West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(58 posts)

$5 gas is coming

Started 1 year ago by hooper1961
Latest reply from JoB

hooper1961
Member Profile

can the people's will prevail tunusia and egypt well done! iran and libya are scary and they have a lot of the black gold stuff and if it gets ugly

Posted 1 year ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

I see $5 gas as a good thing. We North Americans use too many resources. And our subsidized gasoline prices aren't close enough to the true cost of this finite resource. I hope higher costs inspire people to buy smaller cars, carpool more, and drive less.

The March '11 issue of Wired Magazine has an interesting story that cites the increase in shipping costs from Asia (presumably from higher fuel costs) as a factor motivating a resurgence in domestic manufacturing.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

i say raise it to $7, which is about the pain point. the serveral governments should be making a killing off of gasoline - and should have been for the past 35 years. we could fund a lot of transportation projects that way.

Posted 1 year ago #
JayDee
Member Profile

Unfortunately RedBlack, the taxes on gasoline (at least the state taxes) are a flat fee amounting to $0.44/gallon and are not indexed to the cost as a percentage. $7 gas would likely lower overall tax receipts, leading to even fewer transportation bucks.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

oh, i know how it's done now. i'm talking about changing the structure of gas taxes altogether. the model we use doesn't even pay for road maintenance, let alone help to fund bigger projects.

don't get me started on taxpayer subsidies to big oil, or the fact that they're not paying their corporate taxes.

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

higher costs for gas should hasten the development of alternative resources; a good thing.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

they should, but they won't. the oil industry has no interest in cutting their own throats. congress isn't going to cut their throats, either. note that the u.s. house just cut funding for energy research, while refusing to address subsidies for big oil.

"[the republican proposal] would cut Department of Energy budgets that promoted renewable energy by $1.7 billion — a 23% reduction at a time when the U.S. is in a clean-energy race with China."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2052930,00.html

they've also proposed cutting the EPA's budget by a third.

now, who do you suppose benefits from a smaller EPA?

Posted 1 year ago #
furryfaces
Member Profile

Hey Chris! When you have a moment, would you please email us @ furryfaces@hotmail.com? The current email address we have continues to come back as undeliverable. Thanks! F3

Remember, It's Hip To Be Snipped

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Although i agree in principle that rising gas prices are a good thing
without a good public transportation system
they hurt the poor disproportionately

Posted 1 year ago #
ellenater
Member Profile

I agree, JoB.

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

Raising the price of gas will only bring more profits to the oil companies. And it will only (or mostly) effect those with low income. People, who because of ecomonic reasons are unable to live close to work or a grocery store and with kids and working are unable to take the bus. I know I was one of those families. I suffered, oil execs got richer. Causing hardships for people who already have a difficult enough time is not the way to kick the petroleum habit.

Posted 1 year ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

"Although i agree in principle that rising gas prices are a good thing
without a good public transportation system
they hurt the poor disproportionately"

What doesn't?

Transportation?
Housing?
Food?
Power?
Seahawk tickets?
Gummy Bears?

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

autumn, i'm talking about raising taxes on gasoline; the oil companies don't get a dime of that money. furthermore, high gas prices tend to get people off of the roads, so oil company profits actually decrease or flatten when prices rise. it might even be their way of controlling u.s. demand.

but with extra tax revenue, governments could subsidize fuel and transportation for low-income wage earners - at least give them some assistance, like food stamps. yes, smitty, those of us with means would subsidize those with fewer or lesser means.

don't worry: this is just my typical pie-in-the-sky idealism. until politicians get the spine to implement better ideas beyond raw consumerism and whatever the free market will bear, nothing is going to change.

except prices. expect the oil companies to get richer, wage earners to get poorer, and the several governments to continue to starve themselves because of a few selfish, loudmouthed nut jobs.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

With Gadhafi threatening to sabatoge its oil pipelines and the ongoing unstability in Libya, fears are now driving up the price per barrel to over a $100. It's nowhere to what oil was back in 2008 price($140) but, we may very well get there fast. The market fueled by wishful thinkers lately aren't wishing anymore. They're praying.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

redblack...

if only could.. would.

smitty...

once again you are awarded a prize for insensitivity.

The addition of SeaHawk tickets was merely facetious...
but gummy bears? that is noteworthy.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

ahh, jo, young grasshopper. smitty pulled forum jujitsu on you!

see, 'cause it's funny 'cause like poor people shouldn't be getting extravagant luxuries like sports and candy.

see what he did there?

now - ask him if poor people should be watching cable tee vee. ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

suv's = rich dictators

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

come on, hooper. are you saying soccer moms in SUV's are rich dictators? this is america! you're free to buy whatever frivolous, eco-hostile thing you want.

