Reply With Quote
I always open up the windows to get the funk out.
I love having a camera phone for that reason!
Seriously! People leave their air on all year round. Don't they want to get 6 months of cooking smells, etc. out of their house?
My house faces directly north so it gets pretty gusty in here sometimes.
I always open up the windows to get the funk out.
W leads by example.....(NOT!)
Yahoo NewsMcClellan said Tuesday the White House planned to take other steps to conserve energy and that orders were issued to staff asking them to restrict nonessential travel and to reduce use of electricity by shutting off printers, fax machines and lights.
The White House said it was reducing the size of the presidential motorcade, which numbered about a dozen vehicles in Beaumont but can run more than 20 vehicles for some trips.
COST SHARPLY UP TO RUN AIR FORCE ONE
But one of the heftiest costs of presidential travel entails flying Air Force One, a reconfigured Boeing 747-200B. Bush already has made stops in Mississippi, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana, including four in New Orleans, the low-lying city flooded by Katrina.
While precise costs were not available, Maj. Brenda Campbell, an Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon, said that as of a month ago, before Katrina struck, fuel expenses for the biggest airplane of the Air Force One fleet was $6,029 per hour, compared to $3,974 an hour in fiscal year 2004.
W off to another photo opt, all at taxpayer expense of course.
$3 isn't a change in lifestyle, THAT's what we have NOW, effectively.
A change in lifestyle is the +$2 federal tax per gallon that has been talked about for somtime. $5/gallon retail, THAT's a change in lifestyle. (and still below what most Europeans pay)
but dubya will never apply the $2 fed tax, because that would stimulate decrease in consumption, horrors!, stimluate incredible gains in gas mileage, and take $Bs out of the the pockets of his paymasters at the oilcos and put into the govt coffers where the whole nation can benefit it from it. (well, dubya would only give it to the rich + corps as another permanent tax cut, but at least $5/gal would stimulate conservation and alternatives)
I agree with most of that article, it sums up quite a bit.
I don't think the environmental regulations should be eased however.
The full environmental costs of building refineries should be bourne by those who seek to profit from it. The only way of imposing those costs are by the government taking action and putting in place the restrictions needed.
If no one wants the refineries in their back yard, so be it. Let other countries build them and get the jobs.
In the end it is better for us in many ways to wean ourselves off oil, and the sooner the better.
This whole thing is benefitting Europe, surprisingly.
European economies are twice as efficient at turning a barrel of oil into a dollar of GDP.
The US has been far too dependant on cheap oil for too long. Things are going to get more expensive, and that is that. Such a tax would go a long way towards forcing Americans to make the leap sooner and would be cheaper in the long run than not imposing them.
I think such a tax is a very good idea because it would easily provide the money for improving mass transit in this country, and THAT would make our economy MUCH more efficient and compe ive.
ing because he wasn't there soon enough, then ing about the gas he used to get there.
Why should I? I guess I should have used "spouting off" instead of "yelling". You just recycle the same old garbage. Just take the latest subject and insert it this sentence:
Shrub and Darth Vader are so stupid because they believe ________ can be solved by repug and neocon cray ass stratagies!
Is that what you meant?
Rage Against The Machine lyrics
Album: The Battle Of Los Angeles [1999]
Testify
The movie ran through me
The Glamour subdue me
The tabloid untie me
Im empty please fill me
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
I need you my witness
To dress this up so bloodless
To numb me and purge me now
Of thoughts of blaming you
Yes the car is our wheelchair
My witness your coughing
Oily silence mocks the legless
Boys who travel now in coffins
On the corner
The jurys sleepless
We found your weakness
And its right outside your door
Now testify
Now testify
Its right outside your door
Now testify
Yes testify
Its right outside your door
With precision you feed me
My witness Im hungry
Your temple it calms me
So I can carry on
My slaving, sweating,
The skin right off my bones
On a bed of fire Im choking
On the smoke that fills my home
The wrecking ball is rushing
Witness your blushing
The pipeline is gushing
While here we lie in tombs
While on the corner
The jurys sleepless
We found your weakness
And its right outside your door
Now testify
Yeah testify
Its right outside your door
Now Testify
Now Testify
And its right outside your door
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?
