It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Takes Heat for Opposing Gas Tax Holiday

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Obama Takes Heat for Opposing Gas Tax Holiday


elections.foxnews.com

He complained that such a tax cut would drain money from highway funds and said the government instead should pass a middle class tax cut, to help with expenses ranging from gas to groceries, and roll back some of the Bush tax cuts to do so.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
none found




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Obama says that it would waist tax money to give taxpayers a break on gas tax. Instead we should give middle class taxpayers a tax break and roll back the Bush tax cuts. Never mind that the Bush tax cuts were mostly middle class tax cuts in the first place. Is Obama still making sense to you now?

Do liberals favor anything that would solve the energy crisis? No! If we drilled and put ANWAR online that would significantly help. They're against that.

If we make it easier to burn coal it would help the problem, Bill Clinton and other liberals did their best to stop the use of coal as fuel.

If we allowed NUCLEAR PLANTS to be built and put on line, that would significantly help. Liberals oppose that completely.

If we allowed new oil refineries to be built that would lower gas prices. Liberals have been blocking refinery construction for years!

Go figure.

I could go on and on..

elections.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Liberals? Oh you mean the illusion of a Democratic party?


No- they are just as happy as Bush and the Oil Barons and will help the agenda achieve the $15.00/gallon.

Wont that be fun?

We dont have a government. Get that out of your heads, right now.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Actually, Obama makes more sense on this issue than either Hillary or McCain.

The tax-free summer idea is one that has been passed from truck stop to truck stop in the last couple of years. And every time it is looked at, the consensus is that it just isn't enough. Gasoline right now is averaging about $3.50 a gallon, and the tax that would be cut is all of 18 cents per gallon. CNN just reported this afternoon that it would give the average consumer a major tax break of about $28 dollars total spread over a three-month period. Bravo, now we can all have that operation we need...

That is assuming we actually get the break. Even if the Federal government lets go of that 18 cents per gallon, a minor rise in crude oil prices will make it non-existent. And in a few states who have tried such a holiday (based on state tax), everyone from the importers to the refiners to the transporters to the retailers tacked on a precious penny or two to help their bottom line. So that will whittle that whopping $28 down even further.

The loser will be the tax base. Unlike something like income tax or capital gains tax which is based on income, a lowering of the gas tax will not result in more revenue; it will result in less revenue since it is so small as to have little effect on usage, and a complete removal of any tax will result in no revenue regardless. That money goes into the transportation budget, which is (supposedly) used to finance road and bridge construction/repair. So with a $10,000,000 budget loss, how will the roads be repaired? They definitely need it, take it from someone who spends all day driving through the pothole fields. (I wish Missouri would go ahead and harvest; they have a wonderful crop of mature potholes
) Not to mention that's more than a few road construction workers who will be out of a job for a while.

Hillary would 'fix' this by taxing the oil companies. Does anyone still believe that would not make gas prices go up, and probably more than the 18 cent tax break we started out with? That makes sense... NOT! McCain has no plan to cover the drop in transportation funding, except to chide both Democrats for spending too much on earmarks. I wonder why he didn't mention how much he has had in earmarks? Hmmm... anyway, I seriously doubt he has any plans to do away with earmarks himself, so that's no plan.

When I look at all the details, it looks to me like Obama at least isn't trying to make things worse...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Exactly, you pretty much summed it up. The tax break would likely do more harm than good. Also, a gas tax break would simply encourage consumers to use even more gas, which would only exacerbate the problem here.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by drwizardphd]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   


Obama makes more sense on this issue than either Hillary or McCain.
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Hi Redneck,

Thanks for the post!

Earlier in the campaign, Obama's solution to every problem was to raise taxes (on the rich) so it was looking like Obama never met a tax he didn't like as in this case. Obama's first response was that the oil companies would just make more money and that is a bad thing. When actually everyone would benifit by cutting gas taxes especially the consumer. Obama would never want to admit that!

My point in posting the thread was to point out the fact that liberal politicians almost always make poor choices regarding energy and their poor choices translate into higher gas and energy prices. Apparently everyone agrees as noone has challenged that assertion.

You make good points in your post, especially the fact that decreasing gas prices will increase the demand for gas. Can't argue that part but to take that further higher gas prices will keep more people off the roads and that will be good for you and I because we drive a lot and there will be less traffic for us. LOL. Fewer people driving will mean less wear and tear on the roads (and bridges) and goodness knows they are bad enough the way it is, especially as you say in Missouri! LOL. Higher gas prices and less driving will help decrease our dependance on foreign oil and it will encourage more Americans to park their SUV and get out their smaller minicars! So all our problems could be sloved by one simple solution, higher gas prices!



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


You lost me when you started blaming liberals for everything.

You should work on that.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 

Ah, if only that were the case. Higher fuel prices will be the death of our economy unless something (that works!) is done about it.

Higher fuel prices will not keep the trucks off the road, it will simply raise prices for everyone on everything (as we are seeing now) until no one can afford to buy. Then the trucks as well will stop. That will be the end of our civilization as we know it, since without needed supplies, cities will degrade overnight into war zones. Some will escape to the country, where even there they will feel the pinch. But this influx will bring the looting and fighting to every corner of the nation. No, higher fuel prices are the end, not the solution.

