Rest assured, a solution will be found. There is an ocean of energy down there, and it's generating a mountain of money. It will surely generate a river of litigation, and a volcanic eruption of jury awards to lucky property-owners. But we'll get that gas and oil, you can be sure.
Friend just got back from Italy. Roughly $10 per gallon of gas.
That's pretty much what Barry wants for the U.S. It would certainly be an earth-friendly price.
so higher fuel taxes are bad because ... because ...
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: so higher fuel taxes are bad because ... because ...
And how much of that is taxes? Because I heard this silly rumor about how different countries have their own laws and stuff.dgs49 wrote:Friend just got back from Italy. Roughly $10 per gallon of gas.
I want to hear your explanation then for why President Obama has increased drilling permits if he's trying to shut down drilling.dsg49 wrote:That's pretty much what Barry wants for the U.S. It would certainly be an earth-friendly price.
I'm guessing it's somewhat similar to the fearmongering driven by the NRA that the President will take away our guns while he signs laws that increase gun rights.
Re: so higher fuel taxes are bad because ... because ...
The part ignored by LJ and O&W in favor of bullshit responses:
"...
the real reason for the recent explosion of fracking in the country where it has most been applied, the United States, is the passage of legislation in 2005 by the US Congress that exempts the oil industry’s hydraulic fracking activity from regulatory supervision by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.(source)
The law is known as the “Halliburton Loophole.” That’s because it was introduced with lobbying pressure from the company that produces the lion’s share of chemical hydraulic fracking fluids—Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton. When he became Vice President under George W. Bush in early 2001, Bush immediately gave Cheney responsibility for a major Energy Task Force to make a comprehensive national energy strategy. Aside from looking at Iraq oil potentials as documents later revealed, Cheney’s task force used Cheney’s considerable political muscle and industry lobbying money to win exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
... "
This would be the energy task force whose members have been kept secret from the electorate.
yrs,
rubato
"...
the real reason for the recent explosion of fracking in the country where it has most been applied, the United States, is the passage of legislation in 2005 by the US Congress that exempts the oil industry’s hydraulic fracking activity from regulatory supervision by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.(source)
The law is known as the “Halliburton Loophole.” That’s because it was introduced with lobbying pressure from the company that produces the lion’s share of chemical hydraulic fracking fluids—Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton. When he became Vice President under George W. Bush in early 2001, Bush immediately gave Cheney responsibility for a major Energy Task Force to make a comprehensive national energy strategy. Aside from looking at Iraq oil potentials as documents later revealed, Cheney’s task force used Cheney’s considerable political muscle and industry lobbying money to win exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
... "
This would be the energy task force whose members have been kept secret from the electorate.
yrs,
rubato
Re: so higher fuel taxes are bad because ... because ...
Well rube, to be honest, after looking at the subject line and considering the thread's author, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this thread...
I figured if you were too stupid and/or ignorant to understand why it would be a bad idea to raise fuel costs in an economy with 23 million unemployed and a "recovery" GDP growth rate of 1.3% , it wasn't worth wasting the key strokes to try to explain it to you....
On top of that, there is no form of taxation more regressive than fuel taxes...
They hit the working poor and lower middle class the hardest, both in direct terms, (transportation and utility costs) and in in-direct terms (since increased fuel costs obviously impact the price of all goods that must be transported...like food)
Lower energy costs!
If the cost of energy were reduced in this country, it would lower the cost of American manufactured goods, (which would increase US exports, and reduce imports) and make locating manufacturing operations in the US more attractive, (thus creating more US manufacturing jobs), all without reducing worker pay. These newly hired workers would in turn now become taxpayers, thus creating more domestic government revenue, and reducing the need to borrow from foreign sources.
A win-win-win....
But I certainly don't expect Mr. "Can't read a one column table or understand a simple article" to comprehend any of that, so I won't bother explaining it to you a second time....
I figured if you were too stupid and/or ignorant to understand why it would be a bad idea to raise fuel costs in an economy with 23 million unemployed and a "recovery" GDP growth rate of 1.3% , it wasn't worth wasting the key strokes to try to explain it to you....
On top of that, there is no form of taxation more regressive than fuel taxes...
They hit the working poor and lower middle class the hardest, both in direct terms, (transportation and utility costs) and in in-direct terms (since increased fuel costs obviously impact the price of all goods that must be transported...like food)
That's an excellent point, and you know the number one way we could address this?When we import more than we export, we have to pay for the difference either by selling off some of our assets or by borrowing more from foreigners
Lower energy costs!
If the cost of energy were reduced in this country, it would lower the cost of American manufactured goods, (which would increase US exports, and reduce imports) and make locating manufacturing operations in the US more attractive, (thus creating more US manufacturing jobs), all without reducing worker pay. These newly hired workers would in turn now become taxpayers, thus creating more domestic government revenue, and reducing the need to borrow from foreign sources.
A win-win-win....
But I certainly don't expect Mr. "Can't read a one column table or understand a simple article" to comprehend any of that, so I won't bother explaining it to you a second time....
