• 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!

Idea to control gas prices and help conversion to electric cars.

Do you support this Gas price idea?

  • Total voters
    41
waas said:
Look at it this way: High gas prices are terrible for individuals, but great for the economy.

If you subscribe to peak oil, then you'll likely find the idea of a coming economic decline(due to the fall of the oil industry) valid. I find that high gas prices will force the implementation of an alternate infrastructure. And, well, the same is true about a lot; we'll be more ready to stop doing something if it's not working.
Click to expand...

Taking money from the middle class to give it to rich oil tycoons is never good for the economy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Taking money from the middle class to give it to rich oil tycoons is never good for the economy.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If this money is given by the government, with the condition that is be used to develop a renewables infrastructure, then it is.

Look at it this way:
1.) Gas tax is raised
2.) Government gives said funds to private sector companies under strict conditions.
2.) This subsequently allows them to develop a renewables infrastructure more rapidly.

Essentially, we give the responsibility of developing this new economy to already established institutions(as they already have many of the necessary resources, engineers included).
 
waas said:
Not exactly. If this money is given by the government, with the condition that is be used to develop a renewables infrastructure, then it is.

Look at it this way:
1.) Gas tax is raised
2.) Government gives said funds to private sector companies under strict conditions.
2.) This subsequently allows them to develop a renewables infrastructure more rapidly.

Essentially, we give the responsibility of developing this new economy to already established institutions(as they already have many of the necessary resources, engineers included).
Click to expand...

I see, so by taking more money from the middle class, and then giving it to private companies, you're actually HELPING the middle class? Interesting theory.

I know this comes down to personal preference, but I personally deplore redistributing wealth towards the rich.
 
274ina said:
Issue each citizen a card good for there share of domestic gas. (unleaded, diesel, premium) Current gas card holders would use there current cards.


Domestic gas is local price only, taxed 25% of present tax and priced at low USA price. It cant be sold overseas so the price will remain low. Other restrictions might be needed, that’s for the experts to figure out.

Imported gas is dyed and taxed $4.00 a gallon added to WORLD price.

This way those of us that conserve and help America do not pay for the moron with a hummer that enjoys bowing to Arabs.

You are free to trade your domestic gas points to other card holders. (hence a great $ boost to those with scooters and electric cars)

The infrastructure is there. The old regular – unleaded split. So there is no big investment needed.
Click to expand...

Crude oil is depleted in the USA, and the currently popular pretence that it is not, is just a political propaganda. But even if it was plenty in the USA, it is against the interest of every commodity trader, including oil companies, to drive the supply above the exact match of the temporal demand. This is because with an EXACT match to demand, any slight fluctuation in the supply (such as a hurricane) will cause a sky-rocketing spike in the price, in other words, free cash to the trader.

So, I support the gas card idea, but not for the consumer, but for the trader. And I disagree that any of the problem is to do with usage (such as the Hummer example), I think it is easier to look at it as per the economic aspect of it. In an economic sense, gas is like another taxation, but at a pervasive flat rate. Since the government controls taxes and uses taxation for the behavioral modification of the general public, it would make sense to include gas in the programs/legislations.

The implementation method as proposed in the OP ignores that all such things are balancing acts, and I believe that the (unintended?) results of it would be that it puts people out of their jobs (or whatever is left of that). The OP is exactly as scary as a liberal initiative.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is true. Fracking, getting oil from tar sands, and deepwater drilling are not optimal. However I don't blame prices for the production but rather I blame production of these types on the regulatory nature. Prices spike when inefficiencies exist, because the shallow stuff we still have is not exploitable we have to go to the less optimal system, which then spikes the consumer price. Government could help out quite a bit by getting out of the way.
Under 247's plan anything would be stupid. There would be a total profit elimination in strict land drilling. From what I understand we have at least triple production, where the equation fails is on the refinement end as we are in a refinery shrinkage period. Thus it doesn't matter if we produce or import crude we simply don't have the capacity to meet demand because instead of building more refineries we have to repair and retrofit, or close. Much of that is due to regs.
Click to expand...