As for liberals, you are right. the stated goal of their policies (which usually involve a new or higher tax) is exactly the opposite of what is accomplished (copyright Jim Quinn, radio talk show host and general all-around idiot). But we now have no choice but liberals for the highest office in the land. That is the source of my worry. All we can do is think these policies through and try desperately to stop the ones that won't help at all before the powers that be implement them.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by plumranch
 


You lost me when you started blaming liberals for everything.

You should work on that.


Lost? Then try this:

Wasn't it two years ago that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed, if her party took over Congress, to cut energy prices — especially gasoline?

Remember, congress makes the laws - not the president.

"Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price-gouging; rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies; and increasing production of alternative fuels," Pelosi wrote back in April 2006, as part of her efforts to convince Americans to elect Democrats.

How's that working for you? The cost of energy — measured by the price of West Texas Intermediate crude — is up more than 70% since she made her remarks.

Under Pelosi's "common-sense plan," Congress has achieved nothing. Actually, less than nothing, considering that what little has been done has hurt, rather than helped the U.S. to become more self-sufficient. This year alone, we'll spend $431 billion to buy 3.7 billion barrels of imported oil to run our economy. And in so doing, we are enriching some of the world's most unsavory regimes.

Ironically, we have plenty of oil — at least 10 billion barrels in Alaska's National Wildlife Reserve, 30 billion or so offshore and a whopping 1.2 trillion in Rocky Mountain oil-shale. But Democrats' extreme green ideology keeps us from drilling for it.

Clean coal technologies likewise have been put out of bounds. So is the most logical answer to our energy problem — nuclear power plants that can be run safely with spent rods reprocessed. France already does this to meet 80% of its energy needs.

Democrats have focused instead on an insane global warming plan that would cost $1.2 trillion. Subsidies and other breaks for biofuels have helped send food prices soaring.

It would be nice to say they've learned their lesson, but they haven't. Instead, they've gone on a shrill campaign to vilify American oil companies, holding kangaroo hearings in Congress to embarrass CEOs who work hard to bring us more energy.

Just the other day, Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush, urging him to look into OPEC price-fixing, to punish "price-gougers" and to end tax breaks for oil companies and use the money to invest in questionable alternative energy schemes.

Excuse us, but that's pretty much the plan congressional Democrats have pursued for a year and a half with zero success. As in the 1970s, this is a human-made crisis — one that has solutions. But it's the Democrats, along with a few equally misguided Republicans, who steadfastly refuse to implement them.

For this reason if for no other, none of them deserves re-election.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
Do liberals favor anything that would solve the energy crisis? No! If we drilled and put ANWAR online that would significantly help. They're against that.


Why do you think that would solve anything? The government isn't going to drill and refine that oil in ANWAR and deliver it to our local gas stations. The oil companies that WOULD do that are out to make a buck and the oil price is fixed globally. That oil would be priced at the exact same price as middle eastern oil.



If we make it easier to burn coal it would help the problem, Bill Clinton and other liberals did their best to stop the use of coal as fuel.


Then why did the use of coal fired power plants increase at the same rate during the Clinton administration as the Bush administration?





If we allowed NUCLEAR PLANTS to be built and put on line, that would significantly help. Liberals oppose that completely.


Then why did the use of nuclear energy plants increase at a higher rate during the Clinton administration as the Bush administration?



If we allowed new oil refineries to be built that would lower gas prices. Liberals have been blocking refinery construction for years!


Then why are there 149 petroleum refineries in the US now versus 155 on Jan 1, 2001?




I could go on and on..


Hopefully with some facts next time.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Again, remember that (the democrat controlled) congress makes the laws. And things have gotten much worse energy-wise since the democrats took control of congress in 2006.

Base on what I posted above, it is total hypocrisy for democrats to now deny any responsibility for what is happening on their watch. Especially after campaigning on this very issue as "the party with solutions".

Yes, call it hypocrisy. Or call it bold faced lies just to get votes. Both would be correct. And now some would have us elect a president of the same ilk ...



[edit on 5/1/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You are so reasonable!

I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing some actual solutions from these politicians? How long before they stop blaming the oil companies (the source of the product!) and put something into law that will provide more oil at cheaper prices? Let's put the blame where it belongs and get these politicians moving on something benificial!

It is obvious to me that the reason the liberals do nothing is that almost every solution to high energy prices has an environmental price. Much of their constituency is the environmental lobby and its allies. Those people actually want a lot of the chaos you describe because of their misguided and demented "save the earth at all cost" approach. If Hillary said "I have a solution, we build more refineries, open ANWAR, build new clean nuclear facilities and burn more coal". She would suddenly loose all her silly left wing environmental supporters! And would Hillary do that? Of course not!
Anti oil company, anti Bush rhetoric is cheap (in political costs) so that is probably all we are going to hear!



