Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Obama proposes new oil tax
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
Feb 5, 2016 15:13:43   #
PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/04/president-obama-oil-tax-gasoline/79835274/

Guess who's going to pay if this passes? It sure won't be the oil companies.

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:20:31   #
Opus Loc: South East Michigan
 
Only 350 days until the P**********l Inauguration. It's going to be a very bumpy ride. :shock:

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:22:33   #
RichieC Loc: Adirondacks
 
And when gas prices inevitably go back up, it will make heating, goods, manufacturing and everything that much more expensive forever, especially those at the bottom income levels, because this will never come off.

Reply
 
 
Feb 5, 2016 15:30:52   #
Keenan Loc: Central Coast California
 
RichieC wrote:
And when gas prices inevitably go back up, it will make heating, goods, manufacturing and everything that much more expensive forever, especially those at the bottom income levels, because this will never come off.


You all are forgetting the other side of the ledger. If the oil tax were invested into improving our infrastructure by building an alternative t***sportation network - an electric high speed rail system - run on domestically produced renewable energy, the net benefit to the economy (in addition to hugely benefiting the entire human race by getting off our addiction to climate damaging f****l f**ls) would be tremendous, as it would increase economic efficiencies to alleviate part of the traffic congestion problem and move people from point a to point b much faster and cheaper with WAY LESS ENERGY USE PER PERSON.

Think about the huge economic stimulus that Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System was when it was started in the 1950's. Naysayers at the time screamed about the "massive boondogle and waste of taxpayer money" to undertake the most massive infrastructure project in the nation's history at the time. But economists pointed out at the time, correctly, that the net effect would be hugely beneficial, and the tax money invested WELL WORTH IT. And they were right. Economically speaking, that massive infrastructure project created HUGE economic stimulus.

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:34:00   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
The "green" technology is nowhere near being able to supply our domestic energy needs. What you are proposing is simply a pipe dream with no possibility to be effective for decades.
Keenan wrote:
You all are forgetting the other side of the ledger. If the oil tax were invested into improving our infrastructure by building an alternative t***sportation network - an electric high speed rail system - run on domestically produced renewable energy, the net benefit to the economy (in addition to hugely benefiting the entire human race by getting off our addiction to climate damaging f****l f**ls) would be tremendous, as it would increase economic efficiencies to alleviate part of the traffic congestion problem and move people from point a to point b much faster and cheaper with WAY LESS ENERGY USE PER PERSON.

Think about the huge economic stimulus that Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System was when it was started in the 1950's. Naysayers at the time screamed about the "massive boondogle and waste of taxpayer money" to undertake the most massive infrastructure project in the nation's history at the time. But economists pointed out at the time, correctly, that the net effect would be hugely beneficial, and the tax money invested WELL WORTH IT.
You all are forgetting the other side of the ledge... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:34:35   #
hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts
 
Keenan wrote:
You all are forgetting the other side of the ledger. If the oil tax were invested into improving our infrastructure by building an alternative t***sportation network - an electric high speed rail system - run on domestically produced renewable energy, the net benefit to the economy (in addition to hugely benefiting the entire human race by getting off our addiction to climate damaging f****l f**ls) would be tremendous, as it would increase economic efficiencies to alleviate part of the traffic congestion problem and move people from point a to point b much faster and cheaper with WAY LESS ENERGY USE PER PERSON.

Think about the huge economic stimulus that Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System was when it was started in the 1950's. Naysayers at the time screamed about the "massive boondogle and waste of taxpayer money" to undertake the most massive infrastructure project in the nation's history at the time. But economists pointed out at the time, correctly, that the net effect would be hugely beneficial, and the tax money invested WELL WORTH IT.
You all are forgetting the other side of the ledge... (show quote)


There is no shortage of good cases. This honestly sounds like a project that the DOE should have been working on these last 30 odd years with the billions upon billions they have already spent. It's time to trim the government fat, not add to it.

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:37:49   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Too much of our taxpayer dollars have gone to failing projects like Solyndra
hondo812 wrote:
There is no shortage of good cases. This honestly sounds like a project that the DOE should have been working on these last 30 odd years with the billions upon billions they have already spent. It's time to trim the government fat, not add to it.

Reply
 
 
Feb 5, 2016 15:42:24   #
PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North
 
"This is a per-barrel fee on oil paid for by oil companies," White House economic adviser Jeff Zients told reporters Thursday. "So they're the ones paying the fee. We recognize that oil companies will likely pass on some of these costs."

