Is It Time To Eliminate All Gas Taxes?

[bisexualinsocal]

Truckers strike against increasing fuel prices

If you think filling up your gas tank is expensive, imagine what it costs to fill up a 300-gallon semitrailer.

Some truckers said they are being forced out of business by the high diesel fuel prices, and their strike that began Monday is a last resort.

Fueling up today costs much more than when truckers Tim Hobson and Peter Rothenbach first got behind the wheel.

There are plenty of big rigs on the road, but at local truck stops, one will not find many owner-operators or independent drivers.

"A lot of independents shutting down the first through the third, more or less, protesting high fuel," Hobson said.

As a commercial trucker, Hobson said the high fuel prices don't hit him, but he knows several independent drivers who have had to put on the brakes.

"The loads not paying no more than what they've always paid, so the higher fuel cost comes out of their pockets," Hobson explained.

Rothenbach, who works for Jung Oil, has been hauling diesel for more than two decades.

"Ultimately, the end consumer is going to be hit," Rothenbach said. "The independent trucker has to cover his cost. If he does not have a contract that has a clause in it that covers a fuel surcharge, he's bankrupt."

Rothenbach said if the fuel prices don't go down, many independent drivers will have to park for good, forcing consumers to pay more for everything they buy.

"Anything that moves and uses diesel as a fuel to move it the price has to go up," Rothenbach said.

Neither Hobson nor Rothenbach said they think the strike will do much good. They said they've seen fewer independent truckers as the years pass.


I'm spending close to 60 dollars to fill up my gas tank. Here in the Peoples Republic of California, we're paying about 41 cents per gallon in tax on gas. I can afford it, but many can not.

These taxes hurt the poor and elderly more than anyone. Now even working class truckers are feeling more than a pinch. 300 gallon rigs at 4 bucks a gallong? That's $1200 to fill up!

It's time for government to step out of the way of private citizens and allow the poor and the working class to buy the fuel they need to conduct their lives and conduct their business!

[**Peg**]

I agree wholeheartedly, especially here in Canada: land of the highest taxes on the planet (yes, even higher than Switzerland!) Yesterday I paid the equivalent of $4.22/US gallon. I live on a pension and drive the most fuel efficient car that was available in 2004. With prices like that who isn't losing ground? When I bought the car (2006), it cost me $32 to fill her, now it's up to $51.

The Brits have it worse though, hell they were paying $8/US gallon years ago. Ah to be an island nation, NOT.

My buddy is an independent trucker and yes, he's looking for other work, just cannot afford rising fuel costs.

**Peg**

[BronzeBobby]

I agree 100%. The Democrats say they want to tax the rich, but it never works out that way; under any political party the rich find ways around the taxes, and poor/middle class people get screwed. I am trying to support a family of three on an income of around $53,000 in southern California; the state's policies do zero to help me, my wife, or my child make a better life. Housing, gas, amenities, and now taxes are all wielded with utter brutality, all while limousine liberals out West enjoy their gated communities and prattle on about the great things they're doing with charity and their die-hard support for Hillary Clinton's plan to bring back a budget surplus. The whole thing's disgusting. I say cut gas taxes, and increase property taxes on homes worth more than $800,000. Let the people in those mansions quit bitching about their mortgages and see what everyone else is dealing with.

Bravo for the article and post.


I'm spending close to 60 dollars to fill up my gas tank. Here in the Peoples Republic of California, we're paying about 41 cents per gallon in tax on gas. I can afford it, but many can not.

These taxes hurt the poor and elderly more than anyone. Now even working class truckers are feeling more than a pinch. 300 gallon rigs at 4 bucks a gallong? That's $1200 to fill up!

It's time for government to step out of the way of private citizens and allow the poor and the working class to buy the fuel they need to conduct their lives and conduct their business!

[ncbike33]

i disagree. the poor are always disproportionately affected by negative economic events. i do not believe that is a good argument.

taxes should actually be higher. building of roads and the desire for direct point to point transportation is what has us in this mess. forcing people out of cars on to mass transit and other alternatives is the only way to break a dependence on foreign oil. more walking, bicycling, and less driving is good for the environment as well as the individual.

also much of what is hauled are goods imported from other countries. should the price of those items be driven up cottage industries here would spring up manufacturing items to be sold locally. much of the out of season fruit and vegetables are contaminated in some way by insecticides and bad water so not importing them would, again, be healthier in the long run.

get out of the cars. quit demanding out of season produce. quit buying imported items, including oil, and we would all be better off.

[vittoria]

yeah... i would agree....

however...

half of the people in this country cant even walk to the corner store let alone be willing to take a bike to work, IMHO. especially considering that most people live aroun 40 mins to an hour away from their jobs.

not defending them, but just an example...

i like living close to work. i despise vehicles. instead of being a convenience, they are a headache--sure its a mode of transportation, but at what cost? UV joints? endless transmission/power steering fluid costs, oil changes, air/oil filters, constant washing ( in salty snowy places like ohio), the rising cost of gas, every year paying 70 bucks for a new sticker on the car/registration and dont let the engine go bad... you may as well get another car!!..i have had no problem walking/ riding my bicycle to work. helps me keep the weight off :)

i like the idea of solar powered cars ( and before anyone says "but theres clouds here!", there is 'more than one spectrum of light' Dr. McCoy once said...)the use of electric powered vehicles, going back to the drawing board and seeing if with modern technology we can find a better use for steam/water power---

or just use hamsters. yeah hamsters! :rolleyes:

and while we're at it... maybe we really dont need to use the lawn mowers anymore either. everyone should go get a goat or a cow.

maybe even a horse. they eat grass and they are good for transportation...and produce organic fertilizer in the form of manure.;)

Just my :2cents:

Three Billy Goats Gruff
(just waiting for the trolls under the bridge):bigrin::eek:

[The Cheshire Cat]

I have a family member that is an independent trucker. Last year his business broke even...that's $0 going towards family income and $0 going back into the business. And this is a new year with diesel prices still going up. What's the nation going to do when the trucker's have to park their rigs? It's reached that point. Mass transit is fine if you live in a urban or metro area..what about those who live farther out-have to travel 30-50 miles just to get to work? (I wish I could walk or ride to everywhere I wished to go!)

[Bluebiyou]

Time to eliminate gas taxes?!?
My opinion will not be popular.
It's time for America to:
Double it's gas taxes.... (actually should have doubled in 2000, if not 1992) to about 0.80 per gallon, perhaps even triple now. Yes, it's time to triple usa taxes on petrol.
It's also time for government regulated oil/gas prices and subsidized diesel for 18 wheelers. Keep the 18 wheelers going, oil the wheels during this transition period.
We're not far from the next phase of our human existence.
USA MUST (read must) establish itself instantly in alternative energy sources. Let the rest of the world lag in petrol based technology. Use oil for our products. We're at the half way mark on oil reserves (just slightly past - 2006). Let's try to use it wisely, not just for the moment. We all knew this time was coming. Hell, I was a kid in the 1970s we knew oil was 'running out' (okay, fossil fuel was running out the minute more was being used/burned than being produced by natural sedimentation - probably around 1900 - 1920). Now China and India are coming online as major petrol customers. It's like punching holes in our world oil bucket.
Let them be oil dependent.
It is time for Yankee's to learn (like the Japanese - from other cultures), adapt, and invent.
For those of you who may scorn my text, just sit back and watch the next 10 years. Yes, several innovations will come from other-that-the-usa. But watch what happens in usa and spreads to the rest of the world. The little 'democracy experiment' that was started in the late 1700s, protected by oceans will continue to lead... for the present.
I think Reagan was right, that this is not the 'eve' of the USA, but the morning.
We became lazy and fat on oil.
We KNEW this was coming. Why weren't we on solar/wind/geothermal/alcohol power already, finding THEIR weaknesses, and exploring other technologies/resources? Because we're pathetically lazy and NON-proactive.
The 1980s were conservative with the small vehicles. But, WTF happened in the 1990s-2004 with the Hummers, and SUVs? Ignoring the future, we basked in the present petrol abundance. Thank God for Reagan... air pollution control and gas efficiency in vehicles mandated. Think how much worse we would be without those laws.
Pickup trucks and semi tractor trailers will always be necessary in western hemisphere. There aren't many places people can reasonably exist on public transportation (in western hemisphere). These are wide open spaces which commerce needs to traverse. Let's give the 18 wheelers a hand during this troubled time and find a minimalist transportation for individuals. If we put the burden there, then there will be the innovation. To not nurture our economic system (based on cheap transportation of goods) before we have adapted... is to invite long term disaster.
I remember some idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, ...(you get the idea) democrats suggested using the usa national petrol reserves (established in ideology at 6 months national needs) to help keep prices down when prices climbed to $1.50 to $2.00 a gallon. It might have kept prices down for... several months... then prices now would be higher than now because we have no psychological bargaining chip. Not to mention usa vulnerability to foriegn influence due to our economic dependence on oil.
There are reckless courses we can take... and there are sensible courses.
Double, perhaps triple taxes on petrol. Subsidize 18 wheeled vehicles of commerce. Build oil-resource-necessary byways that support moped/bicycle traffic... while oil is now still cheap and plentiful!
Don't look at just today and tommorow and our own luxury advantage. If we plan for the next 30 year decline of oil...
Yes there is a bell curve of how much oil will be extracted. We are at the peak now (2006)!!!! This is not only taking into account current technology but anticipating future technology.
Yes... no matter how much we don't want it to happen the absolute physics of how much oil is out there and how fast the world is consuming it...
If we plan for the next 30 year decline of oil (and exponential rise in price)... we will start ASAP to make a world that is minimally dependent on oil.
Think synthetic products... they require cheap oil to remain cheap. If we'd rather burn the oil than have it available to manufacturing end, then we are wasting our heritage and squandering the future's heritage.
Now (for the past 20 years and the next 10 -15) is the time to strike out at individual/widespread energy saving/creation.
Whew... that diatribe took a lot of energy... :)
"Gee Blue how do you really feel about petrol, energy, taxes and the future?"

:)
It's gonna be a tough road, but we will make it... and shine!

Blue

[prefer_6]

Allow Horse use back on all public highways! Takes longer, but is faster than walking.

[Summerlin1973]

Sorry! an unexpected error has occurred.

[the mage]

Taxes are not the issue. supply and demand are.

You people better wake up to the new reality. Your country is not in control of the oil market. China is.

Petrochina is the worlds largest corporation surpassing even the mighty Wal Mart... They own 33% of every drop of oil coming out of Canada now. They sell it to you. Not us Canuks...
That is a good chunk of your supply folks.
now give it 5 years from now.. where do you think that price is going??????