Now Testify
Testify
Its right outside your door
Now Testify
Testify
Its right outside your door
Uh, $5 dollars a gallon would not be good for the US. Such a HUGE increase would kill the economy. Such a drastic increase would never benefit any economy. Small increases in tax over many years might work. You can't collect a tax from goods when those goods no longer are sold because they become too expensive for anyone to buy. Increases in fuel efficiency don't come over night. There aren't even enough fuel efficient vehicles today to sustain the demand for hybrids. What kind of premiums do you think there would be if gas was $5.00 a gallon? How do you think this woul effect the poor? The truck drivers? Shipping industry? Any industry that ships products? How much do you think everything's prices would go up because of this? And for what? So all of your new source of tax revenue could go to pay for tons of new mass transit and wellfare for all the new poor people you just created.
Uh Dan, he's the president. What is supposed to do, pay for everything out of his own pocket? Maybe you forgot that it comes with the job.W leads by example.....(NOT!)
Yahoo News
W off to another photo opt, all at taxpayer expense of course.
Last edited by Useruser666; 09-28-2005 at 10:41 AM.
I was watching Bill O'Reilly the other night and he was talking about how it is hard to justify the tax breaks for oil companies when they are all reporting big profits and he admitted that Bush needs to better explain why.
Number of U.S. states that are taking steps to teach "alternatives to evolution" in public schools: 31
I don't know what the specifics of those tax breaks are. I would support them if they were based off some sort of program that deals with hybrid research or alternative fuels. If that's not the case, or it can't be clearly demonstrated, then I'd not be for it.
The increase in gas prices in the last 12 months from $1.50 to near $3.00 hasn't killed the US economy, and $5 - $7/agal hasn't killed European economies. The tax could be stepped over a couple years, but probably the refiners, who don't seem to mind increasing their price by 255% in the last 12 months, will increase the price at a faster rate than the tax.
"increase would never benefit any economy"
The huge problem the USA faces (and the only ing reason we are in Iraq) is our geo-political dependence of foreign (middle eastern) oil, and the $$drain on our economy in importing that oil, plus the $Bs sucked out of the economy by the oilcos. The tax would decrease consumption, decreasing our dependence on oil, with goal of buying none from the m/e, and moving $Bs in profits from the oilcos into the federal income where it could be put to use for all us, rather than just for the sterile enrichment of the already super-wealthy oilcos.
After the Iranian oil shock of the early 80, the west greatly reduced its demand for oil, and price of oil plummeted. What collapsed the Soviet Union was not Reagan, but they fact the the collapse the oil price greatly reduced the hard $$$ Russia earned from oil exports to keep their economy and cold-war military going.
btw, $3 gal now is the same price we paid in 1981, adjusted for inflation, so it's not the so expensive.
As the price of oil is forced down due to lower demand, the net effect of the $2 tax on pump prices will also go down.
The bogus Repug war in Iraq is all about oil, not about terrorism, which is itself directed against the USA by, eg Al Quaida, because the USA is "defiling" sacred Saudi Arabia by stationing troops there to protect US oil interests. Factor in the price of the US overseas oil wars into the articificially low pump price of gas, and you find that the price of oil is heavily subsidized, ie, it ain't really cheap at all.
Boutons, should the US have helped liberate Kuwait when Saddam invaded it?
yes, of course. The US is totally dependent on ME oil, so saving Kuwaiti and Saudi oil was in the fundamental interest of the USA.
But if we didn't buy any oil from the ME (meaning the price of oil would be much lower than now, so the dissuasive $2+ tax would be a lot less painful), then the decision to defend kuwait is a lot less automatic. Do you get the picture?
and do you know that Osama offered to the SA princes his services to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? when the SA princes chose to go with USA, Osama then turned against SA as defiling itself with USA boots on SA sands, and went off to East Africa in 1991 and then Afghanistan to start his jihad vs USA at full blast.