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I think Obama's opposition to this shows he has courage. It would be sooo easy to let the chattering class have their way, with a net gain of essentially zero, if not less than zero by decimating the nation's highway infrastructure. But he is being HONEST with the public and calling it as it really is. Anyone who can't see that is not being intellectually honest.

People, wake up! The party is over and there are no more easy solutions -the bill has come due. It's going to be painful all around for the foreseeable future. Accept it. No amount of whining, blaming, finger pointing or partisan politics is going to give us a magic solution. Everyone needs to let go of the past paradigm which was based on cheap oil and easy money. It's gone. The sooner you adjust, the easier it will be for all of us.

If you want to educate yourself on the reality we are facing, here you go:

Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post American World / The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Again, remember that (the democrat controlled) congress makes the laws. And things have gotten much worse energy-wise since the democrats took control of congress in 2006.


The democrats only have true control of the lower house, in the Senate the seats are split 49R / 49D and 2 Independents. Pretty much nothing of importance is decided on a simple majority (51/49), so lets put that tired chestnut to bed. The last time the ANWAR drilling motion came to the Senate was in 2005 when the Republicans had clear control and it was voted down in a fillibuster.



Base on what I posted above, it is total hypocrisy for democrats to now deny any responsibility for what is happening on their watch. Especially after campaigning on this very issue as "the party with solutions".


I agree they haven't done squat about ANY of the issues they campaigned on, but there is no connection between their actions and the current price of oil. If there is, please show me.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Don't even worry about him. He's so far past talking to it's not even worth it.

He's the type that when it was Clinton in office, he said it was just an upswing in the economy. Then Bush took office and it was a republican controlled Congress, it was just a downswing from Clinton.

Then now the Dems barely have control of the house (but not enough to actually accomplish anything) and it's the dems fault.

They say Bush can't get anything done. Like he's ever actually cared about a law anyway. If Bush wanted something done, he'd just say that he doesn't have to follow the law and do it - like he's done every other time.

I don't buy into it. Let them lie to themselves if that makes them feel better.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by centurion1211
Again, remember that (the democrat controlled) congress makes the laws. And things have gotten much worse energy-wise since the democrats took control of congress in 2006.


The democrats only have true control of the lower house, in the Senate the seats are split 49R / 49D and 2 Independents. Pretty much nothing of importance is decided on a simple majority (51/49), so lets put that tired chestnut to bed. The last time the ANWAR drilling motion came to the Senate was in 2005 when the Republicans had clear control and it was voted down in a fillibuster.

I agree they haven't done squat about ANY of the issues they campaigned on, but there is no connection between their actions and the current price of oil. If there is, please show me.


Based on the information you posted yourself above, what, exactly, can you expect them to do? Bush vetoes damn near anything Democrats bring to his desk unless it has another hudred billion in war loans attached, and even then he vetoes it if it's got a timetable for ending the occupation.

As for energy solutions, do you really want to live next to an oil refinery? Do you want clean air and water? Do you want to be within the "instant death" radius of a nuclear plant if something goes horribly wrong? Environmental standards exist for a reason, people. This is the only home we have. Unless one of you mighty conservatives has constructed a secret space colony that can house a good portion of the human population this Earth is all we have, and poisoning it relentlessly won't solve any problems.

It's true, the party is over. The only way out of this is an immediate switch to alternative energies through an "Apollo" type program. We could do it in two years if we'd just stop fighting the world and spent the needed money on it. And, the program would create jobs. But, of course, nobody wants that, because it's a liberal "social program" type of thing.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


Always an excuse with these guys for what the democrats do or don't do. None of their supporters can ever admit that their people have ever screwed up.

Let me show you how it's done:

I voted for him. Bush has blown it big time on the war and energy policy and immigration policy.


Now you ...



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


That's easy:

The democrats have been wimps and have not done enough to get this administration out of the white house. The democrats often add bloated programs that cost way more than they produce.

Never has an administration done so many illegal and immoral things, and yet they remain untouchable. The democrats have not had the spine to stand up and do the right thing.

What else do you want? It's not a partisan issue. Both the democrats and republicans suck at what they do.

Quit blaming parties and talk about policy and solutions. The second I hear someone blame a party, I immediately stop listening (no matter which side), because it's obvious that they are jaded and have no real base to complain.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Quit blaming parties and talk about policy and solutions. The second I hear someone blame a party, I immediately stop listening (no matter which side), because it's obvious that they are jaded and have no real base to complain.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Sublime620]


Then you must not listen to just about everyone on this forum or anywhere else.

Sure it's easy - easy to rant on bulletin boards about the need for new policies. The reality of our situation is that no candidate running for president has stated even one policy that will do anything about solving the issues we face. And even if they did, there's congress to consider.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


You're right but that's because the media won't report on policy. You have to dig it up.

Each candidate does have policies that would possibly begin some sort of change, but we have to be willing to go read to find out what that is.

Some of us are more willing than others. I can't say I've read vasts amount of information on each candidate, but I have done my research.

And you're right, other members on this board are guilty of the same things - on both sides. Hence why I have the thread in my signature.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join