Now consider the reality of the mid east and the crushing defeat now in progress, just like the Soviets before you in the 80's, and where it left THEIR economy..

Reality check...please...

[eddy10]

Very interesting thread. But, how does this relate to "bisexuality?"

[wolfcamp]

Very interesting thread. But, how does this relate to "bisexuality?"

OK then...How many people want to eliminate gas taxes and have a romp in the back seat? ;) :bigrin:

[wolfcamp]

I'm spending close to 60 dollars to fill up my gas tank. Here in the Peoples Republic of California, we're paying about 41 cents per gallon in tax on gas. I can afford it, but many can not.


It looks to me you are paying more than that. According to this web site (http://www.wyominggasprices.com/tax_info.aspx) you are paying 63.9 cents per gallon in taxes in Collie-fone-yah. (How was that? Did I sound like Arnold? :tongue: ) Maybe it depends on the county and municipality.

I'm not coming down for or against this idea. What I do think is that we will need a very fresh and different way of thinking about transportation fuels in the near future.

I just have one question about eliminating fuel taxes altogether. From what I could find, about 85% of the federal gasoline taxes goes to road building and maintenance programs, and about 15 percent goes to mass transit subsidies. I don't know how the state gas taxes are distributed. I suspect they are all different. How would you fund roads, bridges and other infrastructure if you eliminate gasoline taxes? If you don't pay for them one way, you have to pay for them in some other way. Right now, the more you drive (i.e. the more you buy gas) the more you contribute to road upkeep. What would be more fair than that?

[alaskacouple]

Bluebiyou,

That was an excellent post! - I hereby nominate you for something, maybe Secretary of Energy.

Seriously though, very thoughtful and good points.

[Falke]

Bluebiyou,

That was an excellent post! - I hereby nominate you for something, maybe Secretary of Energy.

Seriously though, very thoughtful and good points.

I disagree, it would be a great way to further screw already hurting consumers.
Not all of us just have money to go buy mopeds, further some of us need our vehicles to get to work. Once again, it screws the lower guy and the ones who are well off would just pay it anyway. This idea would work nicely if we had a decent public transportation, but we don't and even if we did, I couldn't use it for my work as it would be too slow.

Besides, there is a new reserve found under ND, something to the tune of 400 billion gallons. I would say drill it but make it a stipulation that a alternate to fossil fuel while we are using it. This way we don't shoot ourselves in the foot while we are developing alternatives.

[wolfcamp]

It's time for America to:
Double it's gas taxes.... (actually should have doubled in 2000, if not 1992) to about 0.80 per gallon, perhaps even triple now. Yes, it's time to triple usa taxes on petrol.
It's also time for government regulated oil/gas prices and subsidized diesel for 18 wheelers. Keep the 18 wheelers going, oil the wheels during this transition period.
...etc...


If it was 5 years ago I would have agreed with you 100%. Gasoline was cheap enough then that the American consumers could absorb a doubling or tripling of the gas tax. The case is much different now. For one thing, our economy is teetering on the brink of recession, if we aren't already in one. A jump in gasoline taxes would certainly push us over the edge. I don't think we want to commit economic suicide by artificially inflating our energy prices.

Second, if we are going to compete in a global economy, we can't price ourselves out of the markets by making our energy sources unaffordable. The Chinese, Indians and Russians are going balls-to-the-wall, exploiting cheap labor, and placing absolutely no restraints on the burning of fossil fuels. We can't afford to hamstring our economy and make ourselves uncompetitive, because it's hard enough to keep up the way it is.

I don't think price limits will work either. Oil and gasoline is sold by competitive bid on global markets. If an American gasoline distributor is limited to a certain price that he can sell his product, then he is limited to the price he can bid to purchase that same product. The oil producers sell to the highest bidder. That's just the way it is. Price fixing just makes it so we can't bid competitively for oil and gasoline supplies. We would have shortages, and that wouldn't help anyone. (Well, it might help the Chinese, who would just laugh at us.)

It's true we need to do something, but whatever we do, we need cooperations and buy-in from the other consuming countries, and that will be hard to do because every country wants to serve it's own needs. As you said, we are probably seeing peak global oil production right now. Supplies will eventually start to decrease while demand will continue to increase. Synfuels will take up some of the slack, but they are much more costly to produce. And, nothing can really replace the volume and energy content of the fossil fuels we are currently using. Prices are only going to go up.

We need more enlightened leaders. We need incentives to move toward better efficiency. We need a huge investment to make our infrastructure more efficient. We need better mass transit where ever it makes sense. We need to ramp up development of alternative energy sources. And yes, we'll probably need to eventually subsidize the truckers to keep the groceries moving. There is no single solution. We will need to do many, many things.

[wolfcamp]

Besides, there is a new reserve found under ND, something to the tune of 400 billion gallons. I would say drill it but make it a stipulation that a alternate to fossil fuel while we are using it. This way we don't shoot ourselves in the foot while we are developing alternatives.

Zwitter, I wouldn't put too much faith in that number. 400 billion barrels (not gallons) is a fantastic number. The reports say the "potential" oil is in the Bakken Shale formation. Shale normally is not a good oil producer. There is no porosity or permeability for the oil to flow out of the rock. It has to be extensively fractured to yield any production at all. Most wells would almost certainly be low volume producers. They would have to drill literally thousands of wells.

I've worked on plays that had big potential but turned out to be a bust. One oil play in western Nebraska had a potential for a billion barrels. The geology showed great potential and the formation extended 300 miles. We drilled 5 wildcat wells. The cavities that could have contained oil were filled with clay and anhydrite and very little oil. Only one well produced anything at all, and it only made about 6 barrels a day. That well eventually caved in and then produced nothing at all. I am very skeptical of the ND report. ND has been pretty extensively drilled already. I know because I've worked there. I'd have to see real production numbers to become a believer.

Regards,
Wolfcamp

[Falke]

Point taken Wolf!

[devilishcouple08]

Support the Owner Operatores of the trucking comunity every thing moves by truck your food your clothes your car your life every thing you have has been moved by a Semi truck. the costs of fuel put me out of business last year cause yes Im a proud all American Proffetional Truck Driver . Sorry about the typos but every time i see the high fuel costs I get pissed. It makes things harder on the working families when no company wants to pay employees what they are worth most only want to pay low wages. So lets all help the truckers strike cars and trucks alike buy no fuel for 1 week and let the oil companies know we mean business. i only buy gas on sundays its my 1 time a week.

[ihavapa]

Do we eliminate the gas taxes only to see them crop up some other place that will be as bothersome or a problem , such as health care costs or other things we all need such as food and electrical power for the computers we converse? on and send and recieve messages on. I am not advocating a return to 19th century horse and buggy technology, but would we not be better to have possibly thought more of alternate fuel sources? Possibly even at this late date we can still do something. Maybe mass transit, share the ride, impossible with my job , wind power, wave power, more use of hydroelectric, maybe turning off all elecrtric power or almost all one day a week, walk places more. Whatever it takes to try to right the ship so to speak and show OPEC we can do without as much oil as possible. Then again maybe this is just ramblings of a sligthly deranged mind, or more than mildly pissed off person. :2cents:

[bisexualinsocal]

19 replies and only 1 advocating an authoritarian government forcing people onto mass herd transit against their will? I'm impressed!

With the imminent American victory in Iraq, we can now look toward a more stable middle east with Iraq refereeing the 6 arab nations it shares it's borders with.

This is not to say that our victory in Iraq is our energy panacea. I think eventually America is going to have to go digging in it's own backyard so we can USE THE RESOURCES WE OWN HERE AT HOME, ENVIRONMENTALISTS BE DAMNED!

What gets me is that environmental fundamentalists are doing their damnedest to prevent this country from using it's own resources. In the end, it's middle America that suffers.

If we could drill in our own back yards, we could exponentially decrease our dependence on arab oil and ease the energy crunch on transportation.

[darkeyes]

19 replies and only 1 advocating an authoritarian government forcing people onto mass herd transit against their will? I'm impressed!

With the imminent American victory in Iraq, we can now look toward a more stable middle east with Iraq refereeing the 6 arab nations it shares it's borders with.

This is not to say that our victory in Iraq is our energy panacea. I think eventually America is going to have to go digging in it's own backyard so we can USE THE RESOURCES WE OWN HERE AT HOME, ENVIRONMENTALISTS BE DAMNED!

What gets me is that environmental fundamentalists are doing their damnedest to prevent this country from using it's own resources. In the end, it's middle America that suffers.

If we could drill in our own back yards, we could exponentially decrease our dependence on arab oil and ease the energy crunch on transportation.Aint gonna lower meself 2 makin a sensible an thot out reply...wotta tosser this guy is.. now e wants 2 burn the worms an moles...

[vittoria]

Hey! Remember that scene in Back to the Future part 2 where dood called the taxi and paid some ridiculous price for fare... and everyone had something that resembled "HDTV"...

I'm still waiting for the insta dry jacket and hover boards..but those days are comin soon... (just like all the crates of crushed CDs in that alley)Just give it a couple more years :tong:

[wolfcamp]

If we could drill in our own back yards, we could exponentially decrease our dependence on arab oil and ease the energy crunch on transportation.

Right now about 34 percent of our oil consumption is home grown. So even if we could increase our own production by, say 10 percent, which is unlikely, that would only give us about 3 to 4 percent more oil for our use. That number is hardly an exponential increase. We wouldn't even notice the difference in gasoline prices.

[the mage]

19 replies and only 1 advocating an authoritarian government forcing people onto mass herd transit against their will? I'm impressed!

With the imminent American victory in Iraq, we can now look toward a more stable middle east with Iraq refereeing the 6 arab nations it shares it's borders with.

This is not to say that our victory in Iraq is our energy panacea. I think eventually America is going to have to go digging in it's own backyard so we can USE THE RESOURCES WE OWN HERE AT HOME, ENVIRONMENTALISTS BE DAMNED!

What gets me is that environmental fundamentalists are doing their damnedest to prevent this country from using it's own resources. In the end, it's middle America that suffers.

If we could drill in our own back yards, we could exponentially decrease our dependence on arab oil and ease the energy crunch on transportation.

..............what can I say except...you make me laugh...

[12voltman59]

I wonder what was the purpose of this thread---to actually have a decent discussion or fishing to get someone to take his bait and talk about how maybe would should move away from reliance on cars and to move more to mass transit so he can get all pissed about that????

