I saw a Greenpeace spokesperson say this weekend that the Oil and Coal industry has spent $80 million in the last 3 months fighting anti-global-warming legislation in Washington.
That is totally ridiculous.
Instead of spending $80 million toward research on how to get us off the fossil fuel teat, which is INEVITABLY going to happen, they spend that much money fighting for the old status pollution quo.
If higher taxes help us get off the gasoline habit, I'm all for it. The sooner the better.
It is totally logical for the oil and coal people to look out for their business interest. Not lobbying Congress would be like the Beef industry putting up ads for you to eat more chicken. We are probably 100 years from any decent alternative to coal. Close to that for oil and gas. They are being bombarded by the ignorance in Washington DC. GW legislation will cost you and me a bigger percentage of our income than it will the Oil and Coal industry. You should be thankful they are looking out for your interest. If people like Henry Waxman get their way you will be living in a cave hunting for rats to survive on. I don't think you get the big picture that is being painted for all of US to live by. Someone NEEDS to tell the environmentalists that enough is enough. I believe in conservation and eliminating as much pollution as is reasonable. Current legislation goes beyond all reason. Cap n Trade is a TRAVESTY to the American tax payer.
They should be shifting their business AWAY from fossil and toward alternatives. Quit fighting it. They are not going to win. Stop throwing good research money down the drain.
Get a leg up on the future by pouring money into solar and battery research.
That $80 million in three months is $320 million for a year.
That amount of money would do a lot of alternative power research. Instead, it's going to lobbyists? FTW?
Oil prices topped $68/barrel yesterday, double what they were in March, DESPITE stagnating oil demand worldwide and a 19-year high in U.S. inventory of crude.
We have to get a handle on this, get away from using black gold to power everything. We just have to do it. This oil addiction is the one that will suck the addict (US) down into chaos.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We all know that ICE engines for cars are not going away any time soon.
But the REASON for that, mostly, is the ferociousness with which the Oil companies defend the "status quo" and that is the main reason it will remain a force. They have deep pockets because of our oil addiction, just like Drug Lords in South America have deep pockets because of drug addiction.
OK, then let's recommend they use that lobbying money for this:
Gas engines and ICE technology can be vastly improved, with $320 million a year thrown at it. Sure. Let's do that instead of using that money to fight for the same old same old.
But the REASON for that, mostly, is the ferociousness with which the Oil companies defend the "status quo" and that is the main reason it will remain a force.
No the reason we use ICE is - because it provides the longest range in all environmental and driving conditions, with the easiest of refueling at the lowest cost in equipment and fuel.
And the reason my house uses oil for heat and hot water is because it is usually fairly low cost compared to electric, there is no natural gas line available, and coal is messy and dirty.
Whether the U.S. turns to electirc cars or not, plenty of oil will still be sold to heat people's houses, make plastics, and supply the rest of the world with diesel and gasoline for their $3,000 cars. China and India are not going to be full of $30,000 EV's powered by wind and solar.
The world has no way to put the oil-genie back in the bottle. All the recoverable oil in the world gets burnt by someone, somewhere in the next 100-200 years. There is not enough resources and wealth in the world to provide everyone with all the clean energy that they want.
They are the ones who need to "live with it" and realize that fossil fuel is on it's way OUT and they need to get aboard or get left behind.
First if you do a little research you will find that ARCO has probably spent more on Solar Cell research than any other company. You seem to think it is in the oil companies interest to make the oil last longer. The more gas you burn in the TCH the better the oil companies like it. Why would they want US to use less gas and oil? The reason they spend million on lobbyist is to counter act the millions people like Greenpeace spend on lobbying Congress. Did your article mention how much they have spent trying to put the coal companies out of business. I really cannot believe anyone is so naive as to think that there is an honest person in our Congress. Find me one that does not take contributions from all these different special interest groups.
They SHOULD want to make it last longer, thus make the revenue stream continue.
Why sell $300 billion worth of oil for ten years then run out, when you can sell $30 billion worth for a hundred years and at the same time be working on and selling alternatives for when the oil runs out? (Mind you, I'm just using the 10 years and 100 years figures to make the math easier. I know we have more years than that left, yada yada.)
I did not start this thread from an "article" it was a TV interview BTW.
(Don't know how the "lying, cheating Congress" even got into the thread, so I will ignore it since it has no bearing on what I was and am talking about.)
If we tax it more, it will make it last longer because people will use less of it.
In the meanwhile, figure out what are suitable alternatives you can develop and sell.
That's why GM is in so much trouble - no vision for the future.
ARCO Solar sold out to Siemans in '89. Siemans was experiencing solar panel shortages a couple of years ago when my friends went off the grid. Couldn't keep up with demand. They are also getting big into wind with a new Kansas factory.
ARCO is now a BP subsidiary. BP is big into solar.
(Don't know how the "lying, cheating Congress" even got into the thread, so I will ignore it since it has no bearing on what I was and am talking about.)
You brought it in with the crying about the coal and oil people lobbying Congress with $80 million this year. If I am a business man and have the option to sell $300 Billion widgets in 10 years or over 100 years. Only a fool would go for the long haul. Too many things can happen to do what you are saying. I don't think you realize how involved oil companies are in battery development and alternatives. They still have to lobby Congress to protect their businesses from the unscrupulous wannabe outfits that would destroy their business with NO alternatives. GreenPeace does not care if you have gas for your car. They would shut you down in a second if they could pull it off. That is the nature of the group. ZERO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. I was in Prudhoe when they hauled a bunch of them off the ice half frozen and arrested them for trespassing. They turned their trucks off for a couple hours to block a project. When they decided to leave their trucks would not start. They were U-haul rental trucks. The BP security took mercy on them and hauled them in before they froze to death. That is the mentality of Greenpeace. Dumber than a box of rocks.
