Foreign Policy lists five reasons to love $4 gasoline. And it's true, expensive gas has a lot of public benefits. And if we made gasoline more expensive through, say, higher gas taxes or a carbon tax then not only would we secure the public health, congestion, and environmental benefits of expensive gas but the government would have a good source of revenue with which to mitigate some of the consumer pain. As things stand, gas is expensive (and getting pricier) anyway, but oil companies and oil-exporting nations are reaping a huge share of the benefits.
« Every Vote Is Equal | Main | Today in Constitution-Shredding »
The Love
19 Jun 2008 04:19 pm
Comments (55)
What's next in this string of rewards????????
$10 loaf of bread?
$50 bag of dog food??
I just can't wait to reap the benefits!
Good thing we have the Republicans keeping the Democrats from passing a gas tax, so the extra money the public was willing to pay for gas didn't go to any kind of public benefit! I say, hell no to that! Why do it when you can fill up the trust funds of pansy-ass Republican rich kids who hate everyone but themselves? AWESOME!!!
Yes, let's take several hundred billion dollars out of people's pockets and give it to some of the largest corporations on earth.
Sure, it will make those people poorer, and throw many of them out of work...
But it will cut down on non-essential driving! And it will force them to walk, making them trimmer! And because they are poorer they will eat less, thus making them slimmer!
Why stop there? Let's try to be like those countries that have 1000% inflation, like Zimbabwe! Look how healthy they are! Look how little congestion they have there! And look at how small their carbon footprint is!
Poverty and Inflation: the new Progressive panacea!
Expensive gas sucks when you have to do a lot of driving, but what really sucks is the volatility and the unpredictability of it -- and the lack of viable alternatives here in American to driving.
I remember gas prices briefly dipped below 90 cents/gal in (IIRC) early 1998. So, in the course of a decade the nominal price of gas has increased nearly five fold. Imagine back then if we had planned to guarantee ourselves such an increase in the price at the pump via a regular, scheduled series of gas tax increases (say, $.12/gal every four months, or whatever). Had we followed such a course or action back then, we'd be a lot better off now.
As someone with a city house that is about 4 miles from downtown and is easy walking distance from the train, restaurants, and schools AND has a bus stop on the property, my house has started to go up noticeably in value as gas prices increase. So I'm fine with expensive gas.
(Seriously, there are a ton of people selling in our area, including our neighbors. At first I thought it was because of the housing crisis -- there were no buyers -- but then I learned that home values have shot up in our neighborhood in the past year or two due to people trying to move back from the burbs.)
It's nice of them to say this now. In 1994 John Kerry proposed a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. Bush pilloried him for it in the 2004 election. Did Foreign Policy print articles saying what a great idea it was? Or is it only when the money goes to Exxon that it becomes something to love?
Even with a carbon tax, oil companies would still reap a huge share of the benefits of high oil prices. A carbon tax would enlarge the "excess revenues" pie, and give government a slice of it, but oil companies probably wouldn't be affected too adversely (given that demand destruction so far has been quite small).
Since 1956 when we established the Federal Gas Tax abd the Highway Trust Fund, the lawyers inside the Beltway have plundered it for pork. Not better highways or new exploration or more efficient cars for the most part - rank pork. Like the bridges to nowhere, highways only meant for land developers that pay off the right Senate Appropriator like Dodd, Byrd, Sen. Stevens.
Since 1956, the Feds have taken more cents on each gallon than Evil Big Oil (now running only 6% of the world's oil fields). The states have an average sales tax nearly double that of the Fed tax.
On their smaller revenue, oil companies have been enormously productive- finding new fields, boosting efficiencies. Federal and State highway revenue? Not a cent went to finding more energy or development of more efficient autos and trucks.
And a huge new tax is supposed to change the behavior of 50+ years in our centers of Government corruption, pay to play, million-buck-a-year lobbyists...
Fat chance.
I trust the consumer and the investor that seeks out oil firms that are valued on how much energy they find and produce each year. I don't trust government to do anything with the money they get on each gallon, already 5 to 11 times that the oil companies make, except squander it and spread it around to cronies and parasites. In many cases we are talking about the grandkids of the original looters and pillagers of gas taxes, perpetuating the same cheesy scams and pork dispensing as 50 years ago. So steady has it been, that Federal and State gas tax plundering is now seen as almost a family right and legacy of the well-connected.
