Libs want a $1/gal gas tax

Do you support Friedman's $1/gal gas tax

  • Yes, it has more benefits than costs

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • No, it is a political nightmare for 2010 and 2012

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • $0.50 would be much better politically

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14
Hey you--I use public transit.

In fact that is the only time I use Gasoline. I am still trying to figure out a way to escape that.. I have considering biking but the distances are just too much as of now to make it feasible.
That's your urden to bear...Which you're shirking off onto those who pay those taxes for roads and bridges.

100% flat rate tax on mass transit and 50cents a mile for bikes and the shirker problem is solved.
NEXT......
 
Why don't they get rid of costly entitlement programs like these and use that money to help fund war?

A federal program that began as a safety net for Pacific Northwest logging communities hard-hit by battles over the spotted owl in the 1990s has morphed into a sprawling entitlement — one that ships vast amounts of money to states with little or no historic connection to timber, an analysis by The Associated Press shows.

Nicknamed "county payments," the timber program was supposed to assist counties shortchanged when national forests limited logging to protect the northern spotted owl and other endangered species.

Since becoming law in 2000, the program has distributed more than $3 billion to 700 counties in 41 states with national forests and helped fund everything from schools to libraries to jails.

The federal largesse initially focused on a handful of Western states, with Oregon alone receiving nearly $2 billion.

Spending of that magnitude, though, sparked a new timber war — this one among politicians eager to get their hands on some of the logging money.

Timber program becomes vast entitlement - Yahoo! News
 
Dodge. Why don't they do what I posted instead of taxing joe average once again?

The Iraq war was unnecessary. An unnecessary expenditure of money by the government is by definition waste. You asked about waste.

Was a waste yet . . . . spent anyways (with Dems approval). Once again, why doesn't the government stop spending so much fucking money, Congress take a pay cut for the next 5 years, and all waste and fraud in government cleaned up and that money used to pay for the war? Common sense, no?

Democrats voted against the Iraq war 147 - 110. For the ONE MILLIONTH time.
 
A dollar is a bit high but sounds like a good idea. And tax soda etc too, a few pennies added there could contribute to real stimulus in America and help rebuild the infrastructure. Time we all starting paying for the life we lead.

Firedoglake » Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)


Are you saying that the 787 billion dollar stimulus bill is not working for infra-structure??? Wasn't that what it was supposed to do?? Remember shovel ready projects??? It has not worked. What makes you think that increasing taxes on gasoline or soda would do anything but further erode our ever weakening economy??
 
Sure it was, ask the people who are glad Saddam is gone.

Saying ALL is a waste is an over-over-overstatement. :cuckoo:

I don't care who is glad Saddam is gone. There are any number of heads of state in the world whose removal would make some people glad. Would you be willing to spend several thousand American lives and a couple trillion dollars each to remove them?

yes or no


I don't want to get into another Iraq war debate... But..

I'm guessing you're a Democrat? Well if so, Both Democrats and Republicans stated that Saddam is a Threat..

If he was a threat to National Security then there's another good reason for taking him out of power..

Yes yes, you're gonna come at me with WMD bullshit again, i heard it all. But just to let you know, We have found..

1.77 metric tons of enriched
uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
agents

Chemical warheads containing
cyclosarin (a nerve agent five
times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in
powdered form meant fordispersal
over populated areas.

Even Bush admitted Saddam had no WMD's.
 
Some parents have been rewarding their kids with money for good grades. Since the kids grades are already a matter of public record, lets institute a tax on good grades.

We could institute a tax on sports games at school as well. The winner would pay a tax to have their victory recorded.

We could institute a tax on banjo strings. It might not raise much money, but it would cut down on the number of banjos in the nation.

I think if you shed hairs, they should be taxed. A flat rate for each hair shed payable daily.

We should institute a soap-scum tax. Too many people take soap for granted because there is no consequence to use more than less. We create green jobs by requiring that all drains have a device installed on them to measure how much soap scum is released into the environment and tax the hell out of it. To prevent tax evasion, we would have to imprison those who refuse to bathe.

We should institute a 'per word kindle tax'. I just don't like the kindle and think it should be taxed to the hilt.

The time has come to institute a national sunshine tax. Wherever one lives, NWS would calculate how many sunny days that location had and a flat tax per day would then be collected. The same should be done with rain. One flat tax for sunny days and a flat tax for rainy days. Cloudy days with no rain would be tax free (for now).

Good one, and I think that we should tax our pets, dogs and cats for the Co2 they release into the air. Sleeping and being awake should also invoke some kind of tax.:lol::lol:
 
Why doesn't the government stop spending so much fucking money, why doesn't Congress forgo any pay increase for the next 5 years, and why don't they reduce waste and fraud in all areas of government and use that money to pay for the war?

The Iraq war was ALL waste.

Dodge. Why don't they do what I posted instead of taxing joe average once again?

Yeah, let's have the taxpayer do nothing except feed the defense lobby.
 
I don't care who is glad Saddam is gone. There are any number of heads of state in the world whose removal would make some people glad. Would you be willing to spend several thousand American lives and a couple trillion dollars each to remove them?

yes or no


I don't want to get into another Iraq war debate... But..

