# Ease The Pain?



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

CNN is also running a poll at the same time and 85 percent have said this is political BS. the other choice was will this help


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

NOW THERE'S A STUPID IDEA

Those high gas prices sure have put a crimp on everybody's wallet. So what's the solution? Drive less? Combine trips? Carpool? Take the bus? Perhaps buy a more gas-efficient vehicle? Well, those would all be sensible solutions. But to the politicians, once again they've come up with a better solution.

Along with jumping up and down screaming at the oil companies, a group of Senators now have decided it's time to send you a check for $100. It probably won't happen, since the proposal is tied to opening up ANWR to new drilling, but let's consider the proposal on its own merits, shall we? This is nothing more than a simple vote-buying scheme. uke:

If those senators really wanted to help people out, how about jumping on that bandwagon to eliminate the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax for the summer? Surely that would save most people $100 over the course of the next couple months. But that's not the same as a "free" $100 check from Uncle Sam.

*Remember, the goal of politicians is for more people to dependent on the government and by extension, them. *

What's most outrageous about this handout proposal is that it comes from *Republicans.* :******: 
They are Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

As for how the they plan to pay for the proposal, who cares! The government can always print more money, right?


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

I also have heard of a sixty day holiday of the federal tax on gas. Well they investagate the oil companys for prices fixing. Sounds like a better idea to me.

But I would also be willing to bet you don't see much of a change.

The best email I have gotten lately was to boycott the big two and let them start a price war


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Well they investagate the oil companys for prices fixing. Sounds like a better idea to me.


Which is sadly just a stunt by the president to beat his sagging poll numbers. If a proposal is made that will damage the oil industry he will finally exercise his veto power so fast it will make our heads spin.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

what do poll numbers matter to him anymore isn't he what you would consider a lame duck now anyway. Hopefully he can take his time and do something right by the country.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

Seen a report this morning that Exxon Mobil's 1st qtr profit is up 7% over last year. Didn't they make a record profit last year too? Hmmm....

That being said, I do think that the President may be grandstanding a bit on this issue. I think he has to do it though. Some people just need to feel that someone is listening/trying. Problem with that though is some of us are gonna feel patronized by it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

sotaman said:


> what do poll numbers matter to him anymore isn't he what you would consider a lame duck now anyway. Hopefully he can take his time and do something right by the country.


He wants to leave a proper legacy, not that of an incompetent leader who most of the country rejected.

He may also be doing so to help the Republicans. His low numbers will certainly have an effect on them in the mid term elections.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM - news), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Thursday reported quarterly profit rose 7 percent to $8.4 billion, pushed higher by the surge in crude oil prices.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was the biggest profit ever posted by the Texas-based oil behemoth in the first quarter, but it still fell short of Wall Street forecasts.

Exxon Mobil shares fell 2.2 percent to $61.70 in pre-market trading on the Inet electronic brokerage system, down from a Wednesday close at $63.10 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Net income in the first quarter was $8.4 billion, or $1.37 a share, up from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 a share, a year earlier. Analysts' average forecast was $1.41 a share, according to Reuters Estimates.

Revenue jumped to $88.98 billion from $82.05 billion.

Crude oil prices have risen steadily from about $20 a barrel in 2002 to over $75 last week, handing oil and gas companies a long-running profit bonanza.

But the fat profits have also angered U.S. drivers grappling with rising gasoline prices and provoked sharp criticism of Big Oil by lawmakers and consumer advocates.

Exxon Mobil said its oil and gas production in the quarter grew 5 percent, boosted by higher volumes from projects in West Africa and Qatar. Excluding divestments and the effect of prices on production-sharing contracts, output was up 7 percent.

Refining and marketing earnings rose, helped by higher marketing margins and improved refining operations.

Lower margins led to a sharp fall in earnings from its chemical operations.

Capital spending in the quarter jumped 41 percent to $4.82 billion.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Never ceases to amaze me how some of you attempt to blame the President for everything. These proposals are from congressmen kiddies. The President as you should have learned in 6th grade does not submit amendments in congress. Unbelievable........

Though the $100 rebate is a dumb idea, in my opinion the other proposals are certainly worth considering. If you read the cite they were .......

"The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries".

Does anyone see anything wrong with the recommendations above? I don't &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon where has anyone suggested that the president proposed an amendment in Congress? We stated that he called for an investigation into gas prices.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Friday, April 14, 2006 11:56 a.m. EDT
> Hillary Clinton: Raise Gas Taxes by $20 Billion
> 
> With pump prices crossing the $3.00 mark and family budgets buckling under the strain, 2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton says she has the solution: Have consumers pay even more at the pump by levying a $20 billion tax on the oil companies who "price gouge."
> ...


There's your help from the LEFT!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> There's been alternative sources around for decades


Name Four of them.......