Higher gasoline prices are the strong medice we need to move away from a car dependant society. If we were smart, we'd be doing everthing possible to prepare for the day when gasoline can't be had *at any price*. Social critic Jim Kunstler has had a lot to say on the subject and is well worth checking out. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
by saying that foreign governments reap a huge "share" of the benefits, are you suggesting that it's possible to raise taxes on gas sufficiently to depress actual value? Or do you just mean to suggest that the "share" of US gov't revenue would be a "share" as part of an artificially increased total cost?
Foreign Policy lists five reasons to love $4 gasoline.
The five reasons listed are:
1. The mass transit boom
2. Lower obesity rates
3. Fewer accidents
4. Shorter commutes
5. The biofuels craze.
The first four of these alleged benefits of higher gas prices are all attributed to less driving. You do realize, don't you, that by promoting the use of smaller and more fuel-efficient cars you are in fact promoting more driving, and thus working against these supposed benefits? The more fuel-efficient our cars become, and the more we switch from gasoline to other fuel sources for our cars, the lower the incentive to reduce driving in response to higher gas prices.
Also, the piece offers no argument as to why more mass transit should be considered a benefit in itself. The "shorter commutes" claim is also highly misleading. Whether or average commuting distance has declined, commutes by mass transit generally take about twice as much time as commutes by car, and I suspect most people value saving time more highly than saving distance.
Do oil companies pay taxes on profits? I thought they did...
"...secure the public health, congestion, and environmental benefits of expensive gas..." through higher taxes?
Really?
Sebastian wrote:
Do oil companies pay taxes on profits? I thought they did...
100% of a $2.00-a-gallon increase going to taxes is a lot more than 20% of it, or whatever the tax on the oil companies' profits might be.
So Matt doesn't mind the high prices, he just wishes he'd caused them. He wishes that the government were getting the money, because then it could give it back to the consumers buying the product to mitigate their pain. Which would mean that the prices aren't really high. He must mean he's in favor of giving it back to only a favored group of consumers--that's the point of government.
Listen, I think it's very good high-minded punditry to back a carbon tax.
But is it perhaps way more important to note that the majority of the American people think domestic drilling would help lower gas prices--substantially, and soon.
This is wrong, just like the gas tax was wrong. But Hillary ain't backing drilling, so you can expect to see a lot of "clever Republicans have cleverly made this an issue" reorting, and ZERO reporting of the fact that openng ANWR and offshore drillng will, by a most optmistic projection, lower the cost of gas something like 20 cents a gallon starting in 2015. That's the best-case scenario.
Carbon tax nagging is fun, but it's a lot more important to ensure this doesn't become a "dems are blocking Republican plans to make gas cheaper."
Call out the deceitful pandering, regularly and often. I beg you!
We shouldn't forget other "unintended" consequences. About two hundred miles to the north of you live a lot of poor farmers who can't afford to run their farms anymore because of these prices.
They own acres of land that happen to sit upon a huge natural gas deposit. The problem is, the natural gas is below a substantial shale deposit.
So now companies (including Halliburton, I hear) are rushing in to do horizontal drilling, which involves pushing chemical laden water into the aquifer to blast the rock. We don't even know what the chemicals are (Cheney's law got rid of the right to know).
They are offering these poor farmers poultry sums of cash for "leasing rights." Some people have already bought in.
Now hundreds of Halliburton trucks will be wasting tons of gas in order to pump out tons of water in order to fill it full of chemicals in order to destroy the aquifer in order to make short term gain.
This thing is being expedited by the NYS Assembly like lightning -- they're voting on legislation to give the horizontal drilling special exemptions.
Oy!
And this area is the home of New York City's drinking water.
Anyway, so much for that great news about the price of gas.
We shouldn't forget other "unintended" consequences. About two hundred miles to the north of you live a lot of poor farmers who can't afford to run their farms anymore because of these prices.
They own acres of land that happen to sit upon a huge natural gas deposit. The problem is, the natural gas is below a substantial shale deposit.
So now companies (including Halliburton, I hear) are rushing in to do horizontal drilling, which involves pushing chemical laden water into the aquifer to blast the rock. We don't even know what the chemicals are (Cheney's law got rid of the right to know).
They are offering these poor farmers poultry sums of cash for "leasing rights." Some people have already bought in.