I'm guessing you're a Democrat? Well if so, Both Democrats and Republicans stated that Saddam is a Threat..

If he was a threat to National Security then there's another good reason for taking him out of power..

Yes yes, you're gonna come at me with WMD bullshit again, i heard it all. But just to let you know, We have found..

1.77 metric tons of enriched
uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
agents

Chemical warheads containing
cyclosarin (a nerve agent five
times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in
powdered form meant fordispersal
over populated areas.

Even Bush admitted Saddam had no WMD's.


Our military budget is a small portion of the overall budget which has become obese with entitlement programs.
 
This was the vote to go to war with iraq;

Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

* 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
* 6 of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
* The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
o Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

* 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
* 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
* The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)


what vote was 147 to 110?
 
There should be a 100% tax on the possession of money. That would solve the entire problem.
Tax the USA back into the stone age. Just tax money in circulation at a rate of 100%.
I'll sit around my cabin and burn tires while you guys fight about it.
 
Just saw Tom Friedman propose his $1/gal gas tax again. It would pay for the war and reduce oil imports.
Gas Tax: Will Thomas Friedman Silver Bullet Work? -- Seeking Alpha

I have a new poll to see how well this would be received...

Also health care, I beleive it is Italy that pays over $8 per gallon to cover their national health care plan and those countries that have national health care average about 15% unemployment all the time. Raising the price on energy and it puts the brakes on the economy, energy effects everyone and every business. It's a job killer.

Just another example of a liberal and their total ignorance on how the economy runs.


From the link you provided.

When it comes to the massive deficits and foreign affair issues, Friedman comes to the conclusion we need to cut expenses or raise taxes. By creating a $1 per gallon gasoline tax, Friedman sees a “win-win-win-win” solution. Not only could the country wean itself off foreign oil addiction from authoritarian governments and create scores of new jobs with E.T. (Energy Technologies), the tax could also raise money to reduce our fiscal deficit, and pay for expanded healthcare coverage.
 
Last edited:
Sure tax it $1 per gallon. The law of supply and demand would still cap the price/profit big oil would make and we could pay off some debt or use it to develop alternate energy.

Actually the gas tax needs to be a % of the price and not a per gallon tax.
As demand goes down we do not have enough gasoline tax to fix our roads.

The federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. States also tax gasoline sales on a per gallon basis. Add to that other taxes, charges, and fees and you're looking at 40 cents plus per gallon. Some cities also have sales tax on gasoline (such as Chicago).

Raising the federal tax could go a long way toward reducing consumption and fattening coffers, but would ultimately do little to affect overall pricing. Crude is still based on world markets.

Reducing demand doesn't necessarliy reduce imports. Remember we produce about 7 million barrels each day. Domestic exploration, drilling, and production is greatly affected by price. You don't want to kill the goose laying your eggs do you?

90% of the oil and gas wells drilled in the U.S. are done so by "independents" - NOT major companies i.e. "Big Oil".

What's truly killing road funds is the tax exemption realised by the ethanol industry. Yet, the government is considering mandating 15% blends as opposed to the current 10%. All in the name of satisfying the whims of the agriculture industry.

Be thankful you're not in Europe paying $4-$8 per gallon.
 
L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20005-4070 Welcome To The API Website
PETROLEUM FACTS AT A GLANCE – November 2009
1. U.S. petroleum imports (crude & products) in October 2009: 10,652,000 barrels per day (October 2008: 13,202,000 b/d). [API]
2. Total imports in October 2009 as a percentage of total domestic petroleum deliveries: 56.4 percent (October 2008: 67.0 percent). [API]
3. Persian Gulf petroleum imports in August 2009 as a percentage of total imports: 16.0 percent (August 2008: 22.2 percent). [DOE]
4. Average price for a barrel of OPEC crude oil for the week ending November 6, 2009: $76.56 [DOE]
5. Average U.S. refiner acquisition cost in September 2009 for a barrel of crude oil: $68.65. [DOE]
6. U.S. crude oil production in October 2009: 5,364,000 b/d (of which 696,000 b/d was Alaskan) (October 2008: 4,669,000 b/d). U.S. production of natural gas liquids in October 2009: 2,002,000 b/d (October 2008: 1,749,000 b/d). [API]
7. U.S. marketed natural gas production in August 2009: 60.3 billion cubic feet per day (August 2008: 59.6 billion cf/d). [DOE]
8. U.S. deliveries from primary storage of motor gasoline in October 2009: 8,982,000 b/d (October 2008: 9,024,000 b/d). [API]
9. U.S. deliveries from primary storage of distillate fuel oil (home heating and diesel) in October 2009: 3,706,000 b/d (October 2008: 4,182,000 b/d). [API]
10. Total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in October 2009: 18,886,000 b/d (October 2008: 19,698,000 b/d). [API]
11. Average active rotary drilling rigs in the U.S. as of November 13, 2009: 1,101 (all-time high of 4,530 announced 12/28/81; record low of 488 announced 4/23/99). (2008 average: 1,879) [Baker Hughes Inc., Houston]
November, 2009 (F)

http://api-ec.api.org/Newsroom/upload/09_Nov_Petroleum_Facts_at_a_Glance.pdf
 

Forum List

Back
Top