I think we agree completely that regulation really hods up the price of oil, so let's get past that. I also think that it is physically possible to make America oil independent, but the time it would take a while to exploit these resources would be quite long. I also doubt that the public would accept deregulation of offshore drilling after the BP disaster.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I think we agree completely that regulation really hods up the price of oil, so let's get past that. I also think that it is physically possible to make America oil independent, but the time it would take a while to exploit these resources would be quite long. I also doubt that the public would accept deregulation of offshore drilling after the BP disaster.
Click to expand...
I think the only thing we disagree on is the American opinon. The oil spill was a once in a generation thing and someone is going to pay criminally and civilly for that, I'd say we're probably split into a slight majority that wants the drilling, the reasoning behind that claim is that La. got hit the hardest and we are at about 85-90%(rough estimate) against the moratorium.
 
waas said:
Look at it this way: High gas prices are terrible for individuals, but great for the economy.

If you subscribe to peak oil, then you'll likely find the idea of a coming economic decline(due to the fall of the oil industry) valid. I find that high gas prices will force the implementation of an alternate infrastructure. And, well, the same is true about a lot; we'll be more ready to stop doing something if it's not working.
Click to expand...

I agree that high gas prices will force implementation of an alternate infrastructure. I disagree that the government should be causing those high gas prices. Let the market determine the most economical situation.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think the only thing we disagree on is the American opinon. The oil spill was a once in a generation thing and someone is going to pay criminally and civilly for that, I'd say we're probably split into a slight majority that wants the drilling, the reasoning behind that claim is that La. got hit the hardest and we are at about 85-90%(rough estimate) against the moratorium.
Click to expand...

You're probably right that future spills are unlikely. The conditions that caused the Deepwater Horizon spill were very unlikely, but look at Three Mile Island. No one received more radiation as a result of that partial meltdown than they would from a chest x-ray. Nuclear power is still far safer than coal, which releases toxic emissions and necessitates relatively dangerous mining, but the episode turned American opinion against nuclear power. No new plants have been built in this the country since then. If we are going to continue offshore drilling, it will be met with very heavy regulation. As much as you or I can talk about applying policies without concern for public opinion, policymakers do not have this luxury.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
You're probably right that future spills are unlikely. The conditions that caused the Deepwater Horizon spill were very unlikely, but look at Three Mile Island. No one received more radiation as a result of that partial meltdown than they would from a chest x-ray. Nuclear power is still far safer than coal, which releases toxic emissions and necessitates relatively dangerous mining, but the episode turned American opinion against nuclear power. No new plants have been built in this the country since then. If we are going to continue offshore drilling, it will be met with very heavy regulation. As much as you or I can talk about applying policies without concern for public opinion, policymakers do not have this luxury.
Click to expand...
The media won the public perception battle with 3 Mile Island. It was a relatively benign event though it did obviously cause concerns. The thing with the oil spill is, like 3 Mile Island it was a big event that overshadows the constantly safe overall operations that go on, most of America hated the moratorium though which is what I go on.

Couldn't tell you whether the moratorium was unpopular because of the unilateral executive action or because of the inanity of it but it didn't poll well. This tells me at least that the public perception is that oil is safe enough to explore and use as needed until we find a better solution. I think we should build more nuclear plants, explore options to get more power out of hydro, geothermal, increase grid efficiency, etc. but until these techs are viable we have to make what we have work at optimum levels.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Taking money from the middle class to give it to rich oil tycoons is never good for the economy.
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
I see, so by taking more money from the middle class, and then giving it to private companies, you're actually HELPING the middle class? Interesting theory.

I know this comes down to personal preference, but I personally deplore redistributing wealth towards the rich.
Click to expand...

It does rather go against traditional socialism, doesn't it? It seems fair to describe it, in fact, as “reverse socialism”. And until the Obama administration, I very much doubt if anyone would have seriously proposed or supported such policies, though those on the left like to falsely accuse those on the right of that.