Now hundreds of Halliburton trucks will be wasting tons of gas in order to pump out tons of water in order to fill it full of chemicals in order to destroy the aquifer in order to make short term gain.
This thing is being expedited by the NYS Assembly like lightning -- they're voting on legislation to give the horizontal drilling special exemptions.
Oy!
And this area is the home of New York City's drinking water.
Anyway, so much for that great news about the price of gas.
Sorry about the unintended double-post!
$4.00 gasoline might have some net positives if it included, say, $2.00 worth of taxes that went to building infrastructure, subsidized alternative energy research, or simply paid for our massive deficit.
But of course, that's not the case in the U.S. We pay $0.18 federal plus different amounts of state taxes instead. The rest goes to the oil companies.
Notice, Matt, the level of anger this post evokes, even amongst your readers, who presumably broadly agree with you on this issue?
You're right that in some ways, rising gas prices have advantages in that they encourage less driving. But I think it's obvious that this is something liberals should NEVER EVER say aloud, at least not until next october. It seems to me that there is no single more effective rhetorical bludgeon for the republicans than "The democrats are GLAD gas prices are so high." If there's a single meme that could give McCain a shot, I'd argue that's it.
You've probably noticed from the comments on your recent bike-blogging that, partisan affiliations aside, people tend to get VERY angry when you suggest interfering with their driving habits. Right or wrong, this is a political fact. So unless you think John McCain is going to make bike racks for dirty hippies a priority of his administration, I'd suggest laying off the benefits of high gas prices for the moment.
Gas averages about $8.00 a gallon in Europe (up to $16/gallon at some gas stations in England). I'm pretty sure that they'd love $4/gallon gas.
You know how all the stereotypes about arrogant, elitist liberals are born? Idiot posts like this, from Matthew "I live in a big city and can take the subway all the time so fuck all the peasants who have to drive" Yglesias.
You know how all the stereotypes about arrogant, elitist liberals are born? Idiot posts like this, from Matthew "I live in a big city and can take the subway all the time so fuck all the peasants who have to drive" Yglesias.
Before charging any creative new carbon taxes or raising the gasoline sales tax, how about first eliminating all the oil companies' extra-special deductions, credits and subsidies! Let the market price adjust to what it will, before overlaying another complicated tax structure.
The oil depreciation allowance is among the most ridiculous, least justifiable tax privileges in American history. Repealing it would be be an excellent start.
AAA reports that record numbers of people are literally running out of gas on my state's roads.
Do you really think these are middle income people who can afford to buy new hybrids? Do you really think these people can afford to live on the proverbial west side?
The reason lower income people choose to live in the suburbs rather than the inner city - apart from personal safety and the safety of their families - is the prospect of getting their kids a decent education.
And lower income people in rural areas are unlikely to ever have an alternative to driving.
There are fuel protests in Europe.
But for once, the Huffington Post has something positive: carbon-negative oil secreted by bugs.
As a small-time musician who will be doing some touring this summer with a band, high gas prices certainly will not benefit me. We expect to actually lose money by the end of the tour.
But I'm not so myopic as to only care about my own troubles or to believe that everybody must pity my suffering. As much as I and others really hate the thought, high gas prices are very beneficial. It's a sacrifice we all have to make. And trust me, I'll be making a bigger sacrifice than most of you here.
People denouncing Yglesias have no comprehension of the environmental problems caused by excess carbon emissions. To me, problems of congestion and whatnot are just part of the package deal.
The only problem is that the government isn't getting much of the money we spend on gas, and oil companies are getting quite a lot from it! The solution to both of these problems, of course, is to tax gasoline!
Let me put it bluntly: I am a libertarian and I fully support higher gas taxes coupled with lower other taxes. What now, bitches?
How about not touring? Or earn the Yglesias Seal of Approval by touring via bicycle or something.
Welcome to the UK.
I don't know what the ultimate fallout of high gas prices will be. However, I have to wonder: did people really think that $1 - $2/gallon gas was going to last forever?
I know that planning for the future isn't a human forte, but still-- people had to see this coming. Maybe not as quickly as it has, but the writing was on the wall.
The big missing element in gas/fuel prices is the global market. If the US were to reduce consumption, by whatever means, global supply would increase. The rest of the world would experience an increase in supply, and lower prices. Lower prices would be a dis-incentive to reduce consumption, and many actually increase it.