Congress was a part of my original post, but commenting on their character or integrity was not required to move the discussion forward. Wasting of money by companies who hire lobbyists is not the fault of Congress. That's the system they are elected into.
( I wish lobbying tactics were outlawed. Didn't the Messiah promise something like that and then renege? )
How the individual Congress members HANDLE those lobbyists is another issue all together.
Once again, you are living and walking around with an incorrect, "past tense" impression of an organization in your 25-year-old story about GreenPeace.
Regardless of WHO is doing it, anyone trying to lobby Congress (while it's allowed by law) to reduce fossil fuel waste is doing a good thing for you and your grandkids.
We can turn 100-200 years into 300-400 years with conservation.
The U.S. uses about 25% of the world's oil. So do the math. If the U.S. raises the tax to $1,000/gal and we use no oil at all, 100 years of oil then would ONLY last 133 years!
But what would happen if the U.S. used no more oil is that the world price would plummet for oil. What does that mean? Oil and gasoline become much more affordable around the world, and people can afford to buy more oil, or people who formerly couldn't buy oil/gasoline now can buy a little. So oil consumption would never go down 25% just because the U.S. dropped demand 25%.
I say let's become more productive as a people and continue to buy as much oil as we want, outbidding the other people of the world. I have no problem with the U.S. consuming 50% or 75% of the world's oil if we can. That's competition, just like a Monopoly game.
I don't see social security as some national pension like an entitlement. I don't really expect it to be there when I retire at all anyway. That money keeps the older generation in their homes and combines with medicare to support their healthcare needs. It addresses current need.
Wow that's really magnanimous of you to volunteer giving everyone's else retirement away. I'm sure there might be 100M people or so over the age of 40 who might have a problem with having contributed for 20+ years and being told to expect nothing. You may have given me an idea for a book and film - "The 2nd American revolution, 2025".
And if Obama and future administrations continue to expand government and run us deeper into debt, with resultant higher and higher taxes, you may see unprecendented social unrest beyond anything in the 1960's.
People are willing to pay for a service, but they're not willing to pay gas taxes to divert it to pay for other programs - like illegals using medical services, or supporting some foreign country.
Wow that's really magnanimous of you to volunteer giving everyone's else retirement away. I'm sure there might be 100M people or so over the age of 40 who might have a problem with having contributed for 20+ years and being told to expect nothing. You may have given me an idea for a book and film - "The 2nd American revolution, 2025".
I've pretty much ruled social security out of my retirement plan. It'll be nice if it's still there when I retire, and when it most likely isn't, I'll be pretty pissed that I got screwed out of all that money, but what can you do to get it back, other than try to overthrow the gov't? :sick:
I don't turn 62 until 2032, so that's a ways off, anyway. I'd rather plan for the worst, and invest like it's not gonna be there. Then, if it still turns out that something is left of SS by the time I can collect, I'll look at it as a bonus. But I'm not gonna bet the farm on it.
Wow that's really magnanimous of you to volunteer giving everyone's else retirement away. I'm sure there might be 100M people or so over the age of 40 who might have a problem with having contributed for 20+ years and being told to expect nothing.
Is this based on some entitlement principle or a lack of proper planning on their part?
And if Obama and future administrations continue to expand government and run us deeper into debt, with resultant higher and higher taxes, you may see unprecendented social unrest beyond anything in the 1960's
I am somehow not worried. The younger generation was totally apathetic towards politics prior to this election, so heres to hoping we start to assume our roles as leaders. As far as "social unrest," I haven't heard any complaining from anyone under about 50-something, with the majority of the "nation of whiners" over 60. They have the AARP gostapo of they are really worried, but I somehow don't see them picking up arms.
People are willing to pay for a service, but they're not willing to pay gas taxes to divert it to pay for other programs - like illegals using medical services, or supporting some foreign country.
Yeah doing things like randomly attacking countries because we want their oil or we don't like their president or leader - I wonder how much we could do with the money wasted on the Iraq war.
I don't turn 62 until 2032, so that's a ways off, anyway. I'd rather plan for the worst, and invest like it's not gonna be there. Then, if it still turns out that something is left of SS by the time I can collect, I'll look at it as a bonus. But I'm not gonna bet the farm on it.
Its quite a bit further out for me, but I am roughly in the same boat. Thats why they do things like IRAs and Roth IRAs and 401ks.
Its quite a bit further out for me, but I am roughly in the same boat. Thats why they do things like IRAs and Roth IRAs and 401ks.
I would not count on those being good pre-tax investments either. You did listen to the rhetoric during the Campaign. The tax break by individuals saving in their 401k pension fund is targeted to raise more tax, by our present administration.
You are correct that the younger generation will have to pay for the current spending. Gas tax is not the way to do it. Voting against tax and spend politicians is your only chance at survival. Term limits on a corrupt Congress. Limiting the powers of the Presidency, that seem to be limitless at this juncture.
The reason you hear a lot more "Whining" from those of US over 60, is because we went through a similar mess in the late 1970s ala Carter. Massive inflation is just around the corner. Adding fuel tax would just fuel that inflation exponentially. I do think President Obama has gotten good advice on more gas tax and we will not see any significant additions. He knows it would be political suicide when it hits every voter in the pocket.
