Hypocracy

[Xiahou]

What do we need? MAJOR incentives to invest in alternate energy and conservation. Major research programs to provide the tech and LONGTERM solutions. We should lead, not follow. How do you fund it? Non-renewable energy taxes. That funds the work and investment from the very source of the problem. You also drive conservation that way. Is it going to be disruptive in the short term for some? You bet.

That's your typical tax and spend liberalism for you. Got a problem? The government can solve it by raising your taxes!

Anyhow, you're proposing to solve high energy prices by adding taxes to the prices? Interesting. Too bad gasoline is already heavily taxed- what, about 30 cents a gallon? (varies by state, ect) It's not like we're going to wake up one morning and suddenly be out of oil. As supply shrinks and demand grows the prices will continue to rise until people become less and less willing to pay them. Instead, they start looking to buy alternatives. It's not that there aren't viable alternatives out there, it's just that they still aren't cost effective and prices for gasoline, ect aren't high enough to make people switch. When that happens, it'll be in the industry's best interests to cater to the consumer- there's no reason to fund it with even more corporate welfare.

Were it up to me, I'd cut the federal tax on gasoline by 50% or more. It was setup to fund the Interstate highway system, which is complete. Currently the gas tax is just a slush fund for politicians to use to bring home pork to buy votes with.

[Red Harvest]

That's your typical tax and spend liberalism for you. Got a problem? The government can solve it by raising your taxes!

Anyhow, you're proposing to solve high energy prices by adding taxes to the prices? Interesting. Too bad gasoline is already heavily taxed- what, about 30 cents a gallon? (varies by state, ect) It's not like we're going to wake up one morning and suddenly be out of oil. As supply shrinks and demand grows the prices will continue to rise until people become less and less willing to pay them. Instead, they start looking to buy alternatives. It's not that there aren't viable alternatives out there, it's just that they still aren't cost effective and prices for gasoline, ect aren't high enough to make people switch. When that happens, it'll be in the industry's best interests to cater to the consumer- there's no reason to fund it with even more corporate welfare.

Aaahhhh, predictable, but I'm not a tax and spend liberal. I do believe in Manhattan projects and Apollo projects though. Those are the sort of things that have put us where we are...as opposed to stick your head in the sand isolationists.

We've been using your policy for a long time. You can choose to follow the world if you like. I would prefer to lead. What you propose is to wait for prices to really hammer the economy and become unbearable, then react. It is one approach, but it means you will be getting your tech from somebody else, not from the U.S. It makes your own economy weaker than your competitors, because your *investments* over the past decades will have been misplaced. I would rather pay $1 today to save $2 tomorrow, but that's just me.

30 cents a gallon...whoooooopppeeeeeee. Now if fuel efficiency were improved by 10% not only would that 30 cents per gallon be covered...but the PRICE itself would be lower (look up the elasticity of energy and gasoline demand.)

Were it up to me, I'd cut the federal tax on gasoline by 50% or more. It was setup to fund the Interstate highway system, which is complete. Currently the gas tax is just a slush fund for politicians to use to bring home pork to buy votes with.

LOL, ever been to Houston? Complete??? Take a drive down I-10 some time...any time. You have to maintain the system, and it is continuously expanded as population continues to grow. Much of the highway system in the U.S. is seriously underfunded with regards to maintenance and improvements.

Saving 15 cents per gallon...ooooooooohhhhh...that would help...not at all? It would actually drive higher prices long term.

[ichi]

I think that the biggest hypocrasy occurring in this country today is this idea that we need to give the government incredible powers in order to keep our freedoms.

Second is the idea that we must support the current administration in order to patriotic.

ichi

ps regarding fuel: in order to protect American independence shouldn't we keep our oil and use up the oil of all the other countries? Save ours for last?

[Red Harvest]

ps regarding fuel: in order to protect American independence shouldn't we keep our oil and use up the oil of all the other countries? Save ours for last?

Yep, that's what I've been saying. I believe we can drill in the ANWR safely enough...but I would rather other countries pumped their oil first so that we still have reserves when others have depleted reservoirs. I don't object to ANWR drilling on environmental grounds, but on economic reasoning. And more importantly because it is used to mask the real problem.

Stupid me, I've always been a saver/investor rather than a spender. Must be the Scot in me. I'm not doing my part to support the short term, "live-beyond-your-means," consumption driven economic model.

[Al Khalifah]

We should lead, not follow. How do you fund it? Non-renewable energy taxes. That funds the work and investment from the very source of the problem.

Sorry Red, we already have massive taxes on petrol in the UK and they aren't helping to solve the problem at all. The Government just squanders the money on inefficient schemes for public transport.

Raising the price of petrol does not stop people using their cars, it just decreases their disposable income to spend on other things and rather unfairly hits the poor and rural populations - rather than the urban population.

[Ironside]

Sorry Red, we already have massive taxes on petrol in the UK and they aren't helping to solve the problem at all. The Government just squanders the money on inefficient schemes for public transport.

Raising the price of petrol does not stop people using their cars, it just decreases their disposable income to spend on other things and rather unfairly hits the poor and rural populations - rather than the urban population.

Actually this price increase together with the high oil taxes has starting to make ethanol to a popular car fuel in Sweden ATM.

But you're correct that the rural area is hurt most and that people still use thier cars, though probably not as excessive and not with as fuel consuming cars. A rise in price does give a noticeable temporal effect though.

BTW isn't market speculation "fun"?
Considering that the oil companies does record profits ATM.

And isn't ANWR still supported by the oil industry? I guess it wouldn't lower the prices much anyway considering that it would otherwise be a bad investment.

[Devastatin Dave]

I've got a friend that will happily gut a deer, but won't shange a stinky diaper.

[Red Harvest]

Sorry Red, we already have massive taxes on petrol in the UK and they aren't helping to solve the problem at all. The Government just squanders the money on inefficient schemes for public transport.

Raising the price of petrol does not stop people using their cars, it just decreases their disposable income to spend on other things and rather unfairly hits the poor and rural populations - rather than the urban population.

It doesn't work if you just shift money around in general funds. I don't propose that at all. Any tax like this should be used to directly fund the sort of development incentives that we want. Right now, we don't have a substantial coordinated effort going on. If we want one, we have to fund it. This is about priming the capitalistic pump, not creating a socialist system. Capitalism works, but it needs some incentive/direction at times. You give it a carrot, it will chase it.

As for raising the price of gas...it actually does have clear long term effects. The short term cannot be changed very much--and the short term here is at least 3 to 5 years. Look at the effect of higher gas prices by taking a look at the typical U.S. auto (a huge, heavy SUV) and the average foreign auto. Low fuel costs in the U.S. have led to declining fuel efficiency. The actual fleet (per car on the road) averages are at 1973 levels last I checked. Why? The weight of the average U.S. vehicle is more now than it was in 1973. The shift has been to SUV's/light trucks that are actually heavier than the 1973 beasts. It takes time to move the average fleet statistics, and we've been moving the wrong way.