford it so we can cut them when we can least afford them... using that revenue to create new opportunities.

To the OP...

How do we restore fiscal sanity? Focus on minimizing costs/maximizing "output"... and not on protecting turf. Not gonna happen

People should start looking at what Texas is doing - no personal income tax, no extremely high vehicle registration fees (my 2007 Tacoma registration was $365 last year in California, it will be $58 in Texas) or any other crazy fees, and guess what? Texas has the largest job growth in the nation. Meanwhile, California taxes the living crap out of anything that moves and businesses are leaving in droves and to make up for the lost revenue of those businesses they raise taxes. The last guy left in California is gonna have a whopper of a tax bill.

I had no complaints when gas was $0.15 a gallon.

(06-20-2011 07:58 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I had no complaints when gas was $0.15 a gallon.

.....and the dollar was actually based upon something tangible other than a promise?

1. TAX EVERYONE!!!! I don't care if you make $20 in a year, some of that must go to the government. You use services, you should pay. I want 0 people who earn money to pay $0 under our current federal income tax system.

2. BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!! This makes the most sense. CUT EVERYTHING!!!! Start getting rid of duplicate services. Bring our boys home from the dozens of countries we occupy.

3. Stop subsidizing anything, especially energy. Stop paying farmers to not grow crops. Let me opt out of social security and medicare if I chose. Even if I have to pay a 2% tax to do so.

4. As for an oil replacement....natural gas and hydrogen for vehicles. Nuclear for large scale production. Wind and solar for small scale (houses and farms).

I know for myself, I lost my job last year in Florida, shortly before I became very I'll and went into the hospital. I got 511 of what I paid back, and it went straight to the DoEd to pay down my student loans. My taxable income was 16k. I have yet to file for unemployment. (I refuse to.) Should I pay more?

(06-20-2011 07:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Something I really like is this high deductible plan I'm in. The first 2400 is on me. After that it's full pick up. It's great for my daughter and no where near the paperwork headache we were going through before.

Mach,

Do you realize that once Obamacare is fully implemented, such plans will disappear?

They won't meet the Obamacare standards for health insurance.

(06-21-2011 02:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 07:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Something I really like is this high deductible plan I'm in. The first 2400 is on me. After that it's full pick up. It's great for my daughter and no where near the paperwork headache we were going through before.

Mach,

Do you realize that once Obamacare is fully implemented, such plans will disappear?

They won't meet the Obamacare standards for health insurance.

Exactly true, and my biggest personal problem with the plan. If I choose to pay out of pocket for check-ups, school physicals and the myriad of aches and colds that families get, but want insurance for catastrophies, I am out of luck. I MUST buy insurance for "wellcare"...

Let's assume for a moment that a 10,000 deductible family plan (2500pp) costs 500/month and a FULL BLOWN plan costs 1300/month, and though I'm not going into detail, those anumbers are somewhat realistic... (go to ehealthinsurance.com) My MAX out of pocket could be as little as 6,000 or as much as 16,000 under plan 1. Under plan 2, I pay right at 16k no matter what. It's no surprise as to why those numbers are so close... the government is merely making the same bet I would make (that I will be relatively healthy) to cover other people, and using MY money to do it (as opposed to its own).

Sucks

(06-21-2011 04:34 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  I know for myself, I lost my job last year in Florida, shortly before I became very I'll and went into the hospital. I got 511 of what I paid back, and it went straight to the DoEd to pay down my student loans. My taxable income was 16k. I have yet to file for unemployment. (I refuse to.) Should I pay more?

I'm sorry that happened to you.

No offense meant, but if your income was only 16k you didn't pay any taxes to begin with.

In Today's Business section of the Cleveland Plain Dealer there is an article about stimulus plans that Republicans can support. First couple of paragraphs talk about US companies hoarding cash over seas.


WOOOOHHHHH I just googled the first sentence in the article and it hit all the nation's newspapers today. Full court press is on by some lobbyist. Check out the article.

http://www.twincities.com/working/ci_183...ck_check=1

This paragraph in particular I would like to address for those that read the article

According to regulatory filings, though, the company cut its workforce and capital spending in this country in the three years that followed.

Instead of adding domestic plants and employees, Merck used the cash infusion to continue paying dividends and buying back stock for the benefit of shareholders and executives - even as the company was rocked by more than $8 billion in costs to settle a variety of disputes after executive missteps.

(06-20-2011 01:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2011 10:10 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We should tax the **** out of oil and we should end ALL subsidizes. I know you guy's hate that, but it's the truth. You can't even get the right to understand all the ways we SUBSIDIZE oil. How can we get them to see we should tax it more. We should be reimbursed dime for dime by the world Oil market for every resource spent on keeping the Straits of Hormuz open. Oil is a 19th century energy for a 21st century economy. The only reason we haven't progressed here is because we subsidize it so heavily.