>Drill deeper and build more refineries. Just because somebody doesn't know where all the crude is does not mean there isn't any more.
The mantra of the wind/global warming folks is to delay any more drilling in our own country under the guise of protecting the environment or we should get away from fossil fuels. So they also complain that it might take 5 years to get the oil.
Well, if you delay starting more drilling, it will take longer. Start drilling today so 5 years from now instead of 10 years or 15 we'll have more of our own oil being added to our supply. That's simple economics and science.
A good compromise on a $5.00 gas tax increase would be to make it voluntary. Just push the yes button on the pump if you want to pay it or the no button if you don't. Then we would all be happy. Right?
No. Have to give people choices. Have numeric keypads at gas pump whereby one could designate any extra tax per gallon they want to donate. Keypad could allow anything from one cent to five dollars. This could be rolled out trialed in pilot program in key greenie regions such as in Oregon. With right promo, could get extra revenue for roads. State DOT must adhere to strictly using the extra funds for roads.
I don't turn 62 until 2032, so that's a ways off, anyway. I'd rather plan for the worst, and invest like it's not gonna be there.
By 2032, the Congress will have already kicked out the early 62 age some amount of years. Maybe no "early" at all and "full" at say 70.
Would not have to think about higher gas taxes if our country had not almost totally abandoned planning/building more nuclear about 3 decades ago. The plug-in car from GM and other mfrs could get power from clean source.
Is this based on some entitlement principle or a lack of proper planning on their part?
Why wouldn't a person be entitled to social security and medicare benefits, when it is their own and their employer's money that the government has taken and supposedly held for their retirement? That is the basis of social security. If that isn't the purpose of social security then the government is guilty of thievery on a scale far beyond belief, and to which I'm sure would be the downfall of the government, in whatever manner.
If people here chastise the common man because they should save far more then they do, then you have your head up your hind. :mad: You can't have it both ways of saying people should save more, while the government collects 15% (from the employee and employer) + Medicare.
I find it morally reprehensible and worthy of a serfdom-society, of what you think is OK.
SS and medicare were never meant to be savings accounts, right? As long as the population keeps increasing, the pyramid scheme should survive in some form.
I don't see the American sheeple being able to unite enough to make downfall for this broken system. If it got too bad, the powers that be would just hire mercenaries to fire on the crowds. Martial law, slaughter the opposition, move on.
A serfdom society...that's what the globalists want...
I don't see the American sheeple being able to unite enough to make downfall for this broken system.
I always believed something Gen George Patton said, and it worked with his army - "Hit 'em in the pocket book, and you'll get their attention". With the low savings that most people have, and as I said above - due quite a bit to collecting pay that otherwise the employee could take-home, people would take any elimination of social security very, very seriously".
Similarly I don't see politicians rushing out to directly increase taxes on gasoline, because of the uproar this would cause. Instead you'll see these underhanded pols trying hidden taxes like Cap-N-Trade on CO2.
If you follow the news in Europe, you'll see the frequent strikes to protest the high taxes. I've seen French truckers shutdown the highways in protest. High taxes can and do push societies to shutdown at least temporarily.
I don't believe SS will be allowed to fail. It might be one reason why the powers that be are so tolerant of allowing millions in and eventually making them taxpayers - it keeps the pyramid scheme alive for another couple generations.
Gas taxes are politicial suicide, as the economy is showing no true signs of recovery, and we are skating on thin ice when it comes to inflation.
The French strike an insane amount...but what progress is really being made there, in the long term?
I don't see the American sheeple being able to unite enough to make downfall for this broken system.
They can probably be rallied to oppose a higher gas tax, but will not take the time from American Idle, fawning over actresses, actors, Bachelor, Dance, etc., to truly understand what is/has been going on in DC. They just believe the network news and spoon fed 5-minute news(?) spots that interfere with radio talk shows and dumb music.
Its quite a bit further out for me, but I am roughly in the same boat. Thats why they do things like IRAs and Roth IRAs and 401ks.
I would not count on those being good pre-tax investments either. You did listen to the rhetoric during the Campaign. The tax break by individuals saving in their 401k pension fund is targeted to raise more tax, by our present administration.
I have been using some post-tax investments in my Roth IRA. I am young enough that it makes more sense from a tax standpoint. YMMV. I didn't hear anything during the campaign that would adversely affect my 401k. That said, if they created a Roth 401k, I would consider that too.
One nice thing is next year there is a free-be year for Roth conversions, with no salary cap and 2 years to pay the tax. I assume they are doing it as a fundraiser for the Federal government. Having recently changed jobs and having that 401k to rolloverIRA money sitting there, I can convert it to a RothIRA and give me a big pile of non-taxable retirement savings. Okay not as big a pile as I'd like, but enough to get a Whopper value meal...small
are correct that the younger generation will have to pay for the current spending. Gas tax is not the way to do it. Voting against tax and spend politicians is your only chance at survival. Term limits on a corrupt Congress. Limiting the powers of the Presidency, that seem to be limitless at this juncture.
Yeah I can't believe what the last administration got away with...spying on its own people and torturing. This new guy just fires CEOs of private corporations.
I don't see the gas tax as helping with the debt really, just as a way to change behavior, like the tax on cigarettes or alcohol. I would also legalize some other things, tax them too, and unburden the prison system.
I wouldn't be too worried about it, as noted its political suicide, never mind that its the right thing to do...