Posted 1 year ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

"you're free to buy whatever frivolous, eco-hostile thing you want."

A friend who drives a 79 Celica once told me the exact same thing. My SUV spews much less crap and gets equal mileage.

Even those almighty hybrid owners should do some dd on how their batteries are made, shipped and assembled - not to mention where the electric car power comes from. The carbon footprint is greater than they think. But, it makes them feel better driving it.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

sure, it does. the car companies told them they should feel better.

you and i might agree on something here, but for different reasons.

until we can power cars from 110-volt household electricity and have better battery technology, not much will change in our consumption of fossil fuels and toxic chemicals.

and big oil isn't going to like that.

Posted 1 year ago #
Smitty
Member Profile

True.

I am getting an electric lawn mower for this summer though - I kind of feel good about that - but moreso because I always felt bad about the noise, not just the pollution. Gas lawn mowers are bad, bad, bad on emmissions though.

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

i use a push mower

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

redblack...

forum jujitsu only funny if someone laughs

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Smitty...
We literally drive our cars till they drop.
150K+ on a 2000 minivan that gets 20 to 25
not bad for a rolling kennel

been electric for the lawn since we moved back to the NW where the power is hydro

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

smitty: i hear bad things about the 18- and 24-volt battery mowers. go with A/C power. (hey, we have cheap hydro, right?) not sure what amperage would suit your lawn mowing needs, but my inherited-from-the-previous-homeowner 4.0 HP black and decker does just fine on our typical urban 6000 SF property.

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

get a good push mower

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Hoop's right. You'll get a much nicer mow-job AND a little workout to boot!

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

It's easier too, if you reduce the size of your lawn and plant your new beds with yummy fruits and vegetables, and pretty flowers.

Posted 1 year ago #
MarkAngello
Member Profile

Eating $5 worth of tacos will give you gas too!

Posted 1 year ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

An apt description of what you've been posting today, MA. Certainly smells like it.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

Gas rose .07cents in one week up to $3.70 in Vancouver,WA. Just sickening. Now I don't need to eat tacos to achieve greatness.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

A tip for Jiggers: rich people don't worry about gas prices moving 7 cents. If you expect to be rich someday (spillover from another thread) you'd better start re-training your attitude. Here's your "rich" way of reacting to this- Yippee!! More money for me cuz I own all that stock in oil companies!! Let the piss*nt peasants pay more! That's more for me!! Bwhahahahahaha!

Posted 1 year ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

people who drive gas guzzlers thank you for keeping demand for fuel so high, and thus increasing the cost of fuel and ultimately lots of things.

dobro blame to the people who drive gas guzzlers is a big part of the equation as is worldwide demand.

maybe this time the US will get the picture to wean ourselves off of oil, and until then people who drive gas guzzlers will start to pay the true environmental cost of their choice

Posted 1 year ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

The only reason we have cheap fuel is because the world trades in our currency. This and printing trillions of dollars is the only thing that is keeping us afloat for now.

It is my understanding that if our currency is dropped everything will go up in price. That is why we need to get the debt wiped off the books or at least controlled better.

Blame whoever you want for it but the sad reality is that we are in a huge mess. More revenues need to be generated and spending has to be cut.

But speaking of blame...last time fuel was this high it was all Bush and Cheney's fault. So I guess, just for fun, it is Obama and Biden's fault. LOL

CJ, in a perfect world your vision might be more valid and I wish it were so, but higher fuel hurts all across the financial spectrum. I do have a feeling Nuclear will not be promoted as much since the disaster in Japan has come about. Since I and others will be paying more in fuel costs, we will not be going to the movies as often. We will not be eating out at restaurants as often. My kid won't be able to participate in as many activities. And some people will not be able to buy as much food. We will not be paying extra for life insurance. So, for me, I prefer we have cheaper fuel to heat our homes, run our vehicles and industry.

