Should gas prices reflect the cost of war in the middle east?

[Slateriesling]

The US has engaged in several military conflicts in the middle east to stablilize oil production. The reasons for the conflicts in this region are disruptions to the world wide energy needs and the US has decided to dedicate a large amount of money and lives to the protection of these sources of oil.

Should the cost of gas at the pump more directly reflect this burden that the American tax payer is taking? Meaning, should there be a greater tax on gasoline to offset the costs of these military actions?

I know that some would like to argue about the reasons for these military actions, but I find it rather ridiculous to do so. If America is fighting in the middle east for the good of democracy, why would they ignore so many places that do not have oil but have humanitarian needs that are at least as urgent as they are in this region?

 

[ecofarm]

The US is not in the mideast to stabilize oil.

I know that some would like to argue about the reasons for these military actions, but I find it rather ridiculous to do so. If America is fighting in the middle east for the good of democracy, why would they ignore so many places that do not have oil but have humanitarian needs that are at least as urgent as they are in this region?

Ah, yes, the old "if we're so perfect then why don't we do EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME" argument. A classic, if pitifully informed and thought out.

1. We're not perfect.
2. We cannot possibly do everything at the same time; thus, we consider overarching factors and have priorities.

Why do you hate priorities?

 

[ttwtt78640]

:lol: :doh Invent a "problem", define a "solution" and then ask if we agree with either? No, thank you. :roll:

 

[DaveFagan]

The US has engaged in several military conflicts in the middle east to stablilize oil production. The reasons for the conflicts in this region are disruptions to the world wide energy needs and the US has decided to dedicate a large amount of money and lives to the protection of these sources of oil.

Should the cost of gas at the pump more directly reflect this burden that the American tax payer is taking? Meaning, should there be a greater tax on gasoline to offset the costs of these military actions?

I know that some would like to argue about the reasons for these military actions, but I find it rather ridiculous to do so. If America is fighting in the middle east for the good of democracy, why would they ignore so many places that do not have oil but have humanitarian needs that are at least as urgent as they are in this region?

Actually, a punitive tax should be placed upon the Energy Corporations that profit handsomely from this OIL. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Total, etc. and the largest distributors and largest beneficiaries of these ill-gotten natural resource access. Coincidentally, they are also really big Congressional lobbyists. Probably just a hugely coinky dink circumstance, don't you think?

 

[Fisher]

Sure and food should be taxed to pay for all of the war on poverty. :roll:

 

[Slateriesling]

The US is not in the mideast to stabilize oil.

Why are we fighting there?

 

[Slateriesling]

:lol: :doh Invent a "problem", define a "solution" and then ask if we agree with either? No, thank you. :roll:

So, our bloated defence budget is not a problem?

I never suggested that a greater tax on gas was a solution. I simply asked if it is right that the cost of these military actions (note I did not use the word "war") be passed on to the commodity that is being protected by these actions.

Why don't the people that believe in capitalism believe that the cost of something should reflect all of the costs of that commodity. The principle of capitalism is that something should reflect its cost and the public gets to decide if it is worth the cost. By hiding some of the cost of something there is no capitalism.

 

[ecofarm]

Why are we fighting there?

Well, if you don't know then it must be oil!

 

[Slateriesling]

Well, if you don't know then it must be oil!

I agree, if you don't know then it must be oil.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, our bloated defence budget is not a problem?

I never suggested that a greater tax on gas was a solution. I simply asked if it is right that the cost of these military actions (note I did not use the word "war") be passed on to the commodity that is being protected by these actions.

Why don't the people that believe in capitalism believe that the cost of something should reflect all of the costs of that commodity. The principle of capitalism is that something should reflect its cost and the public gets to decide if it is worth the cost. By hiding some of the cost of something there is no capitalism.

The commodity that our military protects is our basic freedom. Defense is a basic federal Constitutional power. I agree that our defense budget is bloated yet adding taxation to support ANY gov't waste insane. Perhaps we should first cut those federal expenses not backed up by ANY Constititutional federal power at all, like education and income redistribution via some 70+ income based federal social programs.

 

[ecofarm]

I agree, if you don't know then it must be oil.

I'm fully aware. I'm not your teacher and am under no obligation to teach you 5th grade international relations and history.

 

[Slateriesling]

The commodity that our military protects is our basic freedom. Defense is a basic federal Constitutional power. I agree that our defense budget is bloated yet adding taxation to support ANY gov't waste insane. Perhaps we should first cut those federal expenses not backed up by ANY Constititutional federal power at all, like education and income redistribution via some 70+ income based federal social programs.