And now you know why the lowest common denominator media is so important - it distracts and appeases people away from unpleasant issues. It's not a coincidence.
The brilliant people who founded this country thought that taxation was theft.
A person has or had the right to keep the fruits of their own labor and own property.
Some wise Justice once said:
" The power to tax is the power to destroy"
The quality of human life in the last century has increased dramatically due in part to the use of petroleum products. Our life span in 1900 was approximately 42 years of age.
Left alone the market which is the sum total of the ingeneuity of the human mind free to find solutions will continue to make things better, faster and cheaper.
If we could just stop the "World Improvers", from helping us gas would cost 50 cents per gallon and new wonderous technologies would arise on their own. Creative Destruction.
Do we not remember the endless experiments in centrally planned economies in the 20th century???????
It is always a battle between stasiss and dynamisim, slavery vs. freedom.
Yeah I can't believe what the last administration got away with...spying on its own people and torturing. This new guy just fires CEOs of private corporations.
Really!! Speaking of "getting away with", the current admin is no slouch. Starting back a couple months ago with the stimulus/budget bill huge document, hundreds of pages long loaded with pork. The admin and Ms Pelosi intentionally did not allow sufficient time for Congress to read/review/peruse/digest details before quickly calling for a vote. Just one example of the out-of-control admin and Congress.
Spying/torturing - See Post 805. Liberal and biased media obviously did its job in informing(?) and molding the minds of the sheepile.
Don't see that media has made any kind of issue about oil/gasoline prices since new admin took office in Jan. Gasoline at the pump up at least 50 percent with new admin. But, maybe Obama would rather that oil/gasoline prices zoom up so that he can more easily promote some of his flaky energy plans without having to bring up issue of raising gas taxes.
Maybe this article will amke everyone understand that the average American does not have disposable money to pay more taxes of any sort. And especially the older middle-class people who had put together assets in real estate or stocks, have been hit very hard.
If the government wants to collect extra money for road-projects or public transportation, they should go no further then to put a special tax on anyone in the financial and banking industries who made over $200K/year in the last 10 years. There are many people who walked away with tons of money, creating bubbles, sucking peoples' investments in, and left them with not much more than a mirage.
People will now need SS, Medicare, and no new taxes to cope with these losses, from the system that our government allowed to operate, and encouraged in many cases.
The article you sight tells a very sad story. Husband had no way of knowing wife would contract Alzheimer's disease.
I don't agree with his taking out a loan at the age which leaves him where he is today, with a mortgage.
I'm his age and saved for our present home, paying cash 1999.
Between 18 & 22 I learned about FDR's Supplemental Social Security Act & learned then the KEY word is "Supplemental"..it was never intended to be a mainline retirement fund, but intended to augment our individual savings & investment programs throughout our productive years. We have been savers and investers since 1954 which sacrificed our standard of living to be less than what it could have been.
Today's high income folk do not deserve to be taxed more due to their wise frugality of the past. All should pay the same.
SS and medicare were never meant to be savings accounts, right? As long as the population keeps increasing, the pyramid scheme should survive in some form.
In theory, yes, but unfortunately the base of that pyramid is starting to crumble. When Social security was first enacted, I think there was something like 21 workers putting in, for every retiree. Today it's something like 3 or 5 workers per retiree.
One problem is that people just don't have a bunch of kids like they used to. I think both of my Granddads had something like 6 or 7 siblings...but they lived on farms, where that was more common I guess. But then my grandparents only had 3 kids on my Dad's side, and only 2 on my Mom's. My Mom & Dad only had me. And I don't plan on having kids.
Another thing that might be putting pressure on SS is federal employees. In the past, they didn't put into SS, but they didn't collect it either, unless they had enough "quarters" in. However, since around 1983, they started phasing out those federal pensions, and anyone hired after that now puts into SS. So I don't know what the net effect was...whether that helped SS or hurt it more?
Social Security was never meant to be enough to retire on, but it was meant to make for a nice supplement. I think I read somewhere, though, that for something like 60% of all retirees, social security is all they have.
Just import a few dozen million workers from a mysterious place south of the border, make them taxpayers, and voila - the leaking dike has some new chewing gum to keep the leak stopped a little while longer. I believe that is part of the strategy, it's all the powers that be have.
The public sector pension plans are going to cause just as much of a meltdown, and probably stir a lot of resentment and anger from those who worked in the real world and weren't able to get into the "30 in - out with 80%" scheme that a lot of retiring boomer public servants were able to get away with. On a per retiree basis, those have to be a lot more of a drain on the system than simple SS benefits.
By the time I retire, the average age for hanging em up will probably be 70 or more, and any SS I collect might pay for food or leisure, but maybe not much else. Of course, the losers in the last election believe we are headed to a Soviet hell, so I'll have socialized marginal quality housing available gratis anyway :shades:
Most high income people I know are not especially frugal, and many of them did not do anything special in the past to deserve their stature. Born on third base and all that.
"The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.
A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the "best path forward" to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion."
I don't like the big brother aspect of the idea. I do think that charging by the mile is the best way to get enough money for maintaining roads and bridges. If you can keep the slimy pols from using it for other than highway infrastructure.
It's a scam to fund a bunch of new satellites to replace all the GPS ones that are rapidly failing. :shades:
I used to have my electric meter read remotely in Anchorage. The truck would drive down the street and pick up the radio signals; fast, accurate, no dog bites or tromping through the snow. Here, they still do it manually, and some months they skip my house and "estimate" my usage or they just misread the dial.