Personally I would be in favor of that, increase the gas taxes to such a level people would choose to ditch their cars----but doing something like that would have to be a long term thing and it is something we should have done back in the early '70s when we had the first oil shocks. Now the pain is going to be really hard--but that is human nature--we could have been making the move over time and it would have been just something we were doing as we built a more robust rapid transit system---now gas prices are going to now continue to jump fast to the point many of us will have to dump our cars but now we don't have any alternative--there is no viable mass transit alternative in most places so we are gonna be pretty well screwed and the economic pain is going to be damn tough--It's not like we have not been forewarned--it was the "stupid tree hugger types" that have been saying such things for years, but no one listened and now the chickens have come home to roost.

We have known for 50 years that at some point--oil would run out and thanks to something not quite foreseen---the rapid rise of both China and India from third world, largely undeveloped societies to modern societies with vast emerging middle classes that want and can afford automobiles, refridgerators and the like. Now we are competing with these people for an ever smaller supply of oil--their demand is great and ours still grows. This is the main reason fuel costs have gone up and will continue to do so---the days of cheap oil are over---even if we do drill all we can here in the US--but the fact is on that--we really don't have all that much oil that is readily available---drilling all we can at home is merely a stopgap, bandaid measure at best--we still need to get real---we need other sources of energy--the days of reliance on fossil fuels is over!!!!

As far as fuel taxes are concerned---for the most part--collection of those taxes is the way we do fund maintenance of both the current stock of roads and related infrastructure----and to build new ones---

If we did not have those taxes---some other way would have to be found to keep up current roads and build new ones---and another way to get that money from those who drive would be to set up a system of toll booths for every street, road and highway we drive and we did have that in the beginning---it was decided early on that there would be surcharges on fuel which happen to be called "taxes" in order to build roads since having toll booths all over the place on a massive scale is such a costly and wasteful means of collecting the money necessary to fund the roadway system.

Here in Ohio--before there were that many cars and paved roads--we had a system of what were called "the interurbans" which were electrically powered rail cars that connected nearly all points in Ohio---and they weren't owned and run by the government---they were all privately operated---it is too bad that we did not keep that basic system and expand it instead of coming to rely on automobiles for nearly all of our transportation needs--it would be great to not have cars if you really think about it---no being in debt for car loans, and no paying mandatory car insurance, no having to pump the tank full of gas to make oil executives richer "than beyond all dreams of avarice!"

Don't think the top oil execs are not making out like bandits in this situation--
just read some of these stories where people complain about the very lucrative oil executive pay--the first one from Bloomberg Business News service--hardly a bastion of liberalism:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aJqpyEwim0Fw

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/29/eveningnews/main1561617.shtml

[the mage]

The term "peak oil' is thrown around a lot.
It was generated in the run up to Kyoto.

It was thought to be around now, the 08 to 2012 time line.
It is the point at which we have used up 50% of the total oil supply planet wide INCLUDING estimates of future finds.

That run up data did not include the utterly unexpected explosion of the Chinese economy. That new data now digested has shown we passed peak oil in 2002.

The price will increase massively over the coming few years.
Hemp would be a viable replacement but its a no go in your country.
Check the price of corn and all oil crop now too, they can create oil too.
The food supply will take second place to these oil crops in future.

[wolfcamp]

The term "peak oil' is thrown around a lot.
It was generated in the run up to Kyoto.



I don't think that's right. It was first used by a guy named Marion King Hubbert, a geoscientist who worked at the Shell research lab in Houston, Texas. (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert) He coined the phrase in the 1960's when he predicted that US oil production would peak around 1972. He was just about laughed out of his job, but it turned out that he was right on the money. US production has been declining ever since. Now another guy, Kenneth Deffeyes, has written several books expanding on Hubbert's theories. Deffeyes predicts that global production will peak between (about) 2000 and 2010, or about now.

Peak oil doesn't mean the point when we have used half the world oil reserves. It means the point at which world production (in barrels) hits a peak, and then starts to decline. It's very hard to tell if we have reached that point or not. We don't know if the oil producers like the Arabs, the Russians and the Venezuelans are giving us correct production numbers. And who knows about those Canadians, Eh? ;)

The term peak oil has very little to do with Kyoto.

[Bluebiyou]

Y'all,
I'm a usa Repubican conservative dyed and bred. I voted republican (usa) before I knew what the issues were or what the candidates were about. Prepare yourself for abrupt turn.
Electric vehicles are the immediate choice.
They are so far above in efficiency above Internal Combustion Engines... (ICE) that most folks, at least 80% can (and would love to) drive an EV for - to work and back, and basic errands on the way. Petrol vehicle... would be auxiliary... long trips... backup... etc
The efficiency of pure electric vehicles is so astounding... ALL points considered... Battery life, recycling, etc... big oil is clearly clouding/hiding the reality... because of big oil ownership/influence. It's amazing if you ever look into how car companies cover up... even crush perfectly running leased EV cars to crush interest/ and data. There were literally 100s people begging to buy or continue leasing at any price an EV... that was crushed by GM. GM, Honda, Ford clearly had something to hide. All USA vehicles were crushed. Except one EV1 Saturn Car... which was 'disabled' by GM. Some European EVs were spared the crusher, and sold... only after a lot of public protest.
I seldom believe in conspiracy...
Yet it is clear in this instance... car companies complied in Kalifornia, USA... until the mandate was over... then GM terminated the leases... and destroyed the cars. Even though there were many many people willing to carry on the leases and/or purchase the cars... regardless of price even after lease was over. Stop for one second and ask yourself... "what car company would prohibit sale of any car that asked it's own price? These cars (engineering and technology) were far above the norm.
GM (mainly, also Honda, Toyota, and Ford) crushed the cars... the cars were running great. Too dangerous to Internal combustion engine car technology.
GM (with big oil influence) clearly sees the electric vehicle as the death from huge profit - oil and ICE production vehicles.
The EVs last too long... are too efficient... and are way too economical in the long run. GM and owning oil companies are too greedy to allow this.

This is very similar to the buying out and disbanding of the electric trolley/public transportation in LA to promote automobile/tire/gasoline usage in the 1940's.
There is ... LOL... an astounding video/movie "Who killed the electric car?".
Somehow, loyal confederates and Yankees must inspire and lead the world in this. Chinese interests are mainly/also fighting efficient developments. What does this tell you?
Best wishes my friends and hopefully (all) future lovers!
Blue

[12voltman59]

There is that new sports car now for sale--the Tesla that is all electric powered and that thing can do up to 100 mph + and can go over 200 miles on a charge--they aren't cheap--something like $100k and the first group of them are sold out already---

Talking about those electric trains I mentioned in the previous post---those trains ran from the late 1890's to around the 1930s and they could do like 85 mph between cities and towns here in Ohio--the cars and trucks of the day sure did not do that--

http://www.teslamotors.com/

If ya look around on there--they have a link to "Jay Leno's Garage" webcast video show he does on automobiles--Jay loves the thing.

[turtle2]

Wow there are some strong opinions posted. Here is mine. I love the mechanics of a diesel. I was a aircraft mechanic working on jet engines(which run on more or less diesel fuel) in a former life. Due to the global warming scam(which is another debate) we now have low sulfur diesel, which is another refinement process, which costs more money which get passed down to us. About 2-3 years ago diesel used to cost about the same or slightly less than regular gas. Now it’s about 40% more. The long short of it is bad policy based on junk science ends up hurting everyone especially the poor. People need to start thinking with their brain instead of just their heart, and stop listening to the hypocrite Al Gore.
Ethanol is a prime example. The trickle down effect of that everyone is feeling. More crops being planted for fuel means higher prices for everything agriculture. Milk, wheat which means all breads, etc. You can’t even get white wheat anymore because china has already bought next year’s crop, etc. The North American continent has plenty of oil, no one has the balls to get it, but it’s there.
The VW diesel jetta got 45MPG long before Toyota knew what a hybrid was and the car lasts twice as long. It is not uncommon to get 300,000 miles out of a diesel jetta. Low technology with fewer parts to break.

Taxes. I don’t know where to start. Instead of bitching about rich people maybe we should try thanking them for providing jobs and paying for all the public services that they don’t use. That 800K mansion in calif. Brings in 10K a year in California verses about 2K a year for the average house. Of course your apartment brings in nothing. That is supposed to primarily go toward public education, which they don’t use because it sucks(no amount of money will fix this in California) so their entire property tax goes to educate someone else’s child. Here are the facts the top 50% pay 96% of the tax bill with the top 10% paying 70% of that. So the next time you see a rich person, go up shake their hand and thank them for paying the bill.
Top 1% 39.38
Top 5% 59.67
Top 10% 70.30
Top 25% 85.99
Top 50% 96.93
Bottom 50% <$30,881 3.07

The author of this piece is unknown, and it has been in circulation for a while, although the story changes a bit. But in order for the numbers to work out, this “event” would have likely taken place in 1994, the last year when the richest 10% of taxpayers paid 59% of the income tax—or 59 out of every 100 dollars collected by the federal income tax. Today, the richest 10% pay 68% of the income tax.
Furthermore, in the story, the author assumes that the poorest half—the first five of the ten men—pay merely 1% of federal income taxes, when the bottom half pays 3%. So the numbers don’t quite jibe. But as Dan Rather might put it, the story is “essentially accurate.”

How Tax Cuts Work…

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20."

So now drinks for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink their beer.

So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same portion, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I
only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the bar anymore. In fact, they might start drinking somewhere overseas.

[the mage]

I don't think that's right. It was first used by a guy named Marion King Hubbert, a geoscientist who worked at the Shell research lab in Houston, Texas. (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert) He coined the phrase in the 1960's when he predicted that US oil production would peak around 1972. He was just about laughed out of his job, but it turned out that he was right on the money. US production has been declining ever since. Now another guy, Kenneth Deffeyes, has written several books expanding on Hubbert's theories. Deffeyes predicts that global production will peak between (about) 2000 and 2010, or about now.

Peak oil doesn't mean the point when we have used half the world oil reserves. It means the point at which world production (in barrels) hits a peak, and then starts to decline. It's very hard to tell if we have reached that point or not. We don't know if the oil producers like the Arabs, the Russians and the Venezuelans are giving us correct production numbers. And who knows about those Canadians, Eh? ;)

The term peak oil has very little to do with Kyoto.


peak oil....please read....

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/28/has_global_oil_production_reached_maximum



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/21/censoring_science_inside_the_political_attack




http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/14/from_empire_to_earth_community_author

[the mage]

Production is being falsely withheld for a simple reason.

There's no profit in building a new refinery. It takes 20 years and billions to build one, then when online it increases traffic and reduces price.. Please c'mon, peak oil is not production capacity, that is unchanged for 30 years as there have been no new builds, in fact refineries have closed and not been replaced.
We had a huge one here in Mississauga. Its gone.

Its about whats left in the ground.

