DUM, DUMMER OR DUMMEST IDEA ?

Actually, PAPPY, it makes perfect sense. With the general public griping about the high price of gasoline and demanding action by their much-cherished Federal government, the only SHORT-TERM impact that Federal government can have is to waive that tax temporarily.

Everything else is just political posturing.

Our government promised us in 1974 that it would take steps to wean us off our dependence on foreign oil.

Thirty-four years later, through presidential administrations of both Democrats and Republicans (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2) and through Congresss controlled by both Democrats (1974-1994, 2004-now) and Republicans (1995-2004) the Federal government has done nothing to fulfill that promise.

I fear that 20 years from now, nothing will have changed, despite all that posturing.

Did it ever occur to any of these candidates how foolish it sounds for our government to DEMAND that OPEC increase its production, while that same government does everythig it can to prevent our domestic petroleum companites from doing exactly that?

Just out of curiosity, PAPPY, what smart or more smarter things would YOU do in the short term to relieve the pressure on gasoline prices beyond the political posturing of bashing the Republican candidate for President? (P.S. - Hillary also supports a summer hiatus on the Federal gas tax.)

Obviously the economics ofa capitolistic consumerism never reached as far as the Cocklebur audience.
So in theory, if a "hiatus" on this tax is compromised, do you, John Q. Dumb@ss, expect the oil companies to REDUCE their profit range? Nope, the wholesale prices will remain as high or go higher ( as they do in summertime) and you will still pay what the oil companies WANT you to pay. no megacorporation will forgoe profits just because the government suggest them to.
And the coffers of the government will be less fuller, and likely a" revenue-enhancement" will be needed to offset that loss.

There are a lot places the theories of economics haven't reached apparently, Wyatt. The Federal tax on gasoline is an add-on cost to the end user. It has nothing to do with the WHOLESALE price of gasoline.

Obviously the economics ofa capitolistic consumerism never reached as far as the Cocklebur audience.
So in theory, if a "hiatus" on this tax is compromised, do you, John Q. Dumb@ss, expect the oil companies to REDUCE their profit range? Nope, the wholesale prices will remain as high or go higher ( as they do in summertime) and you will still pay what the oil companies WANT you to pay. no megacorporation will forgoe profits just because the government suggest them to.
And the coffers of the government will be less fuller, and likely a" revenue-enhancement" will be needed to offset that loss.

- wyatt1sc

Sure it makes perfect sense.
Particularly to those voters that can’t see the negative consequences of such action, both short and long term.
And how would they react at summer’s end when that 18.4 cents is added back to the pump price ?
Didn’t McCain advisors realize that would be just before the election ?

No, JD, this is not political posturing, it is political pandering, whether McCain or Clinton ( she’s just as bad ).
We both know it aint gonna happen !

I enjoy playing the ‘what if’ game with history, but that doesn’t solve the present crisis.

As for 20 years hence, I am not as pessimistic as you. I do believe in Yankee ( oops, American ) ingenuity and believe that eventually we will become sufficiently energy independent that the price of imported oil will no longer be a drag on our economy.

I fear having the Pres. And Veep as oilmen for two terms hasn’t helped. They played footsie with ‘big oil’ in this country. I mean, after all, subsidies for companies making billions each quarter..

And how can anyone forget the photo of Bush holding hands with the Saudi prince while they tiptoed through the Texas Bluebonnets ?
Lot of help that was. . .

I don’t think anything can or should be done short term. Let those high prices annoy Republicans and infuriate Democrats.

VOTE OBAMA

No, JD, this is not political posturing, it is political pandering, whether McCain or Clinton ( she’s just as bad ).

- PAPPY

Neither of them can do anything this summer anyway

.

I fear having the Pres. And Veep as oilmen for two terms hasn’t helped. They played footsie with ‘big oil’ in this country. I mean, after all, subsidies for companies making billions each quarter..

And how can anyone forget the photo of Bush holding hands with the Saudi prince while they tiptoed through the Texas Bluebonnets ?
Lot of help that was. . .



VOTE OBAMA

- PAPPY

And who did Slick Willie play footsie with?

And I'll never forget the photos of Willie and Monica

And you say Vote Obama: The Dumbocrats have had control of Congress for how long now? If you have a Duncocrat as Pres, it'll be the fool leading the blind, or will it be the blind leading fools?

No, JD, this is not political posturing, it is political pandering, whether McCain or Clinton ( she’s just as bad ).

- PAPPY

Neither of them can do anything this summer anyway

- ed evans

Right you are, Ed.

Should have called it deceptive pandering.

And I'll never forget the photos of Willie and Monica

- ed evans

At least they were heterosexual encounters.

And you say Vote Obama: The Dumbocrats have had control of Congress for how long now? If you have a Duncocrat as Pres, it'll be the fool leading the blind, or will it be the blind leading fools?

- ed evans

Ed, I know you are smarter than that.
With a waiting veto in the White House and not enough DEMOCRATS in the Senate to override, they don't yet have "control" of Congress.
I know you are impatient, but try to wait another eight months .

Incidentally, who are the Dumbocrats ?

Oh wait, Dumbo was an elephant, so you must be referring to the Obama Republicans.

Everyone talks like a democrat or a republican is going to change something.

Well listen.. Long term it ain’t gonna happen.

The vicious circle has been going round and round for years.
Spend to fix, Fix to spend.

There is not one man who can repair our economy with the tax burden as big as it is and growing at an alarming rate.

We need to stop trying to please each voter, stop the wasteful spending (from the Starr Flower gardens to sending our jobs to other countries.)