I don't think I'd like a pay by the mile system where you'd have to keep track and submit your own odometer readings, even if it was an IRS additional line item. The more automatic the better. Doing an annual smog test is a pain, now I have to fool with another form?
How about a GPS chip in your head associated with your Social Security number. Each individual pays a mileage tax quarterly. I know you skiers and snowboarders would get hit hard in the winter. It would be a big financial hit on a large family that all like to go every time you get in the car. :sick:
That's a great idea: base tax on number of people benefitting from being allowed to use a road in the car. Think how much tax we could collect and spend in DC. We could call it the "capital rally tax" since it's per capita. Most people would never catch on to how sneaky it is as a new tax because they'd be busy being impressed by the name, same as with "cap and trade."
We could include pets in the chip implantation because we could say it's to help protect and care for the pets, and we can tax their use of roads as well for people who take their pets with them.
I think a GPS system for taxing driving would be a stimulus to create quite the Black Market of hardware and software "solutions", to minimize mileage reported.
Who would pay for retrofitting the existing fleet of vehicles? And if these were like Speedpass and not built-in (installation labor?) to the ECM or such for hundreds of different models, I could just sit this little transmitter on the shelf in the garage every other day?
I think gas-tax should stay collected at the gas pump, except those with electric vehicles would get charged a flat-fee each year.
Exactly. Many ideas look great when looked at from an idealitic/optimistic POV. But there are many forces and people who that will test the reality of the ideal. One of the first things I thought of when I read the 1st paragraph was thieves will cut it out of someon'e arm; and there it was down a few paragraphs.
OMG, they are going to cut my thumb off so they can use the ATM and drain my account!!!!!
Big whoop, they could stick a Saturday night special in my face at the pump and fill up on my tab too.
Does everyone stay up nights thinking up all these nightmare scenarios? No wonder parents won't let their kids walk to the bus stop - Freddy Krueger is on every corner. Sheesh.
Comments
I saw a Greenpeace spokesperson say this weekend that the Oil and Coal industry has spent $80 million in the last 3 months fighting anti-global-warming legislation in Washington.
That is totally ridiculous.
Instead of spending $80 million toward research on how to get us off the fossil fuel teat, which is INEVITABLY going to happen, they spend that much money fighting for the old status pollution quo.
If higher taxes help us get off the gasoline habit, I'm all for it. The sooner the better.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator
It is totally logical for the oil and coal people to look out for their business interest. Not lobbying Congress would be like the Beef industry putting up ads for you to eat more chicken. We are probably 100 years from any decent alternative to coal. Close to that for oil and gas. They are being bombarded by the ignorance in Washington DC. GW legislation will cost you and me a bigger percentage of our income than it will the Oil and Coal industry. You should be thankful they are looking out for your interest. If people like Henry Waxman get their way you will be living in a cave hunting for rats to survive on. I don't think you get the big picture that is being painted for all of US to live by. Someone NEEDS to tell the environmentalists that enough is enough. I believe in conservation and eliminating as much pollution as is reasonable. Current legislation goes beyond all reason. Cap n Trade is a TRAVESTY to the American tax payer.
Get a leg up on the future by pouring money into solar and battery research.
That $80 million in three months is $320 million for a year.
That amount of money would do a lot of alternative power research. Instead, it's going to lobbyists? FTW?
You should be able to pick out someone to do that duty down in the NY crowd below:
Stick with the status quo and Oil Prices Will Return to $110/Barrel in 2015, Possibly Hit $200/Barrel in 2030 (Green Car Advisor)
We have to get a handle on this, get away from using black gold to power everything. We just have to do it. This oil addiction is the one that will suck the addict (US) down into chaos.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Any funds wasted on solar and battery research only placates the GW bowtie fearists who choose to ignore reality & dream of upsetting the profiteers.
Drill deeper and build more refineries. Just because somebody doesn't know where all the crude is does not mean there isn't any more.
So what if it is $100 a barrel, incomes will support buying it as competition will determine the cost to be effective.
They LOVE to see posts like yours as they waste $320 million a year fighting against inevitability.
They are the ones who need to "live with it" and realize that fossil fuel is on it's way OUT and they need to get aboard or get left behind.
You probably saw the Ford ethanol-assisted engine news I posted over in the Global Warming discussion:
Alcohol makes autos more climate-friendly. (New Scientist).
"They showed a 23 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency for the same performance levels."
But the REASON for that, mostly, is the ferociousness with which the Oil companies defend the "status quo" and that is the main reason it will remain a force. They have deep pockets because of our oil addiction, just like Drug Lords in South America have deep pockets because of drug addiction.
OK, then let's recommend they use that lobbying money for this:
Gas engines and ICE technology can be vastly improved, with $320 million a year thrown at it. Sure. Let's do that instead of using that money to fight for the same old same old.
No the reason we use ICE is - because it provides the longest range in all environmental and driving conditions, with the easiest of refueling at the lowest cost in equipment and fuel.
And the reason my house uses oil for heat and hot water is because it is usually fairly low cost compared to electric, there is no natural gas line available, and coal is messy and dirty.
Whether the U.S. turns to electirc cars or not, plenty of oil will still be sold to heat people's houses, make plastics, and supply the rest of the world with diesel and gasoline for their $3,000 cars. China and India are not going to be full of $30,000 EV's powered by wind and solar.