[kidder]

Celuostic ethanol is the answer it can be made from trash. The first plant opened last year in Georgia, the state produces 18 million tons of wood waste a year. All so ethanol can be made from alage which can grow in anywhere and fresh or salt water, but this is about ten years out. Every Sunday open wheel raceing proves that cars can run on ethanol and they have been doing it since the 60's. It seems a little strange that the CEO of Exon retirement package was for 400 million and the company only spends 110 million a year for new fuel research. Too bad we can spend 100,000 a minute in Iraqi, but we can never find money to solve our own problems.

[the mage]

Did you know that one of the driving forces behind prohibition was the fact that people were brewing their own auto fuel ,not drinking fuel...Cars originally ran on alcohols..

[wolfcamp]

peak oil....please read....

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/28/has_global_oil_production_reached_maximum

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/21/censoring_science_inside_the_political_attack

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/14/from_empire_to_earth_community_author


The author of the first article has his definition wrong. That's one reason I don't take my information from political websites.


These books are very good if you want to really be informed.
Beyond Oil, and Hubbert's Peak by Ken Deffeyes (http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/)

This is a good page of information to clear up misconceptions.
Peak Oil from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline.

A bell shaped production curve as originally suggested by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
[Notice the curve is a plot of production vs. years]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg/600px-Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg.png

This curve is the origin of the term Peak Oil.

Regards,
WC

[wolfcamp]

Production is being falsely withheld for a simple reason.

There's no profit in building a new refinery. It takes 20 years and billions to build one, then when online it increases traffic and reduces price.. Please c'mon, peak oil is not production capacity, that is unchanged for 30 years as there have been no new builds, in fact refineries have closed and not been replaced.
We had a huge one here in Mississauga. Its gone.

Its about whats left in the ground.

Production and refining are two different animals. Production deals with pumping oil from a completed well. There are several levels of production. There are primary production, secondary production, and tertiary production. The last two deal with artificially stimulating the well to get more oil out.

Refining is just that; it's the refining of the oil into a usable product. In the oil business they talk about upstream and downstream processes, because they used to literally dump oil from the well into the stream to get it to the refiner. Production is upstream. Refining is downstream. Two different things. When you hear the term "oil production" they are talking about the oil produced at the well head.

We probably are talking about the same thing, only using muddled terminology, although I'm sticking to my guns about the definition of Peak Oil.

[bisexualinsocal]

Right now about 34 percent of our oil consumption is home grown. So even if we could increase our own production by, say 10 percent, which is unlikely, that would only give us about 3 to 4 percent more oil for our use. That number is hardly an exponential increase. We wouldn't even notice the difference in gasoline prices.

I dont know where you pulled that number from, 34? :tongue:

Besides, I'm for digging up the forest if it means reducing foreign oil consumption by any margin.

[wolfcamp]

I dont know where you pulled that number from, 34? :tongue:

Besides, I'm for digging up the forest if it means reducing foreign oil consumption by any margin.

I used the pie chart from this page.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/EneryCharts.cfm

Government numbers show domestic production to be a little higher, around 40%.

Here's the CIA Factbook (you will have to do your own calculations)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

And the Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

[the mage]

http://www.peakoil.com/sample/index.html



http://www.peakoil.com/


As in all things the original definition has evolved...

However the point I first made is the valid one.. Peak oil is past us.. The price will do nothing but climb forever...

[the mage]

Better look at this too if you want real info...


Society Seriously needs a wake up call on this


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[the mage]

The author of the first article has his definition wrong. That's one reason I don't take my information from political websites.


These books are very good if you want to really be informed.
Beyond Oil, and Hubbert's Peak by Ken Deffeyes (http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/)

This is a good page of information to clear up misconceptions.
Peak Oil from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)


A bell shaped production curve as originally suggested by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
[Notice the curve is a plot of production vs. years]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg/600px-Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg.png

This curve is the origin of the term Peak Oil.

Regards,
WC

Using wikipedia as a source is like quoting Britiny Spears and expecting an intelligent response Wiki is open source, and can and IS routinely altered by outside input which is often NOT accurate.

Go past wiki and find real sources for real info

[ambi53mm]

Wow!!.......... Ya'll are like.. lol ...seriously killin my buzz :stoned:

Ambi:)

[Bluebiyou]

Sorry Ambi!! LOL
But the bell curve is close, if not exact. Peak oil production was predicted to be in early 2000s decade (about 2003) by Scientific American back when gas was less than 1$/gallon in the 1990's, with a partial nod to Hubbert.
Fine... even if it peaks in 2015... which world production data already contradicts in peak oil production...
Our continuous increase in consumption is a fact that no one argues with. Einstein said something to the fact the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. Who cares if it now or 5 years from now? It's coming (if not already here) fast. You think old folks and folks on limited income are having a hard time now?!? Just wait 5 years with doing nothing... how many folks with heads in the sand think it will improve? Gas will go back down to $.689 / gallon? In 5 years we're looking at $8/gallon in USA and proportionately higher elsewhere.
How fast our economy transitions to alternate energy will determine our survival. We were riding high on cheap, cheap, cheap energy. We profited and made ourselves comfortable. I'll buy that huge beautiful handmade quilt made by Chinese slave labor for $30 and fill up my SUV for less than $20. Cheap, cheap, cheap energy is gone. Cheap, cheap energy is coming to an end ($3 to $4). Cheap energy has always been available. Solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, wind... different technologies are more practical in different locations.
As far as taxes? 40 cent increase... even 80 cent increase will hardly be noticeable 6-8 months down the road. It might be just the capitol we need to make huge investments in capitalizing large scale on the above sources of cheap energy... hopefully including the 'patched' subsidizing of diesel for 18 wheelers... so we can - just - make it through this time without results similar to 1930s depression.
Start planting your victory gardens, folks. If we stick together with a vision, we'll make it okay... relatively unscathed. If we stick to human nature... just read history books on bad times. We'll be there again.
My predictions might be off a dollar here or a dollar there, but... as long as your head's not in the sand and you understand 'progressions', and if you have any foresight at all... you will see. Understanding this, we can start an alternate ending. The sooner we start, the better off we'll be.

[Bluebiyou]

kinda alarmist.... yeah
Kinda vague... a little... give or take a few years... give or take a few dollars.

How does this relate to us bisexuals?

A hellofalot if you use petroleum jelly for lube like us!

:)

[wolfcamp]

Using wikipedia as a source is like quoting Britiny Spears and expecting an intelligent response Wiki is open source, and can and IS routinely altered by outside input which is often NOT accurate.

Go past wiki and find real sources for real info

If you can refute what I have posted, be my guest. The above information is repeated throughout the literature if you care to look. The curve is essentially the same as Deffeyes puts in his book Hubbert's Peak, which I have read. Same for the definition of Peak Oil. I try very hard to use examples that I can back up. I'll stand by what I posted.

I feel that things like this are important. We are set to make decisions that will affect the future of our country and our very lives. There is a lot of bad information out there. We need to weed out the misconceptions. I am going past Wikipedia. I don't mean to sound like a smart-ass know-it-all, and I know I sound like that occasionally. I have gone back to school to educate myself on these very topics. This is my field of study. It is costing me a lot. My goal is to learn this stuff so I can pass it on to others.

[Bluebiyou]

Scientific American, March 1998. "The end of cheap oil."

Although, I agree with Mage inasfar as the price gouging began a little early by ...pretty intentional non-investment in refineries.
just as GM pretty intentionally destroyed all the EV1 cars...
...but I personally view the gouging as an incidentally good thing... a wake up call before the real storm. Time to maneuver and prepare.
Time for alcohol (hic) :), and time to make alcohol for use in our vehicles as well!

Wolf, you're pretty sexy... can we have sex sometime later when I'm single again?
:)
I'll have to come up on my alcohol powered motorcycle by then, of course.

Plant your garden well so we can 'feast'. :)

[turtle2]

Wolfcamp thanks for posting that data. I can't help but think its strange that people can look at data and argue against it because it feels wrong to them. Just because it feels like we should run out doesn't make it true.

Wolfcamp I don't know much about oil, but aren't the oil researves being added to? Dead dinosaurs do NOT turn into oil...some small animals in the sea do...i can't remember wolfcamp can you enlighten?

[wolfcamp]

Wolfcamp thanks for posting that data. I can't help but think its strange that people can look at data and argue against it because it feels wrong to them. Just because it feels like we should run out doesn't make it true.

Wolfcamp I don't know much about oil, but aren't the oil researves being added to? Dead dinosaurs do NOT turn into oil...some small animals in the sea do...i can't remember wolfcamp can you enlighten?

This is a good question. Theoretically, oil is being created constantly, even today. Practically it doesn't really make any difference, because the time needed to produce oil from start to finish is at least 10's of millions of years.

Here's the way it works. Phytoplankton, tiny photosynthesizing organisms, live and die near the sea surface. They drift to the bottom which needs to be low in oxygen so they don't completely decompose. They become buried in the bottom ooze, and continue to be buried deeper and deeper. Pressure and temperature increases and the organic molecules start to become altered and broken apart. The optimum temperature is about the same as a hot cup of coffee. That's called the oil window. This ooze or mud then becomes solidified to become rock. This is the oil source rock. Now another layer needs to be laid down over the source rock called the reservoir rock. This is usually sand or limestone. It has tiny void spaces between the grain for the oil to collect. Over time the oil migrates from the source rock to the reservoir rock. How this is done is somewhat of a mystery, but we know it happens. Last of all we need another layer to be laid over the whole thing called a cap rock. This is an impermeable layer which prevents the oil from migrating to the surface and being lost. It's usually a tight, impermeable shale. This whole process requires a very unique and somewhat rare chain of events. That's why oil isn't just found everywhere. It takes a very specific set of geological conditions. It also takes a long, long time.

[wolfcamp]

Scientific American, March 1998. "The end of cheap oil."


National Geographic put out an issue with an almost identical title sometime around 2003. I think I threw mine out the last time I moved.




Wolf, you're pretty sexy... can we have sex sometime later when I'm single again?
:)
I'll have to come up on my alcohol powered motorcycle by then, of course.

Plant your garden well so we can 'feast'. :)

Sexy? Really? Thanks! <blush> Sure we can have sex. Of course I'll have to wait until I'm single too, as I have a very steady SO right now.

[wolfcamp]

Wolfcamp I don't know much about oil, but aren't the oil researves being added to? Dead dinosaurs do NOT turn into oil...some small animals in the sea do...i can't remember wolfcamp can you enlighten?

Turtle, your question reminds me of a problem I had in one of my classes last semester. Here's the problem, word for word.