I know from seeing your posts ttwtt that you are not that bad about this. Stay on topic. I was not trying to bring in education, and all the other issues in American politics. I just wanted a conversation about the issue of paying for the military to prop up the oil industry without allowing the price of gas to reflect this cost to the tax paying public.

Perhaps the oil companies should hire their own army and fight for stable oil sources. Leave the US military out of it. How expensive would oil, and therefore the pump price of gas, be if that were the condition.

 

[Helix]

The US has engaged in several military conflicts in the middle east to stablilize oil production. The reasons for the conflicts in this region are disruptions to the world wide energy needs and the US has decided to dedicate a large amount of money and lives to the protection of these sources of oil.

Should the cost of gas at the pump more directly reflect this burden that the American tax payer is taking? Meaning, should there be a greater tax on gasoline to offset the costs of these military actions?

I know that some would like to argue about the reasons for these military actions, but I find it rather ridiculous to do so. If America is fighting in the middle east for the good of democracy, why would they ignore so many places that do not have oil but have humanitarian needs that are at least as urgent as they are in this region?

i'm all for completely replacing the oil-based transportation energy model, but not through regressive gas taxes that hit the poor the hardest.

 

[Slateriesling]

i'm all for completely replacing the oil-based transportation energy model, but not through regressive gas taxes that hit the poor the hardest.

Trust me, I am no more happy about the fact that the poor would be hit by this concept than anybody. But I keep thinking about the idea that a given product should reflect its actual cost to all of us. I keep thinking that the oil industry benefits from the military in the sence that they secure the source. Yet, when we get to the pump we don't see that cost. It is moved to our income tax and all the other taxes that pay for it.

I know perfectly well what burden a higher tax on gas would put. My thought is, with gas reflecting its real cost at the pump, other taxes that now pay for the military could be cut and we would all have a better knowledge of what our gas is costing us and we could all make a more informed decision about our priorities as it relates to energy use.

 

[DVSentinel]

Why are we fighting there?

Maybe it had something to do with terrorist attacking our country directly which pissed us off. We decided to take out terrorist sponsors and had to prioritize. Afghanistan first, they backed Al Queda and wouldn't turn them over. BTW, Afghanistan is not a big oil producer. Heroin (or is it opium? I get confused which comes from poppies), yes, oil, no.

Iraq was next. There are various reasons for this. While not supporters of Al Queda, that I know of, they did in the past sponsor terrorism against our interests and our allies. We already had many of our military assets tied up there and couldn't free them for other uses until we finished it. I concede that wanting to finish off what his father started may have played a role in Iraq getting higher priority than say Iran, which is the bigger threat. However, the fact that Iraq was already using up a lot of assets that may be needed elsewhere probably played a bigger role in the choice.

If it was only about oil, then taking out Iran would of made more sense than Iraq.

Unfortunately, we found out that our forces are ill equipped and trained for the purpose of occupation. Our politicians didn't have any concept of what occupation would actually incur. Things got even more screwed up when we decided to invite NATO in to help rebuild. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and others have all sponsored terrorism against us, our forces, our interests and our allies. Whether they supported just Al Queda or not was immaterial to the "War on Terrorism", it was targeted at everyone who sponsors terrorist groups and activities.

So, we are not there because of oil, at least not that alone. The real question would be why so many middle-eastern countries sponsor terrorism.

 

[WI Crippler]

I went over there and brought home 4 barrels of oil myself. Your welcome.

 

[Slateriesling]

So, we are not there because of oil, at least not that alone. The real question would be why so many middle-eastern countries sponsor terrorism.

Thank you for actually addressing the issues. It appears that you recognize that there is an oil source issue to this.

I admit, the Islam issue is disturbing. How to deal with a bunch of poor, misguided people is difficult. But we are not dealing with that. It seems to me that the current strategy is to secure the oil and then let the "military industrial complex" benefit from a never ending "war on terrorism."

Kill em all or don't. Stop the unending bull**** effort to avert some unending threat.

Frankly you have caused me to bring out my true feelings about the middle east. S**t or get off the pot.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Gas prices should reflect market value.

 

[Helix]

Trust me, I am no more happy about the fact that the poor would be hit by this concept than anybody. But I keep thinking about the idea that a given product should reflect its actual cost to all of us. I keep thinking that the oil industry benefits from the military in the sence that they secure the source. Yet, when we get to the pump we don't see that cost. It is moved to our income tax and all the other taxes that pay for it.