The world has no way to put the oil-genie back in the bottle. All the recoverable oil in the world gets burnt by someone, somewhere in the next 100-200 years. There is not enough resources and wealth in the world to provide everyone with all the clean energy that they want.
If a gasoline tax does that, let's tax it more.
First if you do a little research you will find that ARCO has probably spent more on Solar Cell research than any other company. You seem to think it is in the oil companies interest to make the oil last longer. The more gas you burn in the TCH the better the oil companies like it. Why would they want US to use less gas and oil? The reason they spend million on lobbyist is to counter act the millions people like Greenpeace spend on lobbying Congress. Did your article mention how much they have spent trying to put the coal companies out of business. I really cannot believe anyone is so naive as to think that there is an honest person in our Congress. Find me one that does not take contributions from all these different special interest groups.
They SHOULD want to make it last longer, thus make the revenue stream continue.
Why sell $300 billion worth of oil for ten years then run out, when you can sell $30 billion worth for a hundred years and at the same time be working on and selling alternatives for when the oil runs out? (Mind you, I'm just using the 10 years and 100 years figures to make the math easier. I know we have more years than that left, yada yada.)
I did not start this thread from an "article" it was a TV interview BTW.
(Don't know how the "lying, cheating Congress" even got into the thread, so I will ignore it since it has no bearing on what I was and am talking about.)
If we tax it more, it will make it last longer because people will use less of it.
In the meanwhile, figure out what are suitable alternatives you can develop and sell.
That's why GM is in so much trouble - no vision for the future.
ARCO is now a BP subsidiary. BP is big into solar.
You brought it in with the crying about the coal and oil people lobbying Congress with $80 million this year. If I am a business man and have the option to sell $300 Billion widgets in 10 years or over 100 years. Only a fool would go for the long haul. Too many things can happen to do what you are saying. I don't think you realize how involved oil companies are in battery development and alternatives. They still have to lobby Congress to protect their businesses from the unscrupulous wannabe outfits that would destroy their business with NO alternatives. GreenPeace does not care if you have gas for your car. They would shut you down in a second if they could pull it off. That is the nature of the group. ZERO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. I was in Prudhoe when they hauled a bunch of them off the ice half frozen and arrested them for trespassing. They turned their trucks off for a couple hours to block a project. When they decided to leave their trucks would not start. They were U-haul rental trucks. The BP security took mercy on them and hauled them in before they froze to death. That is the mentality of Greenpeace. Dumber than a box of rocks.
( I wish lobbying tactics were outlawed. Didn't the Messiah promise something like that and then renege? )
How the individual Congress members HANDLE those lobbyists is another issue all together.
Once again, you are living and walking around with an incorrect, "past tense" impression of an organization in your 25-year-old story about GreenPeace.
Regardless of WHO is doing it, anyone trying to lobby Congress (while it's allowed by law) to reduce fossil fuel waste is doing a good thing for you and your grandkids.
Tax it more, use less of it I say.
The U.S. uses about 25% of the world's oil. So do the math. If the U.S. raises the tax to $1,000/gal and we use no oil at all, 100 years of oil then would ONLY last 133 years!
But what would happen if the U.S. used no more oil is that the world price would plummet for oil. What does that mean? Oil and gasoline become much more affordable around the world, and people can afford to buy more oil, or people who formerly couldn't buy oil/gasoline now can buy a little. So oil consumption would never go down 25% just because the U.S. dropped demand 25%.
I say let's become more productive as a people and continue to buy as much oil as we want, outbidding the other people of the world. I have no problem with the U.S. consuming 50% or 75% of the world's oil if we can. That's competition, just like a Monopoly game.
Wow that's really magnanimous of you to volunteer giving everyone's else retirement away. I'm sure there might be 100M people or so over the age of 40 who might have a problem with having contributed for 20+ years and being told to expect nothing. You may have given me an idea for a book and film - "The 2nd American revolution, 2025".
And if Obama and future administrations continue to expand government and run us deeper into debt, with resultant higher and higher taxes, you may see unprecendented social unrest beyond anything in the 1960's.
People are willing to pay for a service, but they're not willing to pay gas taxes to divert it to pay for other programs - like illegals using medical services, or supporting some foreign country.
I've pretty much ruled social security out of my retirement plan. It'll be nice if it's still there when I retire, and when it most likely isn't, I'll be pretty pissed that I got screwed out of all that money, but what can you do to get it back, other than try to overthrow the gov't? :sick:
I don't turn 62 until 2032, so that's a ways off, anyway. I'd rather plan for the worst, and invest like it's not gonna be there. Then, if it still turns out that something is left of SS by the time I can collect, I'll look at it as a bonus. But I'm not gonna bet the farm on it.
Is this based on some entitlement principle or a lack of proper planning on their part?
And if Obama and future administrations continue to expand government and run us deeper into debt, with resultant higher and higher taxes, you may see unprecendented social unrest beyond anything in the 1960's
I am somehow not worried. The younger generation was totally apathetic towards politics prior to this election, so heres to hoping we start to assume our roles as leaders. As far as "social unrest," I haven't heard any complaining from anyone under about 50-something, with the majority of the "nation of whiners" over 60. They have the AARP gostapo of they are really worried, but I somehow don't see them picking up arms.
People are willing to pay for a service, but they're not willing to pay gas taxes to divert it to pay for other programs - like illegals using medical services, or supporting some foreign country.
Yeah doing things like randomly attacking countries because we want their oil or we don't like their president or leader - I wonder how much we could do with the money wasted on the Iraq war.