The reason we haven't progressed away from oil is that we don't have anything to progress TO. There are no viable substitutes for oil. There are things the could be, at least in part, someday. But there's no there there right now. The energy alternatives we are pushing save some conventional energy, primarily coal (and the environmental benefits of doing so are not insignificant), but none of them save any appreciable amount of oil. That's why oil is the 21st century energy, like it or not. Ignoring that reality is a fundamental flaw in any energy policy.

That being said, I agree with a substantial tax increase on oil and/or oil products. The current cost does not reflect substantial externalities. The revenue from such a tax should be used to reduce taxes elsewhere, so as not to wreck our economy. Those revenues should NOT be used to subsidize alternative energy sources. Price oil at a level that effectively recovers the externalities, and the market will take care of externalities.

The world is not going to reimburse us for the money we spend to keep oil supply lanes open. Not going to happen.

That's true but there will never be substitutes for oil when oil is subsidized so heavily for decades. Why invest in research on anything else when gas is $1.20 a gallon? It's generally just been lip-service paid to alternatives. It's only recently with much higher oil prices and subsidies for alternatives that any alternatives have a chance.

(06-21-2011 05:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 01:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2011 10:10 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We should tax the **** out of oil and we should end ALL subsidizes. I know you guy's hate that, but it's the truth. You can't even get the right to understand all the ways we SUBSIDIZE oil. How can we get them to see we should tax it more. We should be reimbursed dime for dime by the world Oil market for every resource spent on keeping the Straits of Hormuz open. Oil is a 19th century energy for a 21st century economy. The only reason we haven't progressed here is because we subsidize it so heavily.

The reason we haven't progressed away from oil is that we don't have anything to progress TO. There are no viable substitutes for oil. There are things the could be, at least in part, someday. But there's no there there right now. The energy alternatives we are pushing save some conventional energy, primarily coal (and the environmental benefits of doing so are not insignificant), but none of them save any appreciable amount of oil. That's why oil is the 21st century energy, like it or not. Ignoring that reality is a fundamental flaw in any energy policy.
That being said, I agree with a substantial tax increase on oil and/or oil products. The current cost does not reflect substantial externalities. The revenue from such a tax should be used to reduce taxes elsewhere, so as not to wreck our economy. Those revenues should NOT be used to subsidize alternative energy sources. Price oil at a level that effectively recovers the externalities, and the market will take care of externalities.
The world is not going to reimburse us for the money we spend to keep oil supply lanes open. Not going to happen.

That's true but there will never be substitutes for oil when oil is subsidized so heavily for decades. Why invest in research on anything else when gas is $1.20 a gallon? It's generally just been lip-service paid to alternatives. It's only recently with much higher oil prices and subsidies for alternatives that any alternatives have a chance.

No, the reason there are no good substitutes for oil is because there are no good substitutes for oil. It's a physical and chemical problem, not an economic one.

We use 20 million barrels of oil a day. There is nothing that has the ability to replace that. There are 6-8 things that could each replace 2-3 million barrels a day, and if we pursue all of them successfully we would at least reduce our dependence on oil to a level that could be satisfied by domestic production plus our NAFTA partners--Canada and Mexico. But that's as good as it can get, and it doesn't get even there cheaply or risk-free. That's why we need to push everything--conservation, alternatives. domestic drilling--ASAP.

because there are no good substitutes for oil at the current price yes.



I get the joule per gram. I understand the ease of transporation. Alot of advantages. I get your angle here, but if you would just let it compete on it's own devices we WOULD find an alternative.

(06-21-2011 06:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  because there are no good substitutes for oil at the current price yes.
I get the joule per gram. I understand the ease of transporation. Alot of advantages. I get your angle here, but if you would just let it compete on it's own devices we WOULD find an alternative.

No, that's really not right.

The alternatives we are talking about--solar, wind--don't move vehicles down highways. And that's what we use 70% of our oil for. That's the problem. Obama visits a solar panel factory and gives a speech about how it is helping us get off oil. It isn't. And changing the prices--of either oil or wind or solar--won't affect that. What an increase in the gasoline tax would do is foster conservation--and that is a good thing.

But there really isn't an alternative to oil. And it's physics and chemistry and mechanics that are the limiting factors, not economics. You can't move the price of gasoline to a level where electric cars will go further on a recharge. You're trying to mix physics and economics.

What you can do is raise the price of gasoline to a level where more people will choose to use commuter trains instead of cars. And power those trains--and freight trains and intercity high-speed passenger trains--with electricity. And generate that electricity with nukes or wind or solar. And when you do all those things you save 2.5-3 million barrels a day. Out of 20.

And there are other things--including domestic drilling--that can get you like amounts. Do enough of them and you ease the problem. But there simply is no one solution.

Your just never going to dazzle 'em with facts Owl.

