• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats propose further tax hike on offshore oil

Unless I am missing something you are agreeing to a cut in supply not demand. How does that cause us to be less reliant on oil???

Because if fewer people can gain access to oil as a supply for their energy needs, more people will pursue alternate energy sources or more efficient use of the oil they get.
 
Because if fewer people can gain access to oil as a supply for their energy needs, more people will pursue alternate energy sources or more efficient use of the oil they get.

I think you are wrong. The tax will not be enough to lower consumption. Also if oil rigs are moved from our waters to lets say Africa where the first rigs are going then all it does is increase our exports of oil, making us more dependent on the rest of the world.
 
I think you are wrong. The tax will not be enough to lower consumption. Also if oil rigs are moved from our waters to lets say Africa where the first rigs are going then all it does is increase our exports of oil, making us more dependent on the rest of the world.

Not if we pursue alternate energy resources instead of relying on oil.
 
Because if fewer people can gain access to oil as a supply for their energy needs, more people will pursue alternate energy sources or more efficient use of the oil they get.

Bull****. I hope that you've parked your car and are walking everywhere. You are doing that aren't you? Huh? You are, right?
 
Last edited:
Not if we pursue alternate energy resources instead of relying on oil.

I think it is a mistake to consider it an either or issue. I agree we should be considering alternative energy, we should have been doing that the last 40 years. I have seen nothing out of this administration that puts the kind of effort necessary to really fix this issue.

For example if you really want to slow consumption of oil, place a tax of let's say a dollar a gallon on imported or all oil. Materially higher prices have shown will impact usage. On the supply side, put together the type of effort when we had the race to the moon under Kennedy.

The problem is that the oil industry has proven to be to rich, politicians on both sides too corrupt to really make a dent in this problem. The new cap and trade legislation proves once again that the oil industrry wins and we are all suckers to them.
 
I think you are wrong. The tax will not be enough to lower consumption. Also if oil rigs are moved from our waters to lets say Africa where the first rigs are going then all it does is increase our exports of oil, making us more dependent on the rest of the world.

The socialist minded know nothing about how a country operates. They sit in their academic castles, pondering fancy theories about economics and other high-minded notions of grandeur.
 
Last edited:
The socialist minded know nothing about how a country operates. They sit in their academic castles, pondering fancy theories about economics and other high-minded notions of grandeur.

What does that mean???
 
Not if we pursue alternate energy resources instead of relying on oil.

alternate sources have - as of yet - proven too expensive to be a ready replacement for oil. You would have to jack the price of gasoline up enough to crash the economy to get enough people to switch. in 2008, we didn't see the beginnigs of actual change in behavior until gas hit about $4 a gallon; it's exceedingly inelastic because (as American points out), much of our consumption is tied to activities that we are not willing to give up - driving to work, going to pick up groceries, etc. and you would need to jack up prices significantly beyond that $4 a gallon in order to start seeing a mass-rapid switch to alternate energies.

'alternate energies' is not a magic wand that one can wave and pass into law in order to hook each of our electronic car batteries to a windfarm.
 
I think you are wrong. The tax will not be enough to lower consumption. Also if oil rigs are moved from our waters to lets say Africa where the first rigs are going then all it does is increase our exports of oil, making us more dependent on the rest of the world.

exactly; our political numbnuts in Washington seem to be completely unaware that capital is fungible; and that companies today have the ability to take their ball and go play elsewhere.
 
alternate sources have - as of yet - proven too expensive to be a ready replacement for oil. You would have to jack the price of gasoline up enough to crash the economy to get enough people to switch. in 2008, we didn't see the beginnigs of actual change in behavior until gas hit about $4 a gallon; it's exceedingly inelastic because (as American points out), much of our consumption is tied to activities that we are not willing to give up - driving to work, going to pick up groceries, etc. and you would need to jack up prices significantly beyond that $4 a gallon in order to start seeing a mass-rapid switch to alternate energies.

'alternate energies' is not a magic wand that one can wave and pass into law in order to hook each of our electronic car batteries to a windfarm.
Lets not forget how many products are produced that require petroleum such as plastics, fiberglass, millions of products not to mention petroleum is required for the machinery to produce as well. All this to would have to be retooled and this to requires petroleum.
 
Because if fewer people can gain access to oil as a supply for their energy needs, more people will pursue alternate energy sources or more efficient use of the oil they get.

Oil is the best source of transportation energy.

There is absolutely no reason why we should switch from it.
Alternatives are not popular in use because they cannot equate to the economic viability of oil.

It's completely stupid to push "green" energy, when it isn't ready for the real world of commerce.
 
Lets not forget how many products are produced that require petroleum such as plastics, fiberglass, millions of products not to mention petroleum is required for the machinery to produce as well. All this to would have to be retooled and this to requires petroleum.

It is however not a renewable resource and sooner of later will run out. SO, either plan ahead, or find yourself in a real pickle. The choice is ours.
 
That is not even remotely true for the vast majority of people who are wealthy.
This idea that someone, who has more than you, didn't earn it is a plague on humanity.

Sure, most wealthy people worked hard and saved...but that doesn't change the fact that their success is not entirely due to their own life choices. If you had been born in Somalia, it is unlikely that you would have all the things you have, no matter how smart or hardworking you are. The same thing applies on a national scale. If you are born in an inner city, you simply do not have the same opportunities available to you that people in wealthy suburbs have. You would most likely attend a crappy, overcrowded school and be surrounded by crime.
 