But look what the Obama administration has really been doing, with all the bank bailouts, and automobile industry bailouts, and the “Cash for Clunkers” scam, and such. The true effect of all of these has been to redistribute wealth upward—to take wealth from those who have less of it, and give it to those who have more. I cannot imagine the logic that thinks this is a good idea, but whether it is good or bad, it's what Obama's policies have been, and it's set the stage for others who consider themselves to be in the leftist/Democratic/Socialist direction to propose and support similar policies.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The media won the public perception battle with 3 Mile Island. It was a relatively benign event though it did obviously cause concerns. The thing with the oil spill is, like 3 Mile Island it was a big event that overshadows the constantly safe overall operations that go on, most of America hated the moratorium though which is what I go on.
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate, especially when you look at safety and environmental concerns from most other power sources. Nuclear's problems are generally not as bad.

LaMidRighter said:
Couldn't tell you whether the moratorium was unpopular because of the unilateral executive action or because of the inanity of it but it didn't poll well. This tells me at least that the public perception is that oil is safe enough to explore and use as needed until we find a better solution. I think we should build more nuclear plants, explore options to get more power out of hydro, geothermal, increase grid efficiency, etc. but until these techs are viable we have to make what we have work at optimum levels.
Click to expand...

I believe in solar and wind long-term, and more natural gas use in the short and medium term due to fracking. I'm skeptical of nuclear, because it requires huge subsidies as it is, and I don't see much of a political push in this country for more research. Solar and wind are not there yet, and I'm skeptical as hell in the ability of government subsidized green jobs schemes to do much other than raise energy prices. However, both technologies have a lot of potential in the coming decades. Energy storage and absorption are going to be key in making these technologies more efficient and worth developing. They then have to be made cheaper. I'm obviously not an expert on this, but I would be surprised if either one breaks through for anytime soon.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Heaven forbid I should confuse a medicinal patent with "patent medicine" which you should have put in quotes BTW. Patent medicines aren't all illegal, the difference is they don't fall under FDA laws because they aren't licensed, the only one's illegal had either 1) Harmful side effects shown in a lab or 2) A component which was already an illegal substance such as cocaine, heroine, etc.

Anyway. Fraud is illegal, but this has nothing to do with your idea or argument. You are asserting that commerce is harmful because it shows a profit component which shows a lack of fundamental economic understanding, then you are appealing to things that government has a legitimate right to hinder such as fraud and other harmful activities. I understand, you don't like something so you want to play an equation that genralizes but it isn't applicable.

EDIT - The health law compels policies to be purchased and the price went up. 20$ a month is not gonna happen, more like a 120$ policy just became 300$.
Click to expand...

Wrong agian.

There is a cap on the price you pay for HC policys. read the bill. HR 3590

2 % of pay to 9.5% of pay for those covered by employers....................mine will be capped at 2% of my pay.

1401 36b section.............HR 3590 (ACA)

"‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR TAXPAYERS
7 UNDER 133 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE.—If
8 a taxpayer’s household income for the tax9
able year is in excess of 100 percent, but not
10 more than 133 percent, of the poverty line
11 for a family of the size involved, the tax
payer’s applicable percentage shall be 2 per
cent."
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I don't really understand why the US supply has to be separate from global supply. What would this do besides massively distort the market and satisfy some economically-clueless protectionists? US supply is not nearly high enough to meet demand. We simply do not have enough oil. The price would shoot up if not for price controls. These controls would only create a shortage. Prices are not simply determinants for how many ivory back-scratchers corporate fat-cats can buy. They are critical in determining how resources can be used most efficiently in an economy. When the government sets prices, it creates shortages or gluts, and resources are misallocated. Price controls lead to rationing. The rationing would fail, because people could simply buy and sell points. So you you would be replicating the old, evil market, except now it's less efficient. You create a bunch exemptions, but this only invites people to get past your scheme or make it not work, so that we have the same problems as before, except for the loss in efficiency caused by people getting around your scheme. Sorry, 247, but this is a terrible idea that simply piles one misunderstanding of basic economics onto another. I suggest you read up before you talk about the "Evils of Free Trade".
Click to expand...

its has to be seperate because of currency manipulation that allows the UE (for one) to buy oil cheap and screw the USA simply because of the currency ratio.