(06-21-2011 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What an increase in the gasoline tax would do is foster conservation--and that is a good thing.

I don't agree with that... Lets assume there are three types of driving

1) The Morning Commute
2) Shipping of Goods
3) Leisure Driving

1 & 2 will be mostly unaffected by all but the most draconian of tax hikes. Sure some people might car pool and a few, like myself, live close enough to bike to the office but no real dent will be made.

3 will be cut down but *if* people drive less to save money two things happen. Either less of the tax money you intended to get will end up in government coffers or less money gets circulated into the industry around those driving vacations.

(06-21-2011 08:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-21-2011 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What an increase in the gasoline tax would do is foster conservation--and that is a good thing.

I don't agree with that... Lets assume there are three types of driving
1) The Morning Commute
2) Shipping of Goods
3) Leisure Driving
1 & 2 will be mostly unaffected by all but the most draconian of tax hikes. Sure some people might car pool and a few, like myself, live close enough to bike to the office but no real dent will be made.
3 will be cut down but *if* people drive less to save money two things happen. Either less of the tax money you intended to get will end up in government coffers or less money gets circulated into the industry around those driving vacations.

Whenever there is a price spike, consumption goes down. In this oil market, even a 1-2% decline exerts a huge downward push on pricing, and history suggests we'd get more than that if the price went to $5/gallon.

The real savings would come in the long term. More people would take a closer look at fuel economy before buying, and we'd see a lot more cars like my VW diesel that gets 43 mpg, not to mention hybrids and, as they become more viable, electric cars.

If it's phased in so people have time to adjust, and offset by tax cuts elsewhere so that the harm to the economy is minimized, I think it could produce very a useful result.

What is wrong with less tax money going to the government? I'm trying but failing to understand why that's a bad thing.

(06-22-2011 08:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If it's phased in so people have time to adjust, and offset by tax cuts elsewhere so that the harm to the economy is minimized, I think it could produce very a useful result.

This is where the focus should be. Not on "raising revenue to spend on alternative research", but on seeking ways to maximize the combination of monies... i.e. If cost is a factor of supply, and supply is seriously impacted by reliance on shaky foriegn supplies (the protection of which is probably our largest expense AND our biggest PR problem in the world) and our ability to refine... then we should take steps to reduce that reliance and increase capacity. Unfortunately, our regulatory environment goes the exact opposite direction. Notice that I haven't spoken about using these things to lower the consumer price of fuel... which it would do, but we could keep it artificially higher through taxes to encourage conservation. Reducing military spending protecting foriegn supplies would be an ancillary benefit.

Quote:What is wrong with less tax money going to the government? I'm trying but failing to understand why that's a bad thing.

How often does Congress give UP power/money? and They're the ones "selling" the ideas to voters. All they have to do is claim the idea kills puppies and they win the vote

(06-20-2011 05:58 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There has been legislation on the floors of Congress for over a Decade that would have solved this problem. It is called the FairTax.

Fair in name only as it lowers taxes at the top while raising them for the poor and middle class.

A system that has a million loopholes that only people who can afford to hire exensive lawyers to traverse through is not good for the poor either... that is the point of the fairtax. We have made it so cumbersome that only the truly rich or poor have advantages in our current system, while the middle class feels the burden.

(06-22-2011 02:36 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:58 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There has been legislation on the floors of Congress for over a Decade that would have solved this problem. It is called the FairTax.

Fair in name only as it lowers taxes at the top while raising them for the poor and middle class.

A system that has a million loopholes that only people who can afford to hire exensive lawyers to traverse through is not good for the poor either... that is the point of the fairtax. We have made it so cumbersome that only the truly rich or poor have advantages in our current system, while the middle class feels the burden.

THIS is why we never get anywhere on taxes.

People assume that placing a 30% tax on the rich is a hike. Most rich pay less than 25%, some less than 20 because of loopholes only the TRULY rich can exploit, and THAT is only on what is actually declared as income. Forget about wealth accumulation.... which is a whole OTHER ball of wax.

Go to fairtax.org, Peanut. The VERY first line there is..

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level,

Now, we can debate whether or not its goals are perfect, but this is actually a TAX CUT for people below the poverty level as they pay payroll taxes... and for everyone above there until the progressive rate equals the current payroll tax.

Now, we can play with the numbers to see where the tipping point is, and if it's 30k and you think it should be 75k... or 75k and you think it should be 150k, we can talk about it and have an honest debate about fairness...

but when you understand that the top 400 people... not 400,000... four hundred, make more money than the bottom 150,000,000... and yet their aggregate tax rate is less than 20 percent, you should realize that even a 25% tax rate on the wealthy with no breaks is a BIG tax hike to them.

Too many people hear proposals like 25% on the wealthy and the bottom paying national sales tax and think like you do... they don't bother to look at the truth.