An average barrel of crude oil (42 U.S. gallons) contains about 5.8 million BTUs of energy. The BTU is the "British Thermal Unit: (the energy needed to heat one pound of water 1 degree F from 39 degrees F), and is equivalent to about 1056 joules of energy. A Watt is one joule per second.

a) How long would it take for an amount of energy equivalent to that contained in a barrel of oil to fall as sunlight on an average square meter of the earth's surface. (Elsewhere it was given that the earth receives 1367 watts per square meter from the sun)

The answer I calculated was 1.77 years

b) Assuming that only 3&#37; of the energy that falls as sunlight is converted into biomass on time average (sometimes it's winter!), and assuming that only 0.1% of the energy in original biomass is eventually preserved as oil, how long would it take for the energy in a barrel of oil to accumulate in a one square meter area. Answers should be in units of years.

My answer: 59000 years

[softfruit]

So, to cut through all this to the practical solution we need to avoid descent into violent anarchy and chaos: it's not time to eliminate 'gas' taxes, it's time to hike them right up so as to help the power of market forces to develop more sustainable alternatives, and as the oil runs out we can ease those taxes back down since basic lack of supply will be bringing the price up anyway.

We used to have something like that going on in Britain, we called it the 'fuel escalator', but our lily-livered right-wing government dropped it when they thought it was losing them votes.

[wolfcamp]

So, to cut through all this to the practical solution we need to avoid descent into violent anarchy and chaos: it's not time to eliminate 'gas' taxes, it's time to hike them right up so as to help the power of market forces to develop more sustainable alternatives, and as the oil runs out we can ease those taxes back down since basic lack of supply will be bringing the price up anyway.

We used to have something like that going on in Britain, we called it the 'fuel escalator', but our lily-livered right-wing government dropped it when they thought it was losing them votes.

I would like to see a more positive and progressive solution. I'd like to see incentives for efficiency. I'd like to see big tax breaks for more efficient cars and homes. I'd like to see owners of large commercial buildings earn credits for lower energy cost per cubic feet of building space. I mean, let's think outside the box. Maybe we could have tuition credits for children of people who use public transportation. Or make it like a flex plan where you can choose how to spend your efficiency credits. There are a ton of things we could do if we had an enlightened administration. This is a leadership issue. We need real energy policy, and not just a policy of invading other countries so that we can get their oil. I don't think we need draconian new taxes, nor do I think it would be a good idea for our economy right now.

[BronzeBobby]

Oh Turtle, Turtle, Turtle. I'm so glad you show such kindness toward rich people. Just to clarify, I don't have anything against them. I just believe that it's more sensible to tax excessive things (like a house that has four more rooms than a family of two really needs) than to tax basic things like gasoline. If rich people benefit from lower taxes on gas, power to them! I don't want to punish them. I'll go congratulate them. But there is no value whatsoever to giving tax breaks to people with huge houses, especially because the money they spend on their luxurious homes is stuck in "sunk costs." That is to say, an exorbitantly wealthy homeowner who has unused space in his house is sinking money into equity that doesn't generate use value for anybody, including himself. By contrast, when I save and put money in the bank, my money gets lent out by the bank and generates use value all over the country.

What is it you propose, exactly? To tax me more on my rental, because I'm not one of these wonderful rich people who you think are to be credited for the wondrous advancements of our society? Don't you think I fuel the economy too, by paying rent, buying clothes for my children, buying groceries at the supermarket? These payments go to businesses, which pay taxes. You say my apartment doesn't generate any economic yield. Nonsense. I pay rent to a landlord, who pays taxes on the building. I also pay taxes on my salary that homeowners don't pay, because they get tax breaks for property deductions. And since my wife and I save rather than go into debt to buy a house, we pay taxes on any interest we earn. So your argument is simply untenable. Rich people, middle-class people, and poor people all generate tax revenue and economic growth, by participating in the marketplace.

Everybody fuels the economy by living and buying things. If I have a little bit more and a millionaire has a little bit less, then the economy grows, just in different proportions. Why do you think it's so necessary to have a small group of people doing a huge share of the buying and economic activity? Who told you that's necessary or economically advisable?

You say the $800K brings in more money in taxes than a house that's worth $120K. Well, obviously. That's how it should be. But that doesn't mean I should thank the rich homeowner for possessing $800K in equity. If I do have to do that, then you should thank me for waking up today and breathing, so trees outside get their share of carbon dioxide. It sounds like you're kind of agreeing with the arguments you think you're disagreeing with.



Wow there are some strong opinions posted. Here is mine. I love the mechanics of a diesel. I was a aircraft mechanic working on jet engines(which run on more or less diesel fuel) in a former life. Due to the global warming scam(which is another debate) we now have low sulfur diesel, which is another refinement process, which costs more money which get passed down to us. About 2-3 years ago diesel used to cost about the same or slightly less than regular gas. Now it’s about 40% more. The long short of it is bad policy based on junk science ends up hurting everyone especially the poor. People need to start thinking with their brain instead of just their heart, and stop listening to the hypocrite Al Gore.
Ethanol is a prime example. The trickle down effect of that everyone is feeling. More crops being planted for fuel means higher prices for everything agriculture. Milk, wheat which means all breads, etc. You can’t even get white wheat anymore because china has already bought next year’s crop, etc. The North American continent has plenty of oil, no one has the balls to get it, but it’s there.
The VW diesel jetta got 45MPG long before Toyota knew what a hybrid was and the car lasts twice as long. It is not uncommon to get 300,000 miles out of a diesel jetta. Low technology with fewer parts to break.

Taxes. I don’t know where to start. Instead of bitching about rich people maybe we should try thanking them for providing jobs and paying for all the public services that they don’t use. That 800K mansion in calif. Brings in 10K a year in California verses about 2K a year for the average house. Of course your apartment brings in nothing. That is supposed to primarily go toward public education, which they don’t use because it sucks(no amount of money will fix this in California) so their entire property tax goes to educate someone else’s child. Here are the facts the top 50% pay 96% of the tax bill with the top 10% paying 70% of that. So the next time you see a rich person, go up shake their hand and thank them for paying the bill.
Top 1% 39.38
Top 5% 59.67
Top 10% 70.30
Top 25% 85.99
Top 50% 96.93
Bottom 50% <$30,881 3.07

The author of this piece is unknown, and it has been in circulation for a while, although the story changes a bit. But in order for the numbers to work out, this “event” would have likely taken place in 1994, the last year when the richest 10% of taxpayers paid 59% of the income tax—or 59 out of every 100 dollars collected by the federal income tax. Today, the richest 10% pay 68% of the income tax.
Furthermore, in the story, the author assumes that the poorest half—the first five of the ten men—pay merely 1% of federal income taxes, when the bottom half pays 3%. So the numbers don’t quite jibe. But as Dan Rather might put it, the story is “essentially accurate.”

How Tax Cuts Work…

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20."

So now drinks for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink their beer.

So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same portion, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I
only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the bar anymore. In fact, they might start drinking somewhere overseas.

[bisexualinsocal]

I've noticed that the tax and spenders in this thread are the same people who wish to dictate what type of home a family of 4 needs (A 2 bedroom or a 4 bedroom), what mode of transporation private citizens may use (private or mass transportation) and OF COURSE they also wish to dictate what is an acceptable income level and what's unacceptable and therefore, subject to high government taxes.

I think that about covers it. So the hippy answer to the problem, once again is;

MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER PRIVATE CITIZENS.

Yep, some things never change.

[bisexualinsocal]

So, to cut through all this to the practical solution we need to avoid descent into violent anarchy and chaos: it's not time to eliminate 'gas' taxes, it's time to hike them right up so as to help the power of market forces to develop more sustainable alternatives, and as the oil runs out we can ease those taxes back down since basic lack of supply will be bringing the price up anyway.

We used to have something like that going on in Britain, we called it the 'fuel escalator', but our lily-livered right-wing government dropped it when they thought it was losing them votes.

Of course it's limousine liberals who are proposing to raise gas taxes/prices so that only the hollywood rich and famous can afford private automobiles.

There are children and old people who would go starving while your rich Hollywood Country Club constituents are driving their Humvees and Gulfstream Gore is flies down to Acapulco Bay. I don't know what you guys have against working class people, but you sure like to tax them a lot.

[<<GOD>>]

I think that about covers it. So the hippy answer to the problem, once again is;

MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER PRIVATE CITIZENS.

Yep, some things never change.

You don't know much about hippies now do you son?
Before your time I reckon.
We don't worry about Government Control over Anything or Anybody these days. We've all gone underground.
Now bowell control :oh: is a whole nother story.

your friend
<<God>>

[Bluebiyou]

Actually 'Draconian' legislation, leadership, or efforts are called for here.
Think about it.
We have a world wide economy based so completely on petrol that, if petrol disappeared tomorrow, the world would be thrown into another stone age replete with mass human extinction.
Sure, Hoover dam and TVA would continue producing electricity... for their respective areas... for a while. Nuclear would continue for a while.
When was the last time you saw a sailing ship? No petrol to drive fishing boats.
An alcohol powered 18 wheeler? Who would provide the mass distribution our economy is entirely dependent on?
A functional solar powered car? Ok, some of us could ride bicycles to work.
Just as it took time for usa to convert to unleaded gas/catalytic converters, it will take time if alternate energy sources 'appeared' this very moment.
I'd say something so 'Draconian' as to - USA federal law - all patents are null and void. Gentlemen, start your engines. It's time for the genius of our entire culture to propel the culture forward during this crisis.
Like it or not... in 20, perhaps 30 years oil will effectively be gone. (yes, yes, the 'last drop' will never be pumped out of the ground) but oil will be so scarce, we'll be buying it in gallon (or liter) cans. Cheap plastics... gone. Does anyone have any idea how much of our economic system depends on cheap plastic (and therefore cheap oil?).
The death of cheap oil will produce the largest domino effect ever seen.
Farming? Are you kidding? Oil, oil, oil. Huge amounts for machinery, to produce fertilizer, pesticides, then distribution.
It's not a pretty picture, when we run low. I wonder how many people have thought of this... and how important it is...

... sorry to mess with your buzz, Ambi... :(

[Bluebiyou]

But if we dive in 'head first'.... 'Draconian'... we can not only survive but sustain a reasonable comfort.
If we stop our oil usage enough to use it for more important - long term goals.
Laugh if you will. In 10-15 years, 'victory gardens' will be somewhere between common and mandatory.
Or just laugh and watch as inflation starts doing incredible things... in just the next 12 months... mark my words.

Have an eye for the future.

[the mage]

Wolfcamp thanks for posting that data. I can't help but think its strange that people can look at data and argue against it because it feels wrong to them. Just because it feels like we should run out doesn't make it true.