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Well come on Fudge man where they at?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Republicans stage telephone campaign over gasoline tax proposal
By Ross Sneyd, Associated Press Writer | April 14, 2006

MONTPELIER, Vt. --Republicans, seeking to capitalize on Democrats' support of a gasoline tax increase, launched an automated telephone campaign Friday against supporters of the proposal.

The calls were placed to voters in selected House districts represented by Democrats, although the Republican Party would not say how many districts were getting the calls.

Some of the Democrats who were targeted were especially upset because the prerecorded calls do not say the campaign is sponsored by the state republican Party.

"Hello, if you are concerned about the high price of gasoline, a recent vote by your local representative, ... should alarm you," the call says, naming the lawmaker in the district where the call is directed.

The representative of the district "voted to increase gas taxes to 23 cents a gallon," the call continues. "At a time when gas prices are at near record highs, (the lawmaker's) vote to raise gas taxes on working people adds insult to injury. I hope you will call Vermont Democrat headquarters and tell them to put the brakes on the Democrat gas tax increase."

As of the end of the day, Democratic Party officials had received no phone calls and just one e-mail, which executive director Jon Copans said was supportive of the House proposal to boost the gas tax by 4 cents a gallon.

"I don't believe that Vermonters are susceptible to this sort of campaign technique," Copans said.

But some of the lawmakers in whose districts the automated calls were being made did get calls from constituents, and so did the secretary of state's office.

"What I find offensive is they don't identify who's paid for the calls," said House Speaker Gaye Symington. "I think Vermonters deserve to know whose money is behind this and what the real intent of the call is."

Symington has been steadfast in her support of the gas tax increase and an accompanying jump in the diesel tax by 6 cents to 31 cents a gallon. She said they're necessary if the state wants to raise enough money to draw down matching federal money.

The Senate, though, has adopted a bill that would raise motor vehicle fees by more than the House proposed, but not fuel taxes. Instead, it would rely on slight budget cuts and some excess money in the general operating budget.

Those differences now have to be worked out in a conference committee and state Republican Party Chairman James Barnett said the party decided to launch the robotic telephone campaign to make clear it did not want a tax plan to be part of a compromise.

"I'm happy to say the Republican Party is against a gas tax increase," he said. He did not include a line saying the party had paid for the calls, he said, because "it wasn't required and it's an added cost that lengthens the call."

The Republicans checked with the secretary of state's office before starting the campaign and decided to suggest that anyone receiving the call call Democratic Party headquarters because that would mean the party would not have to register as a lobbyist, Barnett said.

Secretary of State Deb Markowitz said the telephone campaign fell into a "loophole" that allowed the calls to be made without identifying the sponsor or requiring the sponsor to register as a lobbyist.

An identity would be required if it were done with the intent of affecting the outcome of an election. "In this case, it's talking about legislators who aren't candidates, yet," she said. "Maybe they'll be running for election, but this isn't in the context of a campaign."

And the calls technically do not seek to influence legislation because they direct voters to contact the Democratic Party, not individual lawmakers. "The Democratic Party headquarters doesn't make decisions about the law," she said. "If it (said), `Call the Legislature,' then that's more of a problem."

Democrats hate being exposed!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Flux, you did use the word sources and correct me if I'm wrong but that does mean more than one so the question he ask you was not out of line. Ethanol ......... give me a break. Yes it can be useful tool for use on a limited basis but do you really think that all the cars and truck in this country can be run on ethanol. Where do you expect to get all this corn and other ingredients to produce that much and still feed ourselves and a good portion of the world. Ethanol cannot replace diesel fuel for use in high torque requirements. Your talking about useful alternatives that are many years away, not something that has been here all along.

Right now the Russians and Chinese are exploring drill sights just 100 miles off the Florida coast. That's where we should be not to mention we have enough oil under our own soil for several decades of use until these alternate sources you say exist are actually invented for real world use.
You can have all the ingredients in the world for your ethanol but without enough refineries to produce the stuff to meet demand it is useless. Take off the blinders.........

Again, reducing the standards of blends to one or two instead of the now 14 different blends that states force the oil companies will lower cost and spread availability. Expanding and building new refineries will enable supply and demand to even out. Forcing companies to increase fuel efficiency standards will get rid of some of the gas guzzler's that serve no purpose other than to simply be large or go fast. And last, start drilling on our own soil. Some of these are short term with immediate results and some are long term. All of the alternative ideas are long term.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Keep in mind that if and when ethanol becomes a viable alternative, and produces profits for farmers, every inch of tillable land will be torn up. Kiss CRP good by, and watch the little remaining native prairie get turned over. This will be the fatal stroke for our prairies. Anything that will grow corn will grow corn. Fields will be from road center line to road center line. Farmers will ask county commissioners to close section lines, and you will find hunting grounds behind six miles of closed section lines. God help the outdoors people of the future. It will make drilling in ANWR look small in comparison of habitat destruction.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> and I wouldn't doubt that the oil industry buys up all the patents to alternative fuels.


 

Your as smart as MT.  
Prove your statement mocking bird. :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> I almost cracked a smile ABBK, then I realized you were serious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats closer to SLANDER than an OPINION! What up with you anyway: you can't ever show evidance to support your mocking bird comments.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Sue me. Otherwise stick to the thread, dragging it off topic by trying to attack my opinions is worthless. If you want to insult me, just PM me.


Just asking you to support your statement and you can't because you know you just made that up.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Ok, I will explain it to you for the last time. I am not going to back it up, nor do I need to. You know why? I have no proof, just a suspicion. Is suspicion illegal now?


Why, because thats the flavor of the day for the liberals, to get on the BIG BAD OIL CO.'s and turn the attention away from themselves.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I was lucky enough to work through the last oil bust when oil companies and service companies were going bankrupt right and left and hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. As I recall I didn't see a whole lot of help from anybody.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> The whole topic of the thread is the idea that lawmakers aren't doing enough to bring the cost of fuel down. If you don't like it, don't sit here and troll.


You should be able to find some FACTS on this TOPIC and POST like everyone else.

Like how the Democrats are trying to put a TAX on Fuel right now when we lease need it (just an example you can use it if you like at least it's true).


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As to you're "end of the world due to ethanol" scenario, Plainsmann, I find that laughable.


I grew up on the farm and have a degree in agriculture among other things. Do you remember Regan's PIK program. It was called Payment In Kind. Farmers were paid not to plant crops. What happened is they all thought they would get rich, so they all enrolled in the program, then went out and broke up more native pasture and hay land in North Dakota than had been broken up since the original sodbuster days. 
Agriculture programs have a great influence on wildlife habitats. Look at the CRP programs for example. Here in North Dakota were are building more ethanol plants and farmers are chomping at the bite waiting to get their land out of CRP. You might want to know something about agriculture before you laugh at me to much. 
When I was growing up on the farm we had our land in what was called soil bank. It was much like the CRP program is today. Like today it was hayed during drought . When people put their land in soil bank back then they also thought they would make a killing. As soon as they were enrolled they went out and broke up guess what? Native pasture and native grass hay land. I have seen it happen many times, why would it be different today?
You only need look at something on this site besides the political form to see the concern about the CRP due to come out of enrollment in 2007.



> With modern irrigation and farming practices, it is very possible to produce plenty of corn. Don't forget other crops can be used as well, such as sugar cane.


Do you think farmers are not trying to maximize the growth potential of their land right now. Land isn't being made anymore, yet our production is going up. It is going up because we are still destroying grasslands, and to a much lesser extent we are improving agriculture technology.

The crop that has the most potential and will be the least environmentaly destructive is switch grass (_Panicum virgatum_) which is a native perennial and will need not be planted every year. It will also compete with invasive weed species and resulting in less chemical use. It will make full use of the natural microbes within it's rhizosphere.

If you want to talk ethanol, I'll tell you things that have not crossed your mind yet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some things like the use of switch grass will strengthen your argument. It isn't a bad idea as long as the government doesn't subsidize corn so much that much of the marginal crop land (rocky, steep slope, light soil) farm land gets put into row crop ( highly erodeable, high chemical, high fertilizer (think eutrophication of lakes ) corn production.

This is where I part ways with the republican philosophy of business over environmental issues. Now your bringing out the liberal in me.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

As to the destruction of native prarie land (in favor of corn fields), or any land around the great lakes region in the process of supporting ethanol production, I say it is better than supporting the OPEC countries.* Without the United States, there goes most of their profits.*

It's the World market that set the price, you still don't get it.
Do you think we go to Saudi Arabia and say " hey dude would you sell the USA 10 billion barrals of oil at $50 a barrel", when the world exchange price is currently over $70 :eyeroll: But that's right the liberals believe or want you to believe that EXXON controls the oil prices.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Flux, we really don't have that much in disagreements. I am glad to see that you said the government needs to do something about the problem. Only thing is in my opinion the government is the biggest problem we face. I wouldn't go so far as to say the oil companies are getting a raw deal but I don't think they are the big villains some like to make them out to be. Exxon-Mobil has been trying to get two new refineries built for the last ten years but have been stopped by every environmental group on register. Ditto for exploration requests.

Here is something to chew on. The five major oil companies had sales of $859 billion for 2005. That's a lot of money huh. Their net profits were $58 billion out of the $859 billion. Still, $58 billion is a lot of money to split among share holders. But, and you knew there was a but, they paid $41 billion in taxes. $41 billion in taxes...... you seriously think our friendly little congress people are going to pass any kind of meaningful legislation that will stop that kind of money flow into Washington.

Does all that sound kind of fishy to you..... wait, it gets better. Those same companies also handed over to governments $112 billion in other taxes -- mostly sales and excise taxes. That's a total of $170 billion in taxes from the oil companies. And our wonderful government still hits us with a wonderful 18 cent per gallon tax at the pump. It's pretty clear to me who the real villain is in these high gas prices and the sky is falling cry babies in Washington that keep the speculators charged up isn't helping either.


----------

