Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Friedman: Oil Prices, Gas Tax, Energy Policy

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2211245]Depends on what your purpose is. Personally, I want cheap transportation costs. Removing Subsidies will increase my costs exponentially.

    I suppose if your goal is to go "green", then removing the subsidies may do some good, althogh I doubt it would have the end effect you assume. Most folks will simply suck it up and pay more per gallon.

    All comes down to goals, why you do things, and what you want to see come out of it.[/QUOTE]

    I want cheap transportation costs too but I don't think all taxpayers should have to pay for it.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2212260]I want cheap transportation costs too but I don't think all taxpayers should have to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

    We all pay for it, one way (taxes going to subsidies) or the other (high gasoline prices at the pump).

    Take your pick, screwed either way. But adding yet another Tax on top of either option isn't exactly appealing.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2212265]We all pay for it, one way (taxes going to subsidies) or the other (high gasoline prices at the pump).

    Take your pick, screwed either way. But adding yet another Tax on top of either option isn't exactly appealing.[/QUOTE]

    I'd rather do it the ol' fashioned way. Pay to play. Usually when the gov't gets involved, it screws something up.

  4. #24
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,005
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2212049]One of the lobby groups that would defeat it is the Auto workers who would make sure the Democrats would defeat this bill. I love how this phoney scenario wouldn't be allowed to happen because of Republicans in the hands of big oil when the Democrats have consistently tried to make an issue out of high oil prices.[/QUOTE]

    Yeh I see your point... and Dems and Repubs really have nothing to do with this...but don't you think that this can come down to properly framing the issue?

    The American auto industry and by extension the UAW have been suffering big time with layoffs, decreased profits, etc., etc. why couldn't this be framed as a chance for U.S. Auto to reinvigorate itself... truly compete with the Japanese imports and showcase American innovation... all while making us independent of OPEC... aka Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan... etc. etc.

    Maybe I'm being idealistic with this... but I don't see it as so much of a stretch, especially when a new president comes in wielding his early political clout.

  5. #25
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,005
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2210874]I did like that, yes.:D

    Again my friend, theory is great. Wake me when that theory means something, i.e. is actually reflective of reality.

    A $1.00 gas Tax was and is Political Suicide (same excuse Dems give for not defunding the War they hate so deeply). And removing Oil Subsidies won;t change a thing, that cost will get passed on, and the everyday American will get shafted, same as always. Gas at $3 or Gas at $10, I still gotta get to work.

    And again, the Govt COULD do alot of things, doesn't mean they ever will in the real world. A Gas Tax does not mean a reduced Payroll Tax, never has, never will, no matter how much logic or theory it may have behind it. It's a weak argument frankly, backed by...um....nothing but more theorycraft.

    Eh, sorry man, call me a realist on this one. I'd love to believe this article, but I know enough to know it's all exactly what it seems: theoretical nonsense, and nothing more. It's akin, in it's "we shoulda..." vibe as articles I've read on Clinton and Terrorism pre-Bush. Yea, he "coulda" done alot of things....but the real world works as it works, and he didn't. Hindsight and theorycraft do not mean much today.[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough... but I don't agree with terming it as "theory." The term theory presupposes outcome no?

    We're not talking about what would happen if. We're talking about how a specific course of action, if followed, would aid our situation of energy independence to countries hostile to us. I take it that you agree that IF this happened, albeit a big if, it would most likely have the favorable outcome that Friedman outlined.

    You feel that this IF, this course of action, is improbable.

    I see it as more than possible, especially with the right leadership.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=bigalbarracuda;2212516]Fair enough... but I don't agree with terming it as "theory." The term theory presupposes outcome no?

    We're not talking about what would happen if. We're talking about how a specific course of action, if followed, would aid our situation of energy independence to countries hostile to us. I take it that you agree that IF this happened, albeit a big if, it would most likely have the favorable outcome that Friedman outlined.

    You feel that this IF, this course of action, is improbable.

    I see it as more than possible, especially with the right leadership.[/QUOTE]

    Have to agree to disagree then my friend. I see it very much as a "What would happen in a theoretical world if..." type of article/argument.