I know perfectly well what burden a higher tax on gas would put. My thought is, with gas reflecting its real cost at the pump, other taxes that now pay for the military could be cut and we would all have a better knowledge of what our gas is costing us and we could all make a more informed decision about our priorities as it relates to energy use.

we'd do much better spending money on developing the next energy model than on punitive taxes to support the current one. eventually, everyone is going to have to face the fact that we can't afford to be the global military force. we should keep a defensive peacetime military, and start nation building here. oil is already such a drag on the economy that artificially raising its price might be a tipping point. add in demand-side austerity, and it's game over for a generation or more. if that's the case, we certainly won't be able to do what we need to do to prepare for a transition from oil.

 

[Slateriesling]

we'd do much better spending money on developing the next energy model than on punitive taxes to support the current one. eventually, everyone is going to have to face the fact that we can't afford to be the global military force. we should keep a defensive peacetime military, and start nation building here. oil is already such a drag on the economy that artificially raising its price might be a tipping point. add in demand-side austerity, and it's game over for a generation or more. if that's the case, we certainly won't be able to do what we need to do to prepare for a transition from oil.

Don't you think that a "punitive tax", although I don't see it that way, would create more insentive to develop alternative sources of energy than the ones that require military intervention to secure.

I don't want a punitive tax. I am looking to have oil reflect the real cost to the consumer, rather than try to drive us to alternative sources through punishing use of the best current source of energy.

 

[Helix]

Don't you think that a "punitive tax", although I don't see it that way, would create more insentive to develop alternative sources of energy than the ones that require military intervention to secure.

I don't want a punitive tax. I am looking to have oil reflect the real cost to the consumer, rather than try to drive us to alternative sources through punishing use of the best current source of energy.

from the demand side, I think a regressive tax would actually be a hindrance to the transition that we need to make, because so much of that R&D comes from money that flows up. in a way, artificially raising the price of energy is akin to fixing the ingrown nail by shooting off the toe. lots of better ways to do it.

 

[DaveFagan]

Why are we fighting there?

Because that is where the OIL is!

 

[Slateriesling]

from the demand side, I think a regressive tax would actually be a hindrance to the transition that we need to make, because so much of that R&D comes from money that flows up. in a way, artificially raising the price of energy is akin to fixing the ingrown nail by shooting off the toe. lots of better ways to do it.

I guess I am having trouble understanding your argument. I am trying to suggest a way that works within the capitalist system that America values so much. If you are trying to have the oil industry pay for these military actions without passing it on to the gas buying public, I think you are being foolish. I don't mean that to be rude, but I cannot frame it in a better light.

 

[Helix]

I guess I am having trouble understanding your argument. I am trying to suggest a way that works within the capitalist system that America values so much.

that's where you're going wrong. it can't be done without significant public sector R&D. GE didn't get us to the moon, but GE and NASA did.

If you are trying to have the oil industry pay for these military actions without passing it on to the gas buying public, I think you are being foolish. I don't mean that to be rude, but I cannot frame it in a better light.

the oil industry won't pay it. the consumer will.

as for military actions, i would support pulling out all of the stops so that we can eliminate the need to defend our access to global oil resources. i'm not talking about paying for the military actions with a direct gas tax; i'm talking about replacing the oil model in advance of the war over diminishing resources if we don't.

rather than kill the economy with another energy tax, i'd reallocate the money currently going to global police actions and use it instead to develop new energy technology. the oil companies can either be involved in public / private partnership, or they can get out of the way and risk withering on the vine when the next model starts being put into place.

 

[Slateriesling]

that's where you're going wrong. it can't be done without significant public sector R&D. GE didn't get us to the moon, but GE and NASA did.




the oil industry won't pay it. the consumer will.

as for military actions, i would support pulling out all of the stops so that we can eliminate the need to defend our access to global oil resources. i'm not talking about paying for the military actions with a direct gas tax; i'm talking about replacing the oil model in advance of the war over diminishing resources if we don't.

rather than kill the economy with another energy tax, i'd reallocate the money currently going to global police actions and use it instead to develop new energy technology. the oil companies can either be involved in public / private partnership, or they can get out of the way and risk withering on the vine when the next model starts being put into place.

TY, I think I am better understanding what you are getting at. IMO your take is not workable in the short term but I know that in the long term we need to foster other sources of energy. I was thinking that the current system of keeping gasoline as cheap as possible is not fostering the changes you advocate.

:twocents:I have noticed in my