I like alternative energy but I do not want the government to make the choice. Just like using CFL's. Have fun with the Mercury that will be permeating our landfills and elsewhere.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

rich: i agree with you on a few points here.

yes, it is obama's fault - for not even mentioning how wall street speculation is driving the cost of fuel and food in this country, and for parroting the oil industry's lame excuses for high fuel costs.

the world currently has an oil surplus that is (i think) 18% above the surpluses of the last 5 years that supposedly drove prices down. because of speculation, the oil market is operating outside of the laws of supply and demand.

but it's still the case that energy saved through better conservation efforts could offset any potential gains from new drilling - in ANWR, for example - and it would generally reduce demand once speculation is reined in.

and thank you for admitting that tax revenues need to increase in addition to cutting government waste. we probably disagree on whose golden calf is fattest, but hearing a conservative make that admission is a good start for non-partisan agreement.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Yeah red, but he probably STILL thinks the best way to raise revenues is to give massive tax breaks to multi-billionaires and the corporations they own.
Still waiting for the trickle to begin....

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

HMCRich

our government not only heavily subsidizes the oil industry right now.. it has historically done so.

if you want the government out of the energy business you should be lobbying your elected representatives to end all tax breaks and subsidies for American oil producers...
including requiring them to pick up the tab for their environmental impact.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

AND picking up the tab for all the military protection we provide them worldwide.
---
They're called externalities Rich, and we pay a huge hidden price for the oil we use.
---
SOMETIMES, we require LEADERSHIP from the people we elect to LEAD, and that may occasionally require they push initiatives.
Those with the power, money, don't willingly shift revenue to areas they aren't involved with. The petro-chem corporations, and the political party they own, the Republicant's, don't want to give up their cash-cow, even though they know that the cow is sick and dying.

Posted 1 year ago #
WorldCitizen
Member Profile

The only answer in the short term really is conservation. Implementing new technologies into our everyday lives takes time. We can insist on better controls to help mitigate the impacts of our excess, but the reality is we have an entrenched system and it takes time to correct. Use less, waste less...where it's possible.

Posted 1 year ago #
TDe
Member Profile

We not only have an entrenched system, we have had a long series of entrenched Congressional members, that continue to this very day, no matter how many new members we elect. Can you count the number of administrations from which you've heard these words? "We need a comprehensive energy policy." I remember hearing it during the Carter administration and every one thereafter. And still Congressional members cannot get off their collective duffs to make changes. Absolutely astounds me... year after year as we dance closer and closer to the edge of energy chaos, both environmentally and financially. But hey, no worries. The oil company executives will trickle down some of their profits to help our economy when it struggles and/or the environment, just like they've done in the past. Oh wait... they've never done any such thing. Yes, I'm cynical.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

TDe: i'd be happier if they simply paid their fair share of taxes.

if they can't do that much, we should cancel their leases, nationalize our oil supply, and make them buy it from us, just like they do OPEC.

and alaska.

Posted 1 year ago #
TDe
Member Profile

Amen to that, redblack.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

redblack...
now there's an idea any red blooded capitalist ought to be able to get behind:)

Posted 1 year ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

Well DawsonCT, even Kennedy knew cutting taxes would bring in more revenue. Just using your line of thought.

I want everyone to pay their fair share. I want to get rid of all tax loop holes. I don't believe any person or corporation should pay more than 20% to the government in federal taxes. I mean churches only ask for 10%.

States and municipalities can tax however they want but at most locally, I don't want to pay another 20% either.

Basically, I don't want to work for the government for half the year or 40% of the year.

But, subsidies are put in place by the people we elect. Both parties are guilty, guilty, guilty and now, for the companies that do pay corporate income tax, we have the highest corporate taxes worldwide.

Even Charlie Rangel wanted the rate cut three years ago. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22917.html
So if some of you can get over your major disgust of corporations which do employ people and help your 401k's, maybe you can understand that you cannot tax too much to be competitive. Ohh Nevermind. I get tired of speaking to brick walls.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

don't think of it as working for the government. think of it as working for the collective good of your community, state, and country. with half of the population at or below the poverty line, with hiring frozen and high unemployment, government is trying to play a vital role in keeping folks off of the street and the lights on, but their resources for doing so are under constant attack from scissor-happy tea bagger budget cuts.

besides, no one's talking about raising your taxes.

jan schakowsky's (probably DOA) bill targets people who have income and/or assets of $1 million or more - which is about 8.4 million people - and would tax income above that at (i think) 49%. just think about that for a minute: you still have $1 million in income that's taxed at the "bush rate." a million! can you even imagine having an income of $650,000 after taxes?

and please don't try to tell me that "that really isn't a lot of money." because it sure as hell is to the bottom 90%.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20110316/FREE/110319948

(notice the article doesn't compare how fast the ranks of the poor are swelling.)

you know, i get tired of brick walls talking back to me. go figure.

yes, corporate tax rates are high. like you said, we need to make offshoring of assets illegal - and close loopholes that, for example, allow bank of america to write off enough losses to effectively pay no taxes. corporate tax rates may be high, but corporate taxes only make up 9% of budget revenue. meanwhile, they're enjoying record profits.