Oil is at the root of all of this anti-US jihad terrorist , but the politicians have no balls or common sense, esp not the oil-financed Repubs, to face that critical geo-political crisis.
But your $2.00 tax would kill the economy and give the money to the government which you already don't trust. The tax would be fine if we didn't depend on oil like we do. Maybe a tax on oil from a certain area? Uh oh, that would be bad for relations.
"your $2.00 tax would kill the economy"
I as explained, it wouldn't.
I don't trust THIS govt to do one ing little thing for the USA, but everything for themselves and their paymasters.
But this govt is going to last. The oil crisis will.
You explination doesn't take into account about a million factors that will make it fail. That's why I have a problem with that.
Speaking as a degreed, accounting professional specializing in financial and cost accounting...all I can say to that is:
Until you have a viable energy alternative, the way our economy depends on oil you'd be better off putting that tax on WATER.
Obviously alternative sources are desperately needed, but we are no where near close enough that the economy could withstand something that drastic.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 09-28-2005 at 01:13 PM.
"the economy could withstand something that drastic."
the economies in Europe have been taxing gasoline and also cu in in automobile engines, for 30+ years. They're doing alright.
You people have every ing justification for consuming oil without any restraint as far as the eye can see.
And the claim that the US economy and people are too ing stupid and rigid to react and overcome the effects of a $2/gal tax is just BS. I know America can do it, and I'm the one who supposed to "hate America"?
We obviously can't replace oil, but we can make a huge dent in oil usage by taxing it into the price range where it is treatd as precious, limited commodity.
And by depressing demand for oil by taxing it to a level that it respected instead of wasted, we will get the the payback of decreasing the price of oil.
Last edited by boutons; 09-28-2005 at 02:19 PM.
and just what would that "comprehensive energy policy" be? defined as it was in secret with energy co execs?
You are way off base. Europe is nothing like the US. They have had higher prices for a long time compared to recent hikes in US prices. Their cars are different, their roads are different, their cities are different, and there are many other factors that are results of the economics of their fuel supply. You can't simply say, "Let's just take their model and stuff it down everyone's throat here." It won't work because I say so, it won't work because it's ludicris to think that practically double the costs of shipping, transportation, and all other uses for fuel will stimulate the economy. Since the US is based on one type of system of fuel dependancy and Europe on another, you can't simply switch those out. Now I'm sure Eurpoe would welcome the relatively cheap prices we pay here, but we could not support prices here.
"You are way off base"
no, you're a provincial dumb .
"They have had higher prices for a long time compared to recent hikes in US prices."
They are having oil worse price shocks now than the US. The US has had no petroleum price shock in real terms for the last 25 years. And everytime these has been a price shock the use reacted (forced to rather than choose to) by decreasing its use of petroleum required to produce a $ of GDP. The US has done it in the past, and can continue to do it. It's better to do it by choice (gas tax) now, than let consumption continue/increase and be forced to do it later.
The goal is to reduce consumption, which reduces the price, which reduces pollution, and above make America more immune to Arab/Muslmi BS in the Middle East.
"You can't simply say,"
and I didn't. you took those words right out of your ass.
"practically double the costs"
gasoline is not 100% of the cost of anything, so doubling the cost of fuel will not double the cost of anything, except if you are a refiner, and you more than double the cost of gasoline from the refinery in 12 months.
"Since the US is based on one type of system of fuel dependancy and Europe on another,"
WTF? The entire Western, industrialized world is based on petroleum. But most countries have made the effort, inflicted the pain, to stimulate conservation of petroleum as a limited resource. The Repubs haven't done a ing effecive thing about conservation, until dubya spouted off his hypocritical charade aboue "drive less" this week.
I find your lack of comprehension and knowledge as amusing as your inability to articulate. But keep trying, practice makes perfect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