    It is simply not a real world scenario in any form. And no, I don't neccessarily agree with the premise either.....this issue is far too compicated for a simple $1.00 Gas Tax increase to solve everything like magic. It assumes a massive amount not nearly in evidence.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=bigalbarracuda;2212500]Yeh I see your point... and Dems and Repubs really have nothing to do with this...but don't you think that this can come down to properly framing the issue?

    The American auto industry and by extension the UAW have been suffering big time with layoffs, decreased profits, etc., etc. why couldn't this be framed as a chance for U.S. Auto to reinvigorate itself... truly compete with the Japanese imports and showcase American innovation... all while making us independent of OPEC... aka Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan... etc. etc.

    Maybe I'm being idealistic with this... but I don't see it as so much of a stretch, especially when a new president comes in wielding his early political clout.[/QUOTE]

    The idea that the US auto industry is going to prosper from higher gas prices seems a little far fetched since the US auto industry and the UAW have both fought tooth and nail to preserve the highest CAFE standards they possibly can. Why? the US auto makers have become dependent on Truck and SUV sales and is behind the curve in real world fuel efficiency.

    The good thing both the European and Japanese car makers who will benifit greatly from higher oil prices are getting creamed by the lower US dollar. They will have to build more of their vehicles in the US to continue growing sales in this country.

  8. #28
    Winnie I really think that the oil lobby would fight this much more than the auto unions, and yes I think it is very true that the oil lobby has more influence on Republicans than they do on Democrats (not to say that they have NO influence on the Dems just more on the Repubs). I think also that the auto unions have greatly diminished power compared to what they used to have mainly because of the American auto industry is so weak. I also don't see why the unions would fight this so much. It's not people would have less cars. They would just be a bit more frugal in how much and how far they drive.

    Warfish I did say in my post that this would never happen so no I am not naive. I'm just saying it would be a good idea, and yes the oil lobby would not be the only reason this measure couldn't pass. The phobia that exists in Congress on raising any type of tax would be the main reason.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2213607]Winnie I really think that the oil lobby would fight this much more than the auto unions, and yes I think it is very true that the oil lobby has more influence on Republicans than they do on Democrats (not to say that they have NO influence on the Dems just more on the Repubs). I think also that the auto unions have greatly diminished power compared to what they used to have mainly because of the American auto industry is so weak. I also don't see why the unions would fight this so much. It's not people would have less cars. They would just be a bit more frugal in how much and how far they drive.

    Warfish I did say in my post that this would never happen so no I am not naive. I'm just saying it would be a good idea, and yes the oil lobby would not be the only reason this measure couldn't pass. The phobia that exists in Congress on raising any type of tax would be the main reason.[/QUOTE]

    The auto Union has fought CAFE standards on cars for years and the Dems have caved into them for years. You just haven't been paying attention because this doesn't fit your agenda of blaming the Republicans for using so much oil while democrats are riding bicycles, living in houses with Solar Power and putting up wind mills in sight of Hyanis.

  10. #30
    I just don't see why it's a good idea. I already realize that I need to conserve oil because it's hurting my wallet and I expect it to continue. I'm looking for fuel efficient cars and am trying to move closer to work to remedy this. I don't need the gub'mint to tax me more because they realize this as well.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2213746]The auto Union has fought CAFE standards on cars for years and the Dems have caved into them for years. You just haven't been paying attention because this doesn't fit your agenda of blaming the Republicans for using so much oil while democrats are riding bicycles, living in houses with Solar Power and putting up wind mills in sight of Hyanis.[/QUOTE]

    Winnie I'm surprised at you for such a partisan rant. I thought you were above that. If you read my post I said that I think a fed tax would be a different proposition then their past efforts against the CAFE standards.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2214099]Winnie I'm surprised at you for such a partisan rant. I thought you were above that. If you read my post I said that I think a fed tax would be a different proposition then their past efforts against the CAFE standards.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think it would be. I don't support the Federal government using taxation as a means to reduce consumer spending. Taxation should be used to raise the revenue needed to run an efficient government. The whole concept of taxes being used to create behavior is a total abuse of power. I'm against all sin taxes and all deductions. I don't believe the federal government needs more revenue, I feel just the opposite.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-17-2007 at 05:06 PM.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,931
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2214114]Taxation should be used to raise the revenue needed to run an efficient government...[/QUOTE]

    That's what I get robbed for every week?

    I think were all getting ripped off...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us