Does anyone really believe that the oil companies will be paying this? That's like Zients' saying "If I drop this handful of mashed potatoes, some of it will likely hit the floor."

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:43:21   #
Keenan Loc: Central Coast California
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
The "green" technology is nowhere near being able to supply our domestic energy needs. What you are proposing is simply a pipe dream with no possibility to be effective for decades.


Where are you getting your math? You don't know what you are talking about. We have more than enough potential domestic g***n e****y to run our entire t***sportation system on renewable energy. NOW.

Why do you think they are building wind generating power in Texas with NO SUBSIDIES? Because it is now cheaper in some places in the US than Coal power plants.

Solar panel costs have declined 80% in 6 years and is now cheaper than most grid energy when considering 10 to 20 year cost cycle.

You are WAY behind the times and need to update your information.

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:47:49   #
Keenan Loc: Central Coast California
 
hondo812 wrote:
There is no shortage of good cases. This honestly sounds like a project that the DOE should have been working on these last 30 odd years with the billions upon billions they have already spent. It's time to trim the government fat, not add to it.


We need to invest more in R&D and infrastructure. We are losing our economic competitiveness to our trading partners because the US only invests 25% of the average amount that our main trading partners invest in R&D and infrastructure.

We are UNDER INVESTING in our infrastructure, not spending too much like you claim. Spending the right way on infrastructure is a critical investment, not wasting money.

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:51:15   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Put your money where your mouth is.... Yes, there are places where wind & solar can work on a limited scale. What about places where the wind doesn't blow enough. Or when the Sun doesn't shine...Not to mention where the Politicians don't want wind turbines off the coast of their summer vacation homes... Plus both Solar & Wind technologies have decimated bird populations where they have been employed. That OK with you ?
Keenan wrote:
Where are you getting your math? You don't know what you are talking about. We have more than enough potential domestic g***n e****y to run our entire t***sportation system on renewable energy. NOW.

Why do you think they are building wind generating power in Texas with NO SUBSIDIES? Because it is now cheaper in some places in the US than Coal power plants.

Solar panel costs have declined 80% in 6 years and is now cheaper than most grid energy when considering 10 to 20 year cost cycle.

You are WAY behind the times and need to update your information.
Where are you getting your math? You don't know wh... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Feb 5, 2016 15:52:20   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Like Solyndra ?
Keenan wrote:
We need to invest more in R&D and infrastructure. We are losing our economic competitiveness to our trading partners because the US only invests 25% of the average amount that our main trading partners invest in R&D and infrastructure.

We are UNDER INVESTING in our infrastructure, not spending too much like you claim. Spending the right way on infrastructure is a critical investment, not wasting money.

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 15:55:15   #
Keenan Loc: Central Coast California
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
Like Solyndra ?


Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What does Solyndra have to do with anything I said? Solyndra hasn't existed for like 5 years. You do realize that, don't you?

And why do you have such little faith in American capitalist entrepreneurs?

So you think that the US can maintain our international competitiveness by investing only 25% of the amount that our trading partners invest in R&D and infrastructure? You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 16:01:46   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
The administration touted them as a solution to the energy problem , just as they are saying now with the oil tax. Yeah, that has been a number of years ago, but we need to learn from our mistakes, not make more. Just because they THINK the tax will work, they are just guessing & are not really taking into account the economic consequences from it. Just like them saying the economy is back. If that were true, why the dismal jobs report ? Why the dependence on Food Stamps by so many.... Don't fall for the false promises just because they sound good. Use your brain to think of the future and in ways not just in line with the administrations line of thought.
Keenan wrote:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What does Solyndra have to do with anything I said? Solyndra hasn't existed for like 5 years. You do realize that, don't you?

And why do you have such little faith in American capitalist entrepreneurs?

Reply
Feb 5, 2016 16:03:50   #
Keenan Loc: Central Coast California
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
The administration touted them as a solution to the energy problem , just as they are saying now with the oil tax. Yeah, that has been a number of years ago, but we need to learn from our mistakes, not make more. Just because they THINK the tax will work, they are just guessing & are not really taking into account the economic consequences from it. Just like them saying the economy is back. If that were true, why the dismal jobs report ? Why the dependence on Food Stamps by so many.... Don't fall for the false promises just because they sound good. Use your brain to think of the future and in ways not just in line with the administrations line of thought.
The administration touted them as a solution to th... (show quote)



Wow. You really are dense, aren't you? Building infrastructure - highways, bridges, high speed rail, etc., has nothing to do with Solyndra or anything you are talking about. Try to stay on topic.

Reply
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.