How about you read like I have......

The wolf finally came
free trade doesnt work
The great wave
Punching out
For starters. Then you might wake up from the GOP fantasy land you live in.

Notice all those ex-middle class you ignore that are homeless........
they are the key to your and the GOP down fall.......................
 
Last edited:
H. Lee White said:
Their share?
Determined by whom? How?
Click to expand...

Determined by USA gas/diesel/premium production each year.

If you use more than that, you have to buy others points, or pay world price.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A lot of people think it's government's job to provide basic education, to teach every child basic literacy skills—reading and writing. Look how great a job they did of teaching you. You can't even write; much less demonstrate any grasp of the mathematics, business and economic principles, social issues, and technical issues that it would take to meaningfully discuss the topic that you are trying to discuss.
Click to expand...

So the speeling cop attacks the engineer.........go F**** yourself.

You want math, compare the wages of a BS "ant" in china and a USA BS holder......and guess who is working at all.......
 
Last edited:
274ina said:
Wrong agian.

There is a cap on the price you pay for HC policys. read the bill. HR 3590

2 % of pay to 9.5% of pay for those covered by employers....................mine will be capped at 2% of my pay.

1401 36b section.............HR 3590 (ACA)

"‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR TAXPAYERS
7 UNDER 133 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE.—If
8 a taxpayer’s household income for the tax9
able year is in excess of 100 percent, but not
10 more than 133 percent, of the poverty line
11 for a family of the size involved, the tax
payer’s applicable percentage shall be 2 per
cent."
Click to expand...
Actually I'm correct. If you are talking about a group policy your employer is subsidizing it, ask people paying for individual policies if they like the increases.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I see, so by taking more money from the middle class, and then giving it to private companies, you're actually HELPING the middle class? Interesting theory.

I know this comes down to personal preference, but I personally deplore redistributing wealth towards the rich.
Click to expand...

That would be correct, were I not an advocate of progressive taxation. You seem to have gotten this whole idea that I(a socialist) want to redistribute wealth upwards, and it's just not the case. This money would go directly to the implementation of a renewables infrastructure, not to anybody's pockets. And further, using progressive taxation, only those who can afford to bear the financial burden would do so.
 
Mycroft said:
I agree that high gas prices will force implementation of an alternate infrastructure. I disagree that the government should be causing those high gas prices. Let the market determine the most economical situation.
Click to expand...

Most economical situation? Like running the world oil supplies dry, while making you bear the burden of their reckless behavior?
 
waas said:
Most economical situation? Like running the world oil supplies dry, while making you bear the burden of their reckless behavior?
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Such hyperbole!

Don't worry, long before the world's oil supplies run dry the price of oil will rise enough to make your precious alternative energy sources more economical. That's the way the market works.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!! Such hyperbole!

Don't worry, long before the world's oil supplies run dry the price of oil will rise enough to make your precious alternative energy sources more economical. That's the way the market works.
Click to expand...

And GCC is of no concern to you, hunh?

Keep in mind that companies will continue to drill for fuels despite the environmental and public health risks/damages. That's also how the market works.
 
waas said:
And GCC is of no concern to you, hunh?

Keep in mind that companies will continue to drill for fuels despite the environmental and public health risks/damages. That's also how the market works.
Click to expand...

What does GCC have to do with our use of our own domestic oil?

I think our domestic oil companies are smart enough to deal with environmental and public health risks/damages...North Dakota isn't having any such problems, after all.
 
Mycroft said:
What does GCC have to do with our use of our own domestic oil?
Click to expand...

Sustained use of fossil fuels leads to GCC...

I think our domestic oil companies are smart enough to deal with environmental and public health risks/damages...North Dakota isn't having any such problems, after all.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Exon, British Petroleum, or Royal Shell.
 
fuel rationing and price controls eh?

how about... No.

there is no emergency condition in this country that would warrant a rationing and price control system to be put in place.

I understand that a few commie environazis feel that everyone not having an electric car is an emergency, but meh, those folks are extremists nutbags and shouldn't be paid any mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom