Yes, inevitably we’d see the Dems getting mad about rising oil prices but not for the same reasons as you, I, and rational people everywhere. While people like Obama are fine with rising gas costs (remember, he’s not mad gas it’s at $4.00 a gallon, he’s just upset that it wasn’t “gradual”), and the Democrats lunatic fear of carbon dioxide in general, this should be a good thing for them that demand and use are down a little. But of course, Dems are concerned with the one thing Dems are always concerned about. Tax and fine revenues.
Two cases in point. Buried a ways down in this story from CNN about Americans driving a little bit less is this gem:
Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.
Therein lays the real problem for Liberals everywhere. They’re not getting enough TAXES. Not to worry though, keep in mind that John Conyers (D…..of course) has already greased the wheels for 50 CENT PER GALLON TAX HIKE, on undoubtedly the Dems will push should they take Congress and the White House in the Fall. Not be outdone is point #2. Local and state governments are now slapping “fuel surcharges” on traffic fines and tickets, even as they use those insidious cameras to track down the real criminals in society, the people who go 5 mph over the speed limit or go through a yellow light. It’s all about that tax money for Democrats, never about cutting the budget or pork or unnecessary programs. They can’t even fathom the notion. They can’t even fathom the notion that it’s the citizens who are paying for these revenues.
-Caomhin
Showing posts with label Gas Prices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gas Prices. Show all posts
19 June 2008
Green Really Is the New Reds. Democratic More Asinine With Every Passing Day
It’s clear just how far to the left Congress truly is. Now we have a second Democrat calling for the nationalization of the oil industry, this time it’s Maurice Hinchey of NY (you’ll recall of course Maxine Walters’ own call for nationalization in the past). So what gives with the Democrats oil policy? Well for starters they hide behind a global warming hoax in order to divert investments into their pet investment projects in order to make a quick buck while demonizing the competition (something they have an extremely long history of doing) as an attempt to monopolize their favored industries.
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
10 June 2008
GOP Stops Democratic Bill to Committ Economic Suicide
We dodged a huge bullet today, but I really wonder for how long we'll be able to hold this idiotic, already tried and failed, "windfall" tax on oil profits. There's a multitude of issues that are at stake here and the Dems are playing this out as only the socialists can. Only one Dem voted against proceeding with the bill, Mary Landrieu of LA, and only because she's up for re-election in Louisiana, and she's a big target for the GOP this fall. Here are just a few problems with this bill:
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
-Caomhin
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