So only a global policy will actually work to reduce overall consumption. A rational policy would reduce burning of oil products to near zero for a very simple reason: oil is a finite resource, hard to renew, and useful as a raw material for many industrial products. No one questions why we no longer use wood to heat our houses. It makes even less sense to burn oil. A tree can regrow in 50-100 years and is easy to find.
Do oil companies pay taxes on profits?
Personally, I vote for nationalization.
Personally, I vote for nationalization, too, so we can replicate the stunning economic success of the Soviets and Chinese of yore. And since nationalization is such a good way to make things more efficient, why not nationalize all environmental groups and the Democratic Party as well? It's a win-win!
One suggestion, Matt. Find your intro to economics textbook. And this time, read it, especially the part on elasticity of supply and demand.
Matthew:
Just where did you study your economics? Social Engineering Univ.??
The irony that so-called progressives who so loudly claim they are working for the working class and poor while at the same time clamoring for every higher fuel taxes and prices is amazing.
Have you ever considered who takes the biggest hit in the pocket (in terms of percentage of income devoted to driving)? While the rich, whom you deride, may drive larger vehicles and drive more, they will spend a smaller percentage of their disposable income on fuel than the working class and poor. The result then of higher fuel costs?? The working class and poor are stuck with ever higher bills for fuel. Note I'm using the term fuel here as that includes heating oil. We have to include that in our policy as again the poor and working class pay a higher percentage of income for heating costs.
Who has the greater flexibility to quickly adjust the vehicle they drive or mode of transportation? Again the upper middle class and rich. They can much more quicly garage the expensive BMW and buy a hybrid or a used fuel-mizer car than the working class.
In your kneeling before the altar of social engineering you fail to take into account the relative inelasticity of gas. People, again especially the poor and working class, simply cannot adapt as quickly to rapid increases in fuel costs as they could to something less important as say soda or junk food. If were to lay a tax on junk food one could very easily adapt your eating and spending habits on for Doritos and Coca-Cola. Much more easily than for filling up your car.
The idea of lower obesity rates is mentioned as a benefit of higher prices. You have got to be kidding. Which you do think would have a bigger impact on obesity - supposedly forcing people to walk to work/public trans. more or laying a higher tax specifically on junk food? Say to the extent of doubling the cost of junk food?
I currently live in Northern Va/DC area and routinely take public trans to work. Have any of you seriously considered walking 1 or 2 miles in the summer heat and humidity of DC to an office job, in business dress. Forget it.
One theme that often stands out among the progressives is the need for the U.S. to be more like Europe. While we could debate the why of this, let's focus in this case on the how. Physically Europe is MUCH smaller than the U.S. For example, France with 64 million people is about the size of Texas. Germany, slightly smaller than Montana, has 82 million. Then the U.K. has an even higher population density still. It is small wonder that public transportation is much more widely used there than here in the U.S. From a logistics standpoint it simply makes sense. At a personal level, with the much higher gas prices there, it further makes sense.
As to so-called alternative sources, I, even as a free-market person, believe in aggressively pursuing those options. This is through both private-sector and public sector research and funding. I can think of many economic and national security reasons for that. But we have to be honest, unless we see a massive deployment of all electric or electric-gas hybrids (like the in-development Chevy Volt) we will continue to need good, old petroleum to move our vehicles. Wishful thinking for solar panels (rapidly advancing in terms of cost-effectiveness, but still not competitive) or wind-power (I'm all for it as it is cost competitive) will not solve our need for gas.
On a tangent, while wind-power is a great idea and the U.S. has expanded its wind power production considerably recently, why are we seeing opposition often from environmental groups to proposed wind turbine projects? A recent DOE study concluded that a massive public-private sector effort could have us producing about 20% of our electrical needs in about 20 years from wind-power. Pretty impressive stuff, but as this article points out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121382784900886363.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks) these projects are often critiqued for upsetting sight-lines, killing birds (though the estimated number is dwarfed by those killed by the common housecat), etc.
Simply put, any effort to solving our energy needs has to be a multi-faceted effort. Conservation through personal efforts and more efficient cars, increased drilling to make us less vulnerable to oil shocks (remember the oil shocks of the 70s?), alternative - mainly wind right now and solar as it become more competitive, and that dreaded N word - nuclear.