Its quite a bit further out for me, but I am roughly in the same boat. Thats why they do things like IRAs and Roth IRAs and 401ks.
I would not count on those being good pre-tax investments either. You did listen to the rhetoric during the Campaign. The tax break by individuals saving in their 401k pension fund is targeted to raise more tax, by our present administration.
You are correct that the younger generation will have to pay for the current spending. Gas tax is not the way to do it. Voting against tax and spend politicians is your only chance at survival. Term limits on a corrupt Congress. Limiting the powers of the Presidency, that seem to be limitless at this juncture.
The reason you hear a lot more "Whining" from those of US over 60, is because we went through a similar mess in the late 1970s ala Carter. Massive inflation is just around the corner. Adding fuel tax would just fuel that inflation exponentially. I do think President Obama has gotten good advice on more gas tax and we will not see any significant additions. He knows it would be political suicide when it hits every voter in the pocket.
The mantra of the wind/global warming folks is to delay any more drilling in our own country under the guise of protecting the environment or we should get away from fossil fuels. So they also complain that it might take 5 years to get the oil.
Well, if you delay starting more drilling, it will take longer. Start drilling today so 5 years from now instead of 10 years or 15 we'll have more of our own oil being added to our supply. That's simple economics and science.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No. Have to give people choices. Have numeric keypads at gas pump whereby one could designate any extra tax per gallon they want to donate. Keypad could allow anything from one cent to five dollars. This could be rolled out trialed in pilot program in key greenie regions such as in Oregon. With right promo, could get extra revenue for roads. State DOT must adhere to strictly using the extra funds for roads.
By 2032, the Congress will have already kicked out the early 62 age some amount of years. Maybe no "early" at all and "full" at say 70.
Would not have to think about higher gas taxes if our country had not almost totally abandoned planning/building more nuclear about 3 decades ago. The plug-in car from GM and other mfrs could get power from clean source.
Why wouldn't a person be entitled to social security and medicare benefits, when it is their own and their employer's money that the government has taken and supposedly held for their retirement? That is the basis of social security. If that isn't the purpose of social security then the government is guilty of thievery on a scale far beyond belief, and to which I'm sure would be the downfall of the government, in whatever manner.
If people here chastise the common man because they should save far more then they do, then you have your head up your hind. :mad: You can't have it both ways of saying people should save more, while the government collects 15% (from the employee and employer) + Medicare.
I find it morally reprehensible and worthy of a serfdom-society, of what you think is OK.
I don't see the American sheeple being able to unite enough to make downfall for this broken system. If it got too bad, the powers that be would just hire mercenaries to fire on the crowds. Martial law, slaughter the opposition, move on.
A serfdom society...that's what the globalists want...
I always believed something Gen George Patton said, and it worked with his army - "Hit 'em in the pocket book, and you'll get their attention". With the low savings that most people have, and as I said above - due quite a bit to collecting pay that otherwise the employee could take-home, people would take any elimination of social security very, very seriously".
Similarly I don't see politicians rushing out to directly increase taxes on gasoline, because of the uproar this would cause. Instead you'll see these underhanded pols trying hidden taxes like Cap-N-Trade on CO2.
If you follow the news in Europe, you'll see the frequent strikes to protest the high taxes. I've seen French truckers shutdown the highways in protest. High taxes can and do push societies to shutdown at least temporarily.
Gas taxes are politicial suicide, as the economy is showing no true signs of recovery, and we are skating on thin ice when it comes to inflation.
The French strike an insane amount...but what progress is really being made there, in the long term?
They can probably be rallied to oppose a higher gas tax, but will not take the time from American Idle, fawning over actresses, actors, Bachelor, Dance, etc., to truly understand what is/has been going on in DC. They just believe the network news and spoon fed 5-minute news(?) spots that interfere with radio talk shows and dumb music.
I would not count on those being good pre-tax investments either. You did listen to the rhetoric during the Campaign. The tax break by individuals saving in their 401k pension fund is targeted to raise more tax, by our present administration.
I have been using some post-tax investments in my Roth IRA. I am young enough that it makes more sense from a tax standpoint. YMMV. I didn't hear anything during the campaign that would adversely affect my 401k. That said, if they created a Roth 401k, I would consider that too.
One nice thing is next year there is a free-be year for Roth conversions, with no salary cap and 2 years to pay the tax. I assume they are doing it as a fundraiser for the Federal government. Having recently changed jobs and having that 401k to rolloverIRA money sitting there, I can convert it to a RothIRA and give me a big pile of non-taxable retirement savings. Okay not as big a pile as I'd like, but enough to get a Whopper value meal...small
are correct that the younger generation will have to pay for the current spending. Gas tax is not the way to do it. Voting against tax and spend politicians is your only chance at survival. Term limits on a corrupt Congress. Limiting the powers of the Presidency, that seem to be limitless at this juncture.
Yeah I can't believe what the last administration got away with...spying on its own people and torturing. This new guy just fires CEOs of private corporations.
I don't see the gas tax as helping with the debt really, just as a way to change behavior, like the tax on cigarettes or alcohol. I would also legalize some other things, tax them too, and unburden the prison system.
I wouldn't be too worried about it, as noted its political suicide, never mind that its the right thing to do...
A person has or had the right to keep the fruits of their own labor and own property.
Some wise Justice once said:
" The power to tax is the power to destroy"
The quality of human life in the last century has increased dramatically due in part to the use of petroleum products. Our life span in 1900 was approximately 42 years of age.