82% of budget revenue comes from income and FICA taxes. that's aaall you and me, buddy boy. millionaires are only taxed for FICA on the first $106,000 of income. no, they probably won't need social security. but their country sure as hell does.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

and yes, rich, corporations do employ people, but not very many. 80% of jobs in this country are provided by small businesses - people like you and me. they wouldn't be affected by the schakowsky tax rates, either.

taxed too much to be competitive? honky, please. (yes, i am white, so i'm allowed to use the h-word.) they're making a killing, even with the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

so i really have to take issue with your statement about "working for the government." corporations and the top 5% or so act like they don't have to be a part of this country when its people are in trouble. it's time they started paying more taxes to help pay down the debt that they benefited from - and that they wouldn't have benefited from without our government's help.

do the top 5% have a different set of morals - and less patriotism - than the rest of us?

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Kennedy DID cut the top rate, but he closed a huge number of loopholes and the results were increased tax COLLECTION from the top earners.
30+ years Rich, when does the "trickle-down" begin?
---
Look at the statistics, since the Reagan/Wanniski/Freedman revolution, the ONLY segment of American society that has seen their standard of living improve are the already extremely wealthy.
If you win the lottery, you will be in the lower ends of their tax-bracket, but they will NEVER invite you into their club.
---
Read 'Shock Doctrine' and you will see how the super-wealthy are now taking advantage of our current economic crisis to increase their wealth and control.
Do you REALLY want to live in an oligarchy? I've sort of grown used to the thought of an egalitarian democratic society, I think it would be far better for our Nation if we attempted to reach that ideal.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Who wants to be the wealthiest person in Somalia?
It really is the Ultimate Libertarian Paradise; no laws, no rules, no regulations. The renaissance they are currently experiencing is because they have NO central government, NO system of enforcement, the only ones setting the rules are the strongest and best armed. PARADISE!!! NO taxes, NO government; PARADISE!!!
When do you leave?

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

HMCRich..
major US corporations just posted another quarter of record breaking profits...
exactly how competitive do you want them to be?

Posted 1 year ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

What, you want them to fail? What good would that do? If pension and 401k funds are tied to those, maybe it would be good for you not to hope they fail. And most have to make a profit to survive, unlike our government which is borrowing 40% everyday.

Tomorrow I am going to close down Boeing, Starbucks and Microsoft. That won't hurt the local economy. Big or small, they affect us. Sheesh.

Redblack, yes I know small business employs about 80% of the workers. But I do not hate any business, I just dislike some of the more unethical ones, big and small. And that is where I do want government to help to a point.

But, if any of you think we should pay more taxes then by all means, go ahead and donate your hard earned money to the government.

I will attempt to say AGAIN ... The current taxation system federally needs to change. Everyone should pay their share. Close the loopholes. Is that so hard to understand?

So DawsonCT, Who cares about being in their club? I don't. Also, Why did congress close loopholes for Kennedy and reneged on cutting spending during the Reagan years? Supply side has limits. Bush and his Republican cronies forgot that too and deservedly were voted out.

Then Reid Pelosi and our own Patty Murray thought the purse strings should be ripped open to every cause. Irresponsible spending, but now, during a recession, the government, still run mostly by Democrats (the elected positions), want to raise the debt ceiling, spend money for a very flawed future Health Insurance system and most are not even serious about the ever expanding debt. And both party's, except the conservatives, won't hardly speak about the entitlement programs. Blaming Wall Street for the problems, but bailing them out and not putting in place hardly any policies to regulate the industry that contributed to the problems.

Don't overspend. Balance budgets. Be responsible. Business and Government. They can somewhat work together. But someone has to learn to say NO.

No DawsonCT, I don't believe in Anarchy. I don't believe in Utopia either. I would rather move to Belize. Francis Ford Coppola likes it there.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

rich: even the GOP in the house is having trouble finding areas to cut. they've proposed about $20 - $40 billion in cuts, and they're starting to realize that it isn't anywhere near enough.

how would you cut $1.4 trillion from a $3.5 trillion budget?

i would start by cutting subsidy to those sectors that are successful right now. asking the sectors that are doing extremely well - like big oil - to help shrink the deficit by accepting more of a tax burden is not the same as asking them to close shop.

and if, by some miracle, we do increase their tax burden, they should be prohibited from raising costs to compensate for higher taxes - which simply passes the tax burden back to american consumers.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^