Wolfcamp I don't know much about oil, but aren't the oil researves being added to? Dead dinosaurs do NOT turn into oil...some small animals in the sea do...i can't remember wolfcamp can you enlighten?


LOL ok, think about it like this.....
The oil we now use was deposited over a period of 10's of millions of years and it was put there 10 million years ago. We've burned up 50% of it it 100 years.

Just take a second and ponder the imbalance.

As to replacing it in industry, its easily done but will not happen except after the big fall and then it will be made in stills like in the 20's.

Take a serious look at Hemp plants as fuel.. do some research, find out why its actually banned.

[the mage]

I would like to see a more positive and progressive solution. I'd like to see incentives for efficiency. I'd like to see big tax breaks for more efficient cars and homes. I'd like to see owners of large commercial buildings earn credits for lower energy cost per cubic feet of building space. I mean, let's think outside the box. Maybe we could have tuition credits for children of people who use public transportation. Or make it like a flex plan where you can choose how to spend your efficiency credits. There are a ton of things we could do if we had an enlightened administration. This is a leadership issue. We need real energy policy, and not just a policy of invading other countries so that we can get their oil. I don't think we need draconian new taxes, nor do I think it would be a good idea for our economy right now.


Here in Canada you now get back (off your income tax) all cash spent on public transit. a small pathetic start

[the mage]

You'd do well to consider the reality coming.

Consider how fuel cost affects the farmers and everyone in the food chain.
Consider the rationing that IS coming.. not in 20 years.. closer to 10.

A bit of research will show that Ont alone is fucked in 5 years time from now.
The nuke plants currently in use were supposed to go off line about now.

New ones not drawn up yet. Coal plants retiring. Toronto has 1 windmill.. a joke...

Consider the massive nuclear wastes dumps all over the continent.. Fuel is needed to stop their melt down..forever...
the list goes on.

50% of the people live in cities. Most of them are massive slum NOW.
Think 10 years from now...

[Bluebiyou]

Sexy? Really? Thanks! <blush> Sure we can have sex. Of course I'll have to wait until I'm single too, as I have a very steady SO right now.

LOL, you really are (sexy/attractive)! But I understand. I'm in a het monogamous relationship, and I keep my honor and word. But perhaps in the future, when we're both free, we'll blow a hundred bucks on (a small container of) petroleum lube and have some wild times together!

[wolfcamp]

LOL ok, think about it like this.....
The oil we now use was deposited over a period of 10's of millions of years and it was put there 10 million years ago. We've burned up 50% of it it 100 years.

Just take a second and ponder the imbalance.


That was my point when I posted the problem about sunlight and a barrel of oil (which was probably too long and rambling...snore!!). It would take 59000 years of sunlight shining on one square meter of ground to accumulate the energy in one barrel of oil. We burn that up in an instant without thinking twice.

If you think about it, it's plants (photosynthesis) and sunlight at the base of most of our energy sources. When fossil fuels are gone, or very scarce, we probably will have to go back to that base. That is one reason I cringe when I hear someone say they would cut down all the trees to get to the oil. Even if it's just a figure of speech, we need to examine that kind of thinking very carefully. Those trees and other plants might be our salvation in the future.

[vittoria]

Did you know that one of the driving forces behind prohibition was the fact that people were brewing their own auto fuel ,not drinking fuel...Cars originally ran on alcohols..

Yup. :)

[moonlitwish]

Hey you know those handy human powered flashlights and radios that use a crank? Why don't we take all the fat lazy non-innovative people and put them on bicycles that power our vehicles by the same principle? If it meant lower fuel consumption for my car I'd gladly prop this laptop on the handlebars of my crank generator to power everything in my apartment! It'd help reduce America's growing waist lines too! Reducing health care cost due to obesity. Total result=healthier America because of reduced pollution from vehicles and increased exercise. Oh yeah, and decreased foreign oil dependence.:rolleyes:
Hamster wheels may work to power your home security alarm while you're at work too :tong:

[12voltman59]

The major drawback to alcohol fueled cars is the extremely volatile nature of alcohol fuels----it burns way to easy and you cannot see the fire till you are burning, but don't see the flame---the primary use of alcohol based fuels today are in "top fuel" drag racers--and they take all kinds of precautions in its use.

Many years ago when I was a boy--we had an old wooden Chris-Craft cabin cruiser that had an alcohol fuel stove and we had a fire one time that thankfully was put out fast---didn't see the flame but the curtains sure were burning!!

[ambi53mm]

Take a serious look at Hemp plants as fuel.

ok...:stoned:..cool.....is this like..:stoned:.free your mind and your ass will follow...hmmm....the tricky part tho, will be squeezing em in that little hole that leads to the tank.

Amdi :cop::stoned::cop:....damn...busted again

[wolfcamp]

ok...:stoned:..cool.....is this like..:stoned:.free your mind and your ass will follow...hmmm....the tricky part tho, will be squeezing em in that little hole that leads to the tank.

Amdi :cop::stoned::cop:....damn...busted again

So, what happens if you are following someone down the highway who is burning hemp for fuel? Kinda gives new meaning to tailgating, doesn't it. :wacko:

[kidder]

Top Fuel cars use methenoal which comes from cracking natural gas, formula one uses it too, top fuel adds nitro to increase the power. The Indy cars and the American Le Mans cars use ethanol from corn, the corvettes in the American LeMans series use celluostic ethanol, it's made from trash. They use ethanol because it is less volatile than gas. Two drivers were burned to death in the 1964 Indianapols 500, the one car was useing gas. It was the last time that gas was used in an Indy car race. It does burn clear, but if we can send a man to the moon I am sure we can find something to give the flame some color. Amercans are the best inovators in the world lets stop complaning and get back to what we do best.

[bisexualinsocal]

Top Fuel cars use methenoal which comes from cracking natural gas, formula one uses it too, top fuel adds nitro to increase the power. The Indy cars and the American Le Mans cars use ethanol from corn, the corvettes in the American LeMans series use celluostic ethanol, it's made from trash. They use ethanol because it is less volatile than gas. Two drivers were burned to death in the 1964 Indianapols 500, the one car was useing gas. It was the last time that gas was used in an Indy car race. It does burn clear, but if we can send a man to the moon I am sure we can find something to give the flame some color. Amercans are the best inovators in the world lets stop complaning and get back to what we do best.

Word!

[12voltman59]

I wish we would develop more products made from industrial hemp--but thanks to the policies of past presidential administrations Republican and Democratic-and the DEA which is tasked with enforcement of anything related to plants from the cannabis family and the DEA maintains that even though their is scarcely a trace of THC in industrial grade hemp---they refuse to allow it to be grown---even though we once had a thriving hemp growing business.

I found a few sites that talk about some of the things that can potentially be done with industrial grade hemp---

http://www.hemp-sisters.com/Information/about.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_n6_v80/ai_17579558

http://louisville.edu/org/sun/sustain/articles/hemp/uses.html

[ambi53mm]

So, what happens if you are following someone down the highway who is burning hemp for fuel? Kinda gives new meaning to tailgating, doesn't it. :wacko:

LOL...get close enough to that exhasut pipe Wolf...and you'd you'd be redefining "riding shotgun" as well :bigrin:....and by the way I'll 2nd those "attractive and sexy" compliments given by Blue ;)

Ambi:)

[the mage]

I use hemp oil to cook and its a lip balm too.
All legal here. We can buy seeds to eat, they're huge in nutrition.
No THC content to speak of in it.

The oil has the best nutritive levels of any oil out there.

[12voltman59]

To me it would seem to be a no brainer that would be good for farmers--they can grow the crop in very marginal land that might otherwise be sitting fallow and with all the potential things that can be made from hemp--it seems that it is a great thing to grow--

I had once seen this news magazine show that featured all kinds of products made from hemp---one company had created an entire pre-fabricated house with the parts all made from hemp including the wall sections which had an "R" value that was off the scale even though it was only like two or three inches thick.

It just goes to show that with some things here in America--even ideology about something being bad (in this case) trumps making a profit.

[aheatseeker]

thats like asking thieves to give back the money they stole. it wont happen. they are crooks up top and will get even more greedy. everytime people start to get on their feet, they screw us over and over again. they allow people to sell adjustable rate mortgage knowing that people can get screwed with it and they do nothing. insurance and property taxes are sky high in florida and they do nothing. they passed a law which saved some people 50-200 while they pay double and triple and many cant afford at all. now they keep raising gas every day or so. when i came to floirda about 12 yrs ago gas was 1.08 here in pensacola fl area. now it is 3.26. thats 300%. my paycheck didnt go up 300% and when gas and diesal go up, so does everything else because everything is trucked. example, i used to buy chicken gizzards and livers for 99 cents and then after ivan they went to 2.00 and they put chemicals in so i buy eggs and meat from local farmers now and same with my fruits and vegetables. people in most cities are screwed if they want good wholesome foods. with gas up 300% and everything follows, your actually paying more in everything depending on what you buy. your inflation is not 3-5% but actually 500-1000%. if dems get in were screwed and if reps get in were screwed. we have 3 putzes running up front to screw us even more. lets screw them all, vote RON PAUL.

[12voltman59]

, vote RON PAUL.

Due to the rigging of the system--a potential third party candidate in this country has about as much chance as a snowball in you know where of getting elected--and if by some chance they did make it--both the Dems and Republicans alike would sit on their hands and say--"President Who???---we don't hearrrrrrrrrrr yyyyyyyooouuuu!!!" Then nothing much at all other than "earmarks" would get passed. Sad to say but true--the best thing a third party candidate can do is get to a fair number of votes so that some of his or her policies might get some notice at least for a time from who does win.

[TheBisexualProfessor]

Fuck, YES! The gas prices are in great part due to the inept management of Congress, including its refusal to make new refineries a possibility AND not allowing us to drill in the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge! Screwed again by our supposedly well-meaning, but mis-advised government!

[turtle2]

Bronzebobby Bronzebobby Bronzebobby. Thanks for your post. Thats why i like numbers and facts...they are cold and true without any feeling you simply choose not to listen. That was allot of words without really arguing any of my points. By the way who decides what is excess…you? Last I checked I don’t think you or Hillary for that matter is god? Every time I hear her say “fair share of taxes” I want to vomit. You tell me what is fair about 10% of the wage earners paying 70% of the bill and close to 50% paying zip! A little gratitude is all I am asking for????or a flat sales tax…wouldn’t that be a wake up call!

Here is another fact you won ‘t like…it has been recently studied that conservatives give more to charity than hippy liberals(by income percentage and total dollars). Its time to take some personal responsibility, put away the communist manifesto, and for crap sake quit taxing smokers they aren’t hurting anyone but themselves.