Left alone the market which is the sum total of the ingeneuity of the human mind free to find solutions will continue to make things better, faster and cheaper.
If we could just stop the "World Improvers", from helping us gas would cost 50 cents per gallon and new wonderous technologies would arise on their own. Creative Destruction.
Do we not remember the endless experiments in centrally planned economies in the 20th century???????
It is always a battle between stasiss and dynamisim, slavery vs. freedom.
Really!! Speaking of "getting away with", the current admin is no slouch. Starting back a couple months ago with the stimulus/budget bill huge document, hundreds of pages long loaded with pork. The admin and Ms Pelosi intentionally did not allow sufficient time for Congress to read/review/peruse/digest details before quickly calling for a vote. Just one example of the out-of-control admin and Congress.
Spying/torturing - See Post 805. Liberal and biased media obviously did its job in informing(?) and molding the minds of the sheepile.
Don't see that media has made any kind of issue about oil/gasoline prices since new admin took office in Jan. Gasoline at the pump up at least 50 percent with new admin. But, maybe Obama would rather that oil/gasoline prices zoom up so that he can more easily promote some of his flaky energy plans without having to bring up issue of raising gas taxes.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-06-04-foreclose-mortgage-seni- ors_N.htm
If the government wants to collect extra money for road-projects or public transportation, they should go no further then to put a special tax on anyone in the financial and banking industries who made over $200K/year in the last 10 years. There are many people who walked away with tons of money, creating bubbles, sucking peoples' investments in, and left them with not much more than a mirage.
People will now need SS, Medicare, and no new taxes to cope with these losses, from the system that our government allowed to operate, and encouraged in many cases.
Husband had no way of knowing wife would contract Alzheimer's disease.
I don't agree with his taking out a loan at the age which leaves him where he is today, with a mortgage.
I'm his age and saved for our present home, paying cash 1999.
Between 18 & 22 I learned about FDR's Supplemental Social Security Act & learned then the KEY word is "Supplemental"..it was never intended to be a mainline retirement fund, but intended to augment our individual savings & investment programs throughout our productive years. We have been savers and investers since 1954 which sacrificed our standard of living to be less than what it could have been.
Today's high income folk do not deserve to be taxed more due to their wise frugality of the past. All should pay the same.
In theory, yes, but unfortunately the base of that pyramid is starting to crumble. When Social security was first enacted, I think there was something like 21 workers putting in, for every retiree. Today it's something like 3 or 5 workers per retiree.
One problem is that people just don't have a bunch of kids like they used to. I think both of my Granddads had something like 6 or 7 siblings...but they lived on farms, where that was more common I guess. But then my grandparents only had 3 kids on my Dad's side, and only 2 on my Mom's. My Mom & Dad only had me. And I don't plan on having kids.
Another thing that might be putting pressure on SS is federal employees. In the past, they didn't put into SS, but they didn't collect it either, unless they had enough "quarters" in. However, since around 1983, they started phasing out those federal pensions, and anyone hired after that now puts into SS. So I don't know what the net effect was...whether that helped SS or hurt it more?
Social Security was never meant to be enough to retire on, but it was meant to make for a nice supplement. I think I read somewhere, though, that for something like 60% of all retirees, social security is all they have.
The public sector pension plans are going to cause just as much of a meltdown, and probably stir a lot of resentment and anger from those who worked in the real world and weren't able to get into the "30 in - out with 80%" scheme that a lot of retiring boomer public servants were able to get away with. On a per retiree basis, those have to be a lot more of a drain on the system than simple SS benefits.
By the time I retire, the average age for hanging em up will probably be 70 or more, and any SS I collect might pay for food or leisure, but maybe not much else. Of course, the losers in the last election believe we are headed to a Soviet hell, so I'll have socialized marginal quality housing available gratis anyway :shades:
Remember who wars are fought to benefit...
A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the "best path forward" to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion."
Fuel tax could be replaced with by-the-mile road tax (McClatchy)
I used to have my electric meter read remotely in Anchorage. The truck would drive down the street and pick up the radio signals; fast, accurate, no dog bites or tromping through the snow. Here, they still do it manually, and some months they skip my house and "estimate" my usage or they just misread the dial.
I don't think I'd like a pay by the mile system where you'd have to keep track and submit your own odometer readings, even if it was an IRS additional line item. The more automatic the better. Doing an annual smog test is a pain, now I have to fool with another form?
Then nothing is perfect.
That's a great idea: base tax on number of people benefitting from being allowed to use a road in the car. Think how much tax we could collect and spend in DC. We could call it the "capital rally tax" since it's per capita. Most people would never catch on to how sneaky it is as a new tax because they'd be busy being impressed by the name, same as with "cap and trade."
We could include pets in the chip implantation because we could say it's to help protect and care for the pets, and we can tax their use of roads as well for people who take their pets with them.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Digital Angel does talk about GPS and RFID herd management on their web page.
Who would pay for retrofitting the existing fleet of vehicles? And if these were like Speedpass and not built-in (installation labor?) to the ECM or such for hundreds of different models, I could just sit this little transmitter on the shelf in the garage every other day?
I think gas-tax should stay collected at the gas pump, except those with electric vehicles would get charged a flat-fee each year.
Big whoop, they could stick a Saturday night special in my face at the pump and fill up on my tab too.
Does everyone stay up nights thinking up all these nightmare scenarios? No wonder parents won't let their kids walk to the bus stop - Freddy Krueger is on every corner. Sheesh.