Bull****. I hope that you've parked your car and are walking everywhere. You are doing that aren't you? Huh? You are, right?

I use my truck because I have to for work, which is in the agricultural sector. I drive my car because I live in the middle of nowhere, where it's too small to have public transportation. I live in the rural Southeast, which means there's no railways for me to take to the metropolitan areas when I want to visit them.

It's not my fault that there is no public transportation infrastructure where I currently live for me to use. However, if there were, I'd gladly support it and use it. I'm tired of paying what I do in gas to drive an hour to get to the nearest metropolitan areas, and driving the hour back, and would rather take a train ride instead.

Oil is the best source of transportation energy.

There is absolutely no reason why we should switch from it.
Alternatives are not popular in use because they cannot equate to the economic viability of oil.

It's completely stupid to push "green" energy, when it isn't ready for the real world of commerce.

I understand that oil is the best source of transportation energy, and the difficulty it would be to replace it. However, I think it could also be used more efficiently, with such things at better public transportation infrastructure in our country. Where alternative energy wouldn't be possible, I think we can find ways to utilize oil energy more efficiently.
 
It is however not a renewable resource and sooner of later will run out. SO, either plan ahead, or find yourself in a real pickle. The choice is ours.
I agree we will have do to this sooner or later but not all at once nor should we tax the public as to persuade them. This will be a gradual thing and we have plenty of oil here in the U.S. to give us plenty of time to do so. That said we shouldn't punish the consumer by taxing them to death.
 
I would also like to remind everyone that we don't pay for the full cost of oil in the price of gasoline. There's also the costs in foreign aid to oil-rich nations, and the diplomatic and military costs to ensure our access to oil in those regions, such as the Middle East. There's also the secondary costs, such as veteran benefits for those servicemen garrisoned to protect our sources of oil. If we taxed oil products to pay for all those services, especially the military costs, then we would never be able to afford cheap oil.
 
AHahahaahahahaahahahhaahha.

Oh libertarians. I too once had such a simple view of the world. Then I got my first bicycle! Really? That's the reason? You don't think there are other social, political, or economic factors involved? It's just because poor people are dumber?

In most cases, it's that poor people lack the motivation and ambition to do better, plus they repeatedly make poor life choices. It's debatable if that's a result of stupidity.
 
Sure, most wealthy people worked hard and saved...but that doesn't change the fact that their success is not entirely due to their own life choices. If you had been born in Somalia, it is unlikely that you would have all the things you have, no matter how smart or hardworking you are. The same thing applies on a national scale. If you are born in an inner city, you simply do not have the same opportunities available to you that people in wealthy suburbs have. You would most likely attend a crappy, overcrowded school and be surrounded by crime.

Success is 90% based on your life choices, even in Somalia.

You can leave Somalia on foot, if you can't find a way to immigrate to another country.
African countries have terrible border regulations and there are lots of places to go to to potentially increase your wealth.
It won't be easy but then again nothing worth while in life is supposed to be easy, that is why there are more "poor" people than there are wealthy people.

Putting that aside for a moment though, practically everyone in the 1st world, is rich compared to 80% of the rest of the world.
 
Sure, most wealthy people worked hard and saved...but that doesn't change the fact that their success is not entirely due to their own life choices. If you had been born in Somalia, it is unlikely that you would have all the things you have, no matter how smart or hardworking you are. The same thing applies on a national scale. If you are born in an inner city, you simply do not have the same opportunities available to you that people in wealthy suburbs have. You would most likely attend a crappy, overcrowded school and be surrounded by crime.

And why is that the case? Because a bunch of idiots turned the country into a massive ****hole?
 
I understand that oil is the best source of transportation energy, and the difficulty it would be to replace it. However, I think it could also be used more efficiently, with such things at better public transportation infrastructure in our country. Where alternative energy wouldn't be possible, I think we can find ways to utilize oil energy more efficiently.

I have no problem with using oil more efficiently.
To make that happen we are going to have to undue 50-60 years of pushing people to drive everywhere.
Like somehow disabling the national interstate system.

For what it's worth, Warren Buffet has aquired Sante Fe railroad and plans on putting most of the trucked dry goods on trains.
That is a positive direction in efficient usage of oil.
 
I believe that all of THEM are guilty of demagoguery , the Democrats, the Republicans, and most government officials. The politicians love the country divided because it takes the spotlight off of their corruption and unholy alliances.

The Romans had their Games, we have our internet.:(

Oof! A little too true for comfort. :/
 
I have no problem with using oil more efficiently.
To make that happen we are going to have to undue 50-60 years of pushing people to drive everywhere.
Like somehow disabling the national interstate system.

For what it's worth, Warren Buffet has aquired Sante Fe railroad and plans on putting most of the trucked dry goods on trains.
That is a positive direction in efficient usage of oil.

Exactly. In fact, I wouldn't mind a tax hike on oil products in order to pay for building the infrastructure to develop commercial railroads connecting rural and suburban areas with metropolitan areas.
 
Exactly. In fact, I wouldn't mind a tax hike on oil products in order to pay for building the infrastructure to develop commercial railroads connecting rural and suburban areas with metropolitan areas.

By and large it already exists.
Trucks would only be used to move goods from the train yard to the centers of commerce.

The only things we can't ship through trains are live animals and veggies/fruits.
 
By and large it already exists.
Trucks would only be used to move goods from the train yard to the centers of commerce.

The only things we can't ship through trains are live animals and veggies/fruits.

Not in the Southeast, it doesn't...
 
Back
Top Bottom