My point is stay the fuck out of my life and I will stay out of yours. If at some point you want to write me a check for funding all of the social programs let me know.


TheBisexualProfessor has a great idea as far as oil goes. We have oil but we choose to huge trees or in that case snow.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Well, from one of the "Lower people" this gas hike is killin' us. Being on a fixed income is Murder on those of us who dont get alot in the first place. Nearly 4 dollars a gallon is riDiculous, and not in a good way.
It makes it difficult on peple who need a vehicle for their transportation without having the hassle of public transportation. And for those who have never had to deal with this gigantic pain in the ass, it isnt fun, take my word for it.
Just my 2 pennies worth, Ya'll.
Cat

[darkeyes]

Bronzebobby Bronzebobby Bronzebobby. Thanks for your post. Thats why i like numbers and facts...they are cold and true without any feeling you simply choose not to listen. That was allot of words without really arguing any of my points. By the way who decides what is excess…you? Last I checked I don’t think you or Hillary for that matter is god? Every time I hear her say “fair share of taxes” I want to vomit. You tell me what is fair about 10% of the wage earners paying 70% of the bill and close to 50% paying zip! A little gratitude is all I am asking for????or a flat sales tax…wouldn’t that be a wake up call!

Here is another fact you won ‘t like…it has been recently studied that conservatives give more to charity than hippy liberals(by income percentage and total dollars). Its time to take some personal responsibility, put away the communist manifesto, and for crap sake quit taxing smokers they aren’t hurting anyone but themselves.

My point is stay the fuck out of my life and I will stay out of yours. If at some point you want to write me a check for funding all of the social programs let me know.


TheBisexualProfessor has a great idea as far as oil goes. We have oil but we choose to huge trees or in that case snow.
Jus a few teensy weensy weensy wee comments apart from sayin yas a narrow minded sod wiv the imagination knowledge an compassion of a dead tadpole...

1. Wen it cums 2 tax..wots fair bout a low wage earner payin out half ther pay in tax ( includin indirect taxation) an a rich sod payin a fifth or a quarter of thers? Wots fair bout indirect tax wich hits the poor much harder than eva it dus the rich..cos they can far less afford it.

2. Liberals, happy or othawise don usually think 2 mucha the communist manifesto.. me is a diff matta.. am no liberal.

3. As an ex smoker can assureya smokers do indeed harm moren jus themselves. Thats wy smokin is banned in moren more public places. Don mind high tax of ciggies an baccie.. ne thin so dangerous 2 the user or ne 1 close 2 em shud b highly taxed.

4.ya taxation is the cheque for alla the social programmes... ratha spend it on that than the fukkin billions yas spend on the bloody military..wtf wud we rite it 2 u ne way? God forbid sum day ya mite jus need 2 call on the help of 1a those programmes cosyas poor or sick or in financial trubble.....

Rite therya r..go bak 2 the hole ya crawled outa an pull the rock bak on top!!!

[wolfcamp]

Bronzebobby Bronzebobby Bronzebobby. Thanks for your post. Thats why i like numbers and facts...they are cold and true without any feeling you simply choose not to listen. That was allot of words without really arguing any of my points. By the way who decides what is excess…you? Last I checked I don’t think you or Hillary for that matter is god? Every time I hear her say “fair share of taxes” I want to vomit. You tell me what is fair about 10&#37; of the wage earners paying 70% of the bill and close to 50% paying zip! A little gratitude is all I am asking for????or a flat sales tax…wouldn’t that be a wake up call!


Why should 10% of the wage earners (let's say income earners) pay 70% of the bill? Here is one good reason:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Here is the link to the entire page. (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

These charts from the University of Califormia at Santa Cruz are a little old but I think they illustrate the point. If anything, the wealth has become even more concentrated since then. 1 percent of the population controls 40% of the wealth, and if you step down, 20 percent of the population controls over 90% of the wealth. Then you have incidents like Warren Buffett's statement that he pays a lower tax rate than his office secretary. People start looking at stuff like this and say "WTF?"

I don't have anything against rich people per se, but when I hear them whining about taxes, and I hear guys like Larry Kudlow say that the middle class is declaring war on the rich, I just shake my head. :rolleyes:

[12voltman59]

It always gets me all the negative things that people feel about taxes and such-but that is one of those things that is is nearly as old as the hills---I am not crazy about taxes but the fact is----all of us in the collective sense---do like government in one way or the other---all this talk about the "free market" and all of that is total bunk--we have never had a totally free market---government has always had a strong link with the "capitalist element" usually as the tool of the capitalist types to serve their needs.

Libertarianism sounds all great and all--but it doesn't work---it is really just a fantasy to think otherwise----and we will never have that.

When people have experimented with things along the nature of libertarianism--two words come to mind--Anarchy and Chaos!!!!

For years I have heard all the talk primarily on the right about how litigious we are here in the US and elsewhere in the West---we hear about the horrors of juries awarding millions of dollars toi someone becasue hot coffee gets spilled in their lap--but in that one case--what started out as a huge initial award that by the time it was said and done--was a fraction of the original amount---but that never gets talked about.

I had read one account that about 90 percent of federal civil cases are filed by corporations against each other for one thing or another---that is why most huge coroporations have legions of lawyers on the payroll---and if as a young lawyer--if you want to rake in the big time bucks--you go into corporate law---and compared to the tens of thousands of attorneys working for the corpoartions pulling down nice money---there are only a relative handful of attorneys and law firms who make commensurate amounts doing what John Edwards did when he was an attorney.

As far as all of the "transfer of taxpayer dollars" that happened thanks to "welfare programs" over the years---something Rush Limbaugh always rallies against--- the transfer of taxpayer money to private companies far exceeds that amount by exponential factors---especially now that we are "in a time of war."

Not only do we have the usual list of defense contrators like Martin Marrieta, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc.--we now have added two new names like Halliburton and Blackwater that are making many millions if not billions thanks to the government.

Being the "liberal/socialist" etc that I am--I don't much care for my taxes going to the Military Industrial Complex as Dwight Eisenhower called it--but that is the way things are--I would much rather that more of the taxes I pay go to things like education, rebuilding our infrastructure, alternate energy sources R&D (at least seed money or tax incentives to encourage and enable more private research in this area), etc. and yes--"Socialized Medicine!!!!!!!:yikes2::yikes2::yikes2::yikes2:----but not enough of it gets spent this way to make me a happy camper, but I don't get all bent out of shape about that---I know that the government (and we need government like it or not) needs to get money to pay for the things it does provide---most things which are actually good things like highways, air traffic control, aids to navigation for the waterways, federal law enforcement and a list of things too long to list here both big and obvious and things more obscure that government does.

Like Ben Franklin said---we know we are going to die and we are going to have to pay taxes!!!

Since we do need government---the thing to do is to try to keep fighting to make it is as equitable as possible for the biggest number possible---something that will probably never be the case because there are always going to be people who get screwed by it and there are certainly those who make out like major bandits thanks to goverment and that ain't folks in the hills and hollers of Kentucky or West Virginia or blacks or hispanics in East LA and places like that---at least we can limit the number of people it screws and when it does---at least it uses plenty of lube so it ain't such a bad experience!!!

[frenchvikki]

There used to be a theatre group in the UK called the 7:84 theatre group. They were very political and the name stood for 7% of the population owns 84% of the nations wealth. The figures arent quite that any more but if there is a reason why the truly rich should pay the bulk of a nations taxation that is it.

[darkeyes]

They r still on the go Vikki...seen em a few times an they r brill!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7:84

[turtle2]

Scary when words like "controls 40% of the wealth". Things don't happen that often by chance. People make them happen. I control me. I take risks and i am accountable for them. If you want to be in the percentage of people that control wealth(whatever that means) make it happen.

Theft is theft and just because a group of people don't have a large enough voting block to stop it...like smokers, doesn't make right.(I don't smoke by the way)

Take control. You don't need any government to provide anything for you but security, infrastructure, and verify that things are on a level playing field. I put my trust in the people not the government that considers a program a success if it run at above 65% efficiency. I think in school we called that a D.

Call it all the warm fuzzies you want. The reality is you are stealing from one person to give to another. Which might have its place in a Nobel land owner types situation, but here you have the opportunity everyday to become a Nobel land owner if you choose. Don’t penalize people that have gone for it.

To receive a tax cut i think you should have to have paid a tax to cut. and Please read the constitution of whatever country you might be from. It doesn’t say anything about me paying for your health insurance.

Now before you all think i am heartless i want you all to know that i probably give more to charities by percentage than most of the people reading this thread. I like to choose to give to things that i feel will make a difference, not what the government says will make a difference after their administrative costs.

[darkeyes]

Turtle hun..am reely pleased for ya..an ya generosity wivya dosh is all very commendable..jus a lil point..if Nations..an governments did ther job..an ensured that every 1 had decent housin..decent health care.. education.. work..that they ensured companies paid decent pay.. that outlawed poverty an many otha things governments r supposed 2 do on behalf of ther peeps...ther wud b no need for charities...charity is a demeanin an humiliatin way for peeps 2 get ne semblance of a decent life... if it wos up 2 me me wud abolish charites tomoz..if ya added up every charitable donation accross the planet it wud b a drop in the ocean compared 2 the resources wich is available 2 governments..

Turnin 2 health care..if ya pays ya national health insurance yas not payin for otha peeps woteva ya think.. least not in the way u appear to imagine... yas payin for u an ur family..the peeps most important 2 u 2 b cared for wivout the need 2 take out a huge insurance policy 2 do the same.. each an every month..ifyas employed ya pays ya stamp an ya gets the care..as do ya kids.. sure..if u r lukky enuff neva 2 need 2 call on the health service (an not many r..poor or rich) peeps who r poor an unemployed who r unable 2 pay ther dues still hav the rite 2 get 1st class health care provided by the state.. that may sound rong 2 u... don 2 me..cos ifyas lukky enuff now neva 2 call on ya insurance contributions paid 2 private companies..who benefits? Not the customers but the shareholders an stockholders in the company.. That me argues is not only immoral..but criminal..espesh wen millions r unable 2 afford decent health care an the state dusnt provide otha than the basics. The nation an its peeps hav the rite 2 live free as far as poss from ill health... cant say how things r in the states now fills the bill ther dus it??

Wot u lot ova ther call socalised medicine aint a burden 2 b borne..it is a moral necessity 2 ensure that the whole nation is given decent health care..an neva falls inta poverty for want of it...

[the mage]

Scary when words like "controls 40% of the wealth". Things don't happen that often by chance. People make them happen. I control me. I take risks and i am accountable for them. If you want to be in the percentage of people that control wealth(whatever that means) make it happen.