Progressives - you cannot have it both ways. Decry the "evil" oil companies, then limit refining capacity or limit drilling. Cry out for alternative then oppose wind farms and hydro-electric. Oppose nuclear when France solve most of her electrical needs through an exceptionally safe program. Oh and let's not forget that one of the original founders of Greenpeace has come out to strongly advocate nuclear.
What will it be progressives? Continue the blame one side game when all sides are responsible for this mess or put that aside, roll up our sleeves and get down to work?
K
Matthew:
Just where did you study your economics? Social Engineering Univ.??
The irony that so-called progressives who so loudly claim they are working for the working class and poor while at the same time clamoring for every higher fuel taxes and prices is amazing.
Have you ever considered who takes the biggest hit in the pocket (in terms of percentage of income devoted to driving)? While the rich, whom you deride, may drive larger vehicles and drive more, they will spend a smaller percentage of their disposable income on fuel than the working class and poor. The result then of higher fuel costs?? The working class and poor are stuck with ever higher bills for fuel. Note I'm using the term fuel here as that includes heating oil. We have to include that in our policy as again the poor and working class pay a higher percentage of income for heating costs.
Who has the greater flexibility to quickly adjust the vehicle they drive or mode of transportation? Again the upper middle class and rich. They can much more quicly garage the expensive BMW and buy a hybrid or a used fuel-mizer car than the working class.
In your kneeling before the altar of social engineering you fail to take into account the relative inelasticity of gas. People, again especially the poor and working class, simply cannot adapt as quickly to rapid increases in fuel costs as they could to something less important as say soda or junk food. If were to lay a tax on junk food one could very easily adapt your eating and spending habits on for Doritos and Coca-Cola. Much more easily than for filling up your car.
The idea of lower obesity rates is mentioned as a benefit of higher prices. You have got to be kidding. Which you do think would have a bigger impact on obesity - supposedly forcing people to walk to work/public trans. more or laying a higher tax specifically on junk food? Say to the extent of doubling the cost of junk food?
I currently live in Northern Va/DC area and routinely take public trans to work. Have any of you seriously considered walking 1 or 2 miles in the summer heat and humidity of DC to an office job, in business dress. Forget it.
One theme that often stands out among the progressives is the need for the U.S. to be more like Europe. While we could debate the why of this, let's focus in this case on the how. Physically Europe is MUCH smaller than the U.S. For example, France with 64 million people is about the size of Texas. Germany, slightly smaller than Montana, has 82 million. Then the U.K. has an even higher population density still. It is small wonder that public transportation is much more widely used there than here in the U.S. From a logistics standpoint it simply makes sense. At a personal level, with the much higher gas prices there, it further makes sense.
As to so-called alternative sources, I, even as a free-market person, believe in aggressively pursuing those options. This is through both private-sector and public sector research and funding. I can think of many economic and national security reasons for that. But we have to be honest, unless we see a massive deployment of all electric or electric-gas hybrids (like the in-development Chevy Volt) we will continue to need good, old petroleum to move our vehicles. Wishful thinking for solar panels (rapidly advancing in terms of cost-effectiveness, but still not competitive) or wind-power (I'm all for it as it is cost competitive) will not solve our need for gas.
On a tangent, while wind-power is a great idea and the U.S. has expanded its wind power production considerably recently, why are we seeing opposition often from environmental groups to proposed wind turbine projects? A recent DOE study concluded that a massive public-private sector effort could have us producing about 20% of our electrical needs in about 20 years from wind-power. Pretty impressive stuff, but as this article points out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121382784900886363.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks) these projects are often critiqued for upsetting sight-lines, killing birds (though the estimated number is dwarfed by those killed by the common housecat), etc.
Simply put, any effort to solving our energy needs has to be a multi-faceted effort. Conservation through personal efforts and more efficient cars, increased drilling to make us less vulnerable to oil shocks (remember the oil shocks of the 70s?), alternative - mainly wind right now and solar as it become more competitive, and that dreaded N word - nuclear.
Progressives - you cannot have it both ways. Decry the "evil" oil companies, then limit refining capacity or limit drilling. Cry out for alternative then oppose wind farms and hydro-electric. Oppose nuclear when France solve most of her electrical needs through an exceptionally safe program. Oh and let's not forget that one of the original founders of Greenpeace has come out to strongly advocate nuclear.
What will it be progressives? Continue the blame one side game when all sides are responsible for this mess or put that aside, roll up our sleeves and get down to work?