There has to be sacrifices to keep our country from becoming more dependent on other countries. Example Oil in Alaska. Why not drill it? So someone can look at a piece of land that is untouched by man? It won’t be long until man won’t have the gas to get there to look at it, without asking some other country, to finance our own venture. (oops already happening)

Our Fort Knox is in hock to China and Saudi now, what’s next?

We better start keeping our jobs and money at home until we build a ladder tall enough to get us out of the hole our Democrats and Republicans have dug us into.

Of Coarse as usual I will go in on election day and vote for the lesser of two evils and within a year I will realize his/her promises and lies are just as big as their opponent, and will be looking for his replacement.

McCain's idea is a short term gimmick. The low value of the dollar and world demand combine for the high gas prices. The oil is traded in dollars.

If demand was even, with the lower value of the dollar, it would take more dollars to buy the same amount of oil at the same value. It is rather simple.

Further, other countries can trade their currencies in for more dollars and thus buy more oil. The demand then goes up, driving the costs up even more.

A US gas tax measure will have cosmetic affect at best.

The price of oil in the US will go down when the value of the dollar goes up. The problem with that is it will lead to more imports and more wealth going to China and India, who in turn, would, you guessed it, demand more oil.

There is no short term solution, short of a full blown world depression, to the high price of oil. We will never again see under a dollar gasoline like the 1990s. We will be lucky to see under $3 a gallon.

If the government wanted to make a dent, it should aim at consumption. It could provide tax breaks for businesses who produced hybrid cars and for individuals who purchased them, (i.e., making the interest on a hybrid car loan deductiable as first home interests payments are.) Or, government could just do nothing and let the market work it out. But, a tweak here and there won't do it.

If the government wanted to make a dent, it should aim at consumption. It could provide tax breaks for businesses who produced hybrid cars and for individuals who purchased them, (i.e., making the interest on a hybrid car loan deductiable as first home interests payments are.) Or, government could just do nothing and let the market work it out. But, a tweak here and there won't do it.

- coke_stevenson

When it come right down to it it is sad when we ask others (our government)to give us a break to do what is the right thing to do in the first place.

If the government wanted to make a dent, it should aim at consumption. It could provide tax breaks for businesses who produced hybrid cars and for individuals who purchased them, (i.e., making the interest on a hybrid car loan deductiable as first home interests payments are.) Or, government could just do nothing and let the market work it out. But, a tweak here and there won't do it.

- coke_stevenson

coke_stevenson,

Actually there is a tweak to the tax code that would make an immediate impact: Give tax breaks, eliminate the sales tax, and allow interest deductions on ANY automobile that gets 30 MPG, including used cars.

About a year ago, since I commute 90 miles every workday, I procured a used car that gets 30-40 MPG. I was driving a pick 'em up truck that gets 12 MPG on the highway without the air conditioner running. My personal fuel consumption immediately dropped by more than half.

(The truck mostly sets in the driveway and is used occasionally for things like trips to the recyling center, and picking up a college student and all his belongings.)

The objective is to replace low MPG vehicles with high MPG vehicles. Extending tax benefits to high MPG used cars would benefit more low income families. It would also accelerate the shift in market share towards more fuel efficient autos.

JK

Pappy..

you must realize that the idea is only being pitched to the group that currently has sway over what now passes as "republican" thinking..

this is the same group that says "cut my property taxes regardless of the outcome, because "they" are spending money on stuff that doesnt benefit me personally, so it is useless and wasteful". The same group that says " freeze all future spending increases, because regardless of what it actually costs to deliver services, I dont want most of them anyway"..

Pappy..

you must realize that the idea is only being pitched to the group that currently has sway over what now passes as "republican" thinking..

this is the same group that says "cut my property taxes regardless of the outcome, because "they" are spending money on stuff that doesnt benefit me personally, so it is useless and wasteful". The same group that says " freeze all future spending increases, because regardless of what it actually costs to deliver services, I dont want most of them anyway"..

- palmetto_native

Or, for lack of a better word, it is just plain ' pandering ' .

That too...

i wonder at what point the Panderee's realize that they have quantified to such a political degree, that they no longer exist a "constituent"..or "taxpayers"..or even "citizens"..

but rather as a "vote"... with each pandering action guaranteeing a certain number of them to be delivered...

And who did Slick Willie play footsie with?

- ed evans

China.

GOP Keeps Up Heat On Possible Clinton-China Links

Thompson on CNN's 'Evans and Novak'
Thompson: Forgo China trip until 'big, ugly mess' cleared up
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 23) -- Republicans are keeping up the pressure on President Bill Clinton to explain questions about possible links between 1996 Democratic campaign contributions and decisions to share U.S. satellite technology with the Chinese government.

In the weekly GOP radio address Saturday, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., said "the administration needs to provide Americans with direct and full answers to important questions about all of this."

"How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?" Goss asked.

News flash, nothing is going to get changed inside of the beltway as long as our leaders are are on their knees servicing big oil. Short of several angry mobs taking a few politicians and oil executives and hanging them until they'll dead for all the world to see, nothing is going to get changed with a vote. Both parties only put forward people that they know that they can control so it will be status quo as usual and our leaders will continue to use public office to accumulate as much wealth as they can, any way they can. The Federal Government has become so bloated, dishonest, impotent and corrupted by lobbyist and special interest that nothing shore of armed revolt will fix it at this point. As sad as that seems, its the cold hard truth.

JD... it's not the "only way" for the Feds to have an impact. We could open up the Federal Oil Reserves and flood the market with extra oil, thereby lowering prices.

Or so the theory goes anyway. All of this is dependent on every gas station in the country lowering prices and playing along with the theme of helping people...

Yeah right.. it's probably all political posturing.