Theft is theft and just because a group of people don't have a large enough voting block to stop it...like smokers, doesn't make right.(I don't smoke by the way)

Take control. You don't need any government to provide anything for you but security, infrastructure, and verify that things are on a level playing field. I put my trust in the people not the government that considers a program a success if it run at above 65% efficiency. I think in school we called that a D.

Call it all the warm fuzzies you want. The reality is you are stealing from one person to give to another. Which might have its place in a Nobel land owner types situation, but here you have the opportunity everyday to become a Nobel land owner if you choose. Don’t penalize people that have gone for it.

To receive a tax cut i think you should have to have paid a tax to cut. and Please read the constitution of whatever country you might be from. It doesn’t say anything about me paying for your health insurance.

Now before you all think i am heartless i want you all to know that i probably give more to charities by percentage than most of the people reading this thread. I like to choose to give to things that i feel will make a difference, not what the government says will make a difference after their administrative costs.


The arrogance of wealth is speaking right here..............

The unequal distribution of HEALTH is costing humanity far more cash than your pathetic insights allow you to perceive.

You equal wealth with worth.. you are the sick one and unfortunately you are in great numbers.

[frenchvikki]

Call it all the warm fuzzies you want. The reality is you are stealing from one person to give to another. Which might have its place in a Nobel land owner types situation, but here you have the opportunity everyday to become a Nobel land owner if you choose. Don’t penalize people that have gone for it.

It is not stealing as you so stupidly call it. It is simply a way of doing for the less well off what employers if they were not so greedy abusive and selfish should be doing. Paying a decent living wage for their employees and paying them their true worth. The fact that employers do not do so raises the question - who is the thief here? People who have gone for it and run roughshod over others to get their millions are the true criminals. Because of them states have to have in place ways to ensure that the poorest paid employees have a living wage with which to care for their families. Therefore it is a subsidy the state pays the employers to continue to operate. That isnt theft except the theft of the dignity of ordinary people and the decent pay cheques to which they are entitled. It is also theft from the state by the greedy employers and the wealthy of thousands of millions of Taxpayers money to underpin those appallingly low pay rates by having government pay those people Tax Credits or whatever other way a nation decides is best to cut back on poverty.

[turtle2]

Thanks for those opinions. I stand by what i said. The numbers support it even if you heart disagrees. I am employer and i take care of my employees, i like and appreciate them...if i don't they will leave...its a market place capitalist concept that has been around from the time of Adam. Are some employers greedy, sure but most of our american market is driven by small business so unless you have facts and numbers to back up your claim thanks for you opinion, however my opinion is by and large that you are wrong.

We are getting way off topic. The original post was followed up by someone wanting to raise taxes and somehow tax the rich because they somehow wiggle out of paying taxes. The numbers are clear on this point. The 20% of top wage earners are paying for the entire bill (in the US).


My point was only to give a quick reality check. With numbers. I guess some people don't like numbers and facts....they get in the way. So don't get mad at the top 20% come on up and join, everybody's welcome. If you think you are getting screwed at the pump....take a look at your paychecks gross....divide that in 1/2 and that is what they pay to fund the country and state.


My other point was simply....if they government(in calif. state) hadn't forced low sulfer diesel it would cost approx. 60 cents less than it does now. Also VW diesels would have still been made in 2006-2007(they stoped) which get 45 mpg at a fraction of the technology that it takes to build a hybrid. Go diesel!

This is fun...next we should start a debate on minimum wage, or global warming, universal health care or something.

darkeyes...hun i am sorry but i can't understand your posts.

[frenchvikki]

We are getting way off topic. The original post was followed up by someone wanting to raise taxes and somehow tax the rich because they somehow wiggle out of paying taxes. The numbers are clear on this point. The 20% of top wage earners are paying for the entire bill (in the US).






Of what? Government funding? Their personal tax bill? If its the latter then I should hope that they do. However they have lovely people called accountants to enable them to keep that to a minimum, allies in party hierarchies to keep legislators under control, allies in legislatures to ensure that the tax loopholes will continue to enable their accountants to do so, allies in Government to ensure that legislatures dont get too uppity and close these loopholes. If however you are claiming the former then I am sorry that as everyone knows is simply untrue. Call me cynic if you wish, but I am afraid experience of life and politics has taught me to be so.

[wolfcamp]

I am employer and i take care of my employees, i like and appreciate them...if i don't they will leave...its a market place capitalist concept that has been around from the time of Adam.

turtle, if you do that then you are one of the good guys. I worked for a global corporation, good pay, good benefits. But 4 out of the 6 years I worked there they announced layoffs in the name of cost cutting and efficiency. They always took place around Christmas. To add insult to injury, the executives gave themselves big bonuses for successfully executing the "downsizing project".

Those times were very stressful. I made it through all the cuts, but some of my coworkers did not. After the last round I finally said I wasn't going to take it anymore. I got all my ducks in a row, and I quit. I thought it was funny that they had to hire back one of the laid off people to replace me. I have never regretted quitting for a single second. I am multitudes more happy now. But I am dealing with some issues like trying to find affordable health care. It is basically non-existent for someone like myself. Well, I digress. Take care of your people. If I had felt appreciated, I probably would still be at my old job.



My other point was simply....if they government(in calif. state) hadn't forced low sulfer diesel it would cost approx. 60 cents less than it does now. Also VW diesels would have still been made in 2006-2007(they stoped) which get 45 mpg at a fraction of the technology that it takes to build a hybrid. Go diesel!

This is fun...next we should start a debate on minimum wage, or global warming, universal health care or something.

darkeyes...hun i am sorry but i can't understand your posts.

I like diesels. I had a '90 Dodge diesel for quite a few years. I was surprised when I heard that VW quit making a diesel. I was actually thinking about buying one.

Where were you when we had our global warming slug fest a month ago?

Regards,
WC

[turtle2]

I like diesels. I had a '90 Dodge diesel for quite a few years. I was surprised when I heard that VW quit making a diesel. I was actually thinking about buying one.

Where were you when we had our global warming slug fest a month ago?

Regards,
WC

I always miss the good stuff. VW is making them again. In california you are supposed to be able to test drive the new jetta in june with first delivery sometime in august. My dad still has his dodge diesel truck and loves it....it outpulls my gas truck like night and day.

Frenchvickie...the number are the numbers. They don't lie. You can talk about all the loopholes you want...what the numbers state as truth is simple, 20% of the wage earners pay the majority of the bill period. You can't serperate gov. funding from of those peoples tax bill as those peoples tax bill funds the government.

on a side note i take advantage of every single "loophole" (those loopholes are also reffered to as tax law...the business i have been in for the last 18 years) Dont you? If not let me send you my card and i'll see if i can help you save some of YOUR money.

[frenchvikki]

I always miss the good stuff. VW is making them again. In california you are supposed to be able to test drive the new jetta in june with first delivery sometime in august. My dad still has his dodge diesel truck and loves it....it outpulls my gas truck like night and day.

Frenchvickie...the number are the numbers. They don't lie. You can talk about all the loopholes you want...what the numbers state as truth is simple, 20% of the wage earners pay the majority of the bill period. You can't serperate gov. funding from of those peoples tax bill as those peoples tax bill funds the government.

on a side note i take advantage of every single "loophole" (those loopholes are also reffered to as tax law...the business i have been in for the last 18 years) Dont you? If not let me send you my card and i'll see if i can help you save some of YOUR money.Your figures may well be correct insofar as they go. So what? Are you saying then that the 20% who probably have 70 or 80% of the wealth of a country should only pay 20% of the tax? I dont think so. Those that have most should always contribute most. The world over it is a fact that the poorest and largest sector of the population contribute a larger percentage share of their income to the state than do the rich, and have less to fall back on when times really get hard. Is that the society you seek? It is what your argument ultimately represents.

[wolfcamp]

what the numbers state as truth is simple, 20&#37; of the wage earners pay the majority of the bill period.

Turtle, something just sounds funny about that statement. I'm having a hard time making sense of it. Where are you getting those numbers?

When I think of wage earners, I think of hourly workers, as opposed to salaried workers, or workers on some other compensation plan like a percent of sales, or bonuses and options. If an hourly worker makes, say, $35 an hour, they still make less than $75000 a year. That's pretty good, but it still isn't great, and most hourly workers don't make anything close to that. If you are talking about something besides hourly workers, then that changes the whole meaning. Maybe you are talking about special classes of workers like lawyers or doctors who charge by the hour. How are you figuring?

[void()]

"Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the bar anymore. In fact, they might start drinking somewhere overseas."

A simple point here, they are already drinking overseas. When I lived in West Virgina, I worked at a company that made wire harnesses for cars. They were pulling out to go to Mexico. Their tax break in West Virginia had expired. About 1,000 jobs lost. And you can just point and click over to Wal-Mart and see how they're putting American businesses out, too.

Durable goods such as lawn mowers are no longer durable. You can use a 19 inch push mower maybe two years, then buy a new one. That's how it is now, buy and sell cheap, screw quality. It used to be that same push mower could last ten, twenty years. Even with the best care given it we had one last only two years, had to pay out $100 to get a new one.

Now, $100 might not seem like much, but consider it was $100 that could have paid oh say the electric bill, the laundry for two months. When you have to think "okay, we'll just eat less for the next four months to pay this bill over that one", it's quite an expense.

Rich people giving the poor breaks. Yeah right, try selling bridges elsewhere.

Should we abolish the gas tax?

At first I was tempted to say hell yeah. After considering some points made, I'm not sure. I am sure something needs done, though.

America ought to be a World Leader, create a renewable energy source based economy, live Green and live Free.

"Imminent victory in Iraq"

Pass the crack you're smoking my way, please. You've got to be smoking something. Oh yes, we had a victory indeed we came out the victors of the nastiest son of a bitches on a pile of shit awards. "He must be American." "Why do you say that?" "He's carrying a gun and raping enemy civilians."

If the truth hurts, bite the bullet. It'll all be okay if you watch American Idol and listen to the hypersonic sponsor messages, Big Brother promises. He and Daddy Worbucks are giving the poor breaks, after all.

Well, I'll shut up. As it relates to bisexuality. To be bisexual and using this site I'd guess you might be human. All humans are effected by the human condition, gays, straights, bis, transformers. Run it slow everyone.

[Bluebiyou]

I used to drive a truck that got 9 mpg (26L/100km). In view of the diminishing world's supply of petrol and increased prices, I've taken personal responsibility and gotten rid of the old gas guzzler and am now driving a fuel efficient truck that gets almost twice - 16mpg (14.7L/100km).
Just doing my part. It's nice to know I'm part of the solution rather than part of the problem! :)