K
Matthew:
Just where did you study your economics? Social Engineering Univ.??
The irony that so-called progressives who so loudly claim they are working for the working class and poor while at the same time clamoring for every higher fuel taxes and prices is amazing.
Have you ever considered who takes the biggest hit in the pocket (in terms of percentage of income devoted to driving)? While the rich, whom you deride, may drive larger vehicles and drive more, they will spend a smaller percentage of their disposable income on fuel than the working class and poor. The result then of higher fuel costs?? The working class and poor are stuck with ever higher bills for fuel. Note I'm using the term fuel here as that includes heating oil. We have to include that in our policy as again the poor and working class pay a higher percentage of income for heating costs.
Who has the greater flexibility to quickly adjust the vehicle they drive or mode of transportation? Again the upper middle class and rich. They can much more quicly garage the expensive BMW and buy a hybrid or a used fuel-mizer car than the working class.
In your kneeling before the altar of social engineering you fail to take into account the relative inelasticity of gas. People, again especially the poor and working class, simply cannot adapt as quickly to rapid increases in fuel costs as they could to something less important as say soda or junk food. If were to lay a tax on junk food one could very easily adapt your eating and spending habits on for Doritos and Coca-Cola. Much more easily than for filling up your car.
The idea of lower obesity rates is mentioned as a benefit of higher prices. You have got to be kidding. Which you do think would have a bigger impact on obesity - supposedly forcing people to walk to work/public trans. more or laying a higher tax specifically on junk food? Say to the extent of doubling the cost of junk food?
I currently live in Northern Va/DC area and routinely take public trans to work. Have any of you seriously considered walking 1 or 2 miles in the summer heat and humidity of DC to an office job, in business dress. Forget it.
One theme that often stands out among the progressives is the need for the U.S. to be more like Europe. While we could debate the why of this, let's focus in this case on the how. Physically Europe is MUCH smaller than the U.S. For example, France with 64 million people is about the size of Texas. Germany, slightly smaller than Montana, has 82 million. Then the U.K. has an even higher population density still. It is small wonder that public transportation is much more widely used there than here in the U.S. From a logistics standpoint it simply makes sense. At a personal level, with the much higher gas prices there, it further makes sense.
As to so-called alternative sources, I, even as a free-market person, believe in aggressively pursuing those options. This is through both private-sector and public sector research and funding. I can think of many economic and national security reasons for that. But we have to be honest, unless we see a massive deployment of all electric or electric-gas hybrids (like the in-development Chevy Volt) we will continue to need good, old petroleum to move our vehicles. Wishful thinking for solar panels (rapidly advancing in terms of cost-effectiveness, but still not competitive) or wind-power (I'm all for it as it is cost competitive) will not solve our need for gas.
On a tangent, while wind-power is a great idea and the U.S. has expanded its wind power production considerably recently, why are we seeing opposition often from environmental groups to proposed wind turbine projects? A recent DOE study concluded that a massive public-private sector effort could have us producing about 20% of our electrical needs in about 20 years from wind-power. Pretty impressive stuff, but as this article points out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121382784900886363.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks) these projects are often critiqued for upsetting sight-lines, killing birds (though the estimated number is dwarfed by those killed by the common housecat), etc.
Simply put, any effort to solving our energy needs has to be a multi-faceted effort. Conservation through personal efforts and more efficient cars, increased drilling to make us less vulnerable to oil shocks (remember the oil shocks of the 70s?), alternative - mainly wind right now and solar as it become more competitive, and that dreaded N word - nuclear.
Progressives - you cannot have it both ways. Decry the "evil" oil companies, then limit refining capacity or limit drilling. Cry out for alternative then oppose wind farms and hydro-electric. Oppose nuclear when France solve most of her electrical needs through an exceptionally safe program. Oh and let's not forget that one of the original founders of Greenpeace has come out to strongly advocate nuclear.
What will it be progressives? Continue the blame one side game when all sides are responsible for this mess or put that aside, roll up our sleeves and get down to work?
K
My apologies for the multiple postings. Issues with posting the comments resulted in three postings. Again my apologies.
K
My apologies for the multiple posts. Some glitch in the system.
Why can't the people at the Atlantic fix the problem with comments?
Why can't the people at the Atlantic fix the problem with comments?
Why can't the people at the Atlantic fix the problem with comments?
Why can't the people at the Atlantic fix the problem with comments?
Why can't the people at the Atlantic fix the problem with comments?
What a wild, wonderful thing capitalism is - that America is - how bursting with opportunities it is - that even folks with your skills are able to provide for their families.
Your stunning grasp of the issues is to be commended.
This is much better than socializing the energy sector.
Tax the life out of the working class, take a nice cut for the effort, and tell them to be thankful for the pittance you give back. Or Else!
Your stunning grasp of the issues is to be commended.
This is much better than socializing the energy sector.
Tax the life out of the working class, take a nice cut for the effort, and tell them to be thankful for the pittance you give back. Or Else!
Question... are you retarded?
Seriously... raising gas taxes so that the "government would have a good source of revenue with which to mitigate some of the consumer pain" has got to be the dumbest thing ever written in all of recorded history.
Brilliant!
Because RAISING taxes results in more "revenue" for the government...
Seriously, if the government is going to "mitigate some of the consumer pain", then why not LOWER current gas taxes, REDUCING the price of gas, thereby mitigating some of the consumer pain?
Brilliant!
Because RAISING taxes results in more "revenue" for the government...
Seriously, if the government is going to "mitigate some of the consumer pain", then why not LOWER current gas taxes, REDUCING the price of gas, thereby mitigating some of the consumer pain?
Ok. So the working mom is just supposed to get a new house closer to work or go out and buy a Prius? Well, your plan worked. Now the mom has to quit her job because she can no longer afford to pay for the gas to go to work. Oh, I forgot, she can now go on welfare since the government now has an extra revenue stream. Brilliant idea!
Ok. So the working mom is just supposed to get a new house closer to work or go out and buy a Prius? Well, your plan worked. Now the mom has to quit her job because she can no longer afford to pay for the gas to go to work. Oh, I forgot, she can now go on welfare since the government now has an extra revenue stream. Brilliant idea!
Are you really this stupid?
You want me to pay more to mitigate me having to pay more? That is what you said, BTW.
"And if we made gasoline more expensive through, say, higher gas taxes or a carbon tax then not only would we secure the public health, congestion, and environmental benefits of expensive gas but the government would have a good source of revenue with which to mitigate some of the consumer pain."
You just earned the "D-Uh Oh!" moment of the day!
Liberal.
Please, raise gas prices, and transportation prices in the process. Thereby raising the price of getting everything to market. This will functionally raise the price of everything, while putting the same number of $ in my pocket.
Then I'll have less "real" money. Oh joy. And then tax me more to boot, giving me even less money. Frabjous day!
Then add on the cost of replacing my vehicle, and moving. Brilliant. And since I live in a lower cost area, add on the increased living costs near where I work (and note the decreased benefits of living there).
WOOHOO, I'm poorer still, in fact I may be in debt now. But that's ok, I'm middle class so I can barely afford this cockamamie scheme. the lower class is shit out of luck, they're going to be unemployed by this jackassery for sure.
But who cares about the economy, or starving poor people, or food costs, we've got to save the planet. If we have to starve off the lower class and cripple the economy, so be it. If this results in less food aid to other nations and they starve to death? Who cares.
Obviously first we have to cripple the U.S. economy. We'll get around to starving off all the other nations next.
Go starvation and poverty...
Wait, sorry. I forgot we were supposed to be hiding our real goals until we'd gotten our way. Forget what I said, we're really hoping this will help you, and not trying to destroy the economy and force everyone to starve to death.
Really.
Wait, I missed the fun parts. Rising biofuel production from food, increased transportation prices, depressed economy, more unemployment...
Wow, I can't believe it. Do you love watching poor people starve as much as I do? I know I stay up late at might just to watch the infomercials of starving people worldwide, but I thought I was the only one who loved watching poor people starve to death.
I guess I'm not alone. Now with all the proponents of carbon taxes, carbon cap and trade, drilling bans, and other ways to force poor people to starve, I know I'm in a large crowd of people who love watching the poor starve.
Maybe we could televise poor people starving on it's own cable channel. I know I'd watch.
And you can count on my support of anything to raise the price of food and transportation, while damaging the economy (to reduce charitable giving). Anything to help poor people starve more often, in more places... because I care.
Comments closed July 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I love it! More money out of my pocket so that oil companies and OPEC can get richer! Yes!
Thanks, Foreign Policy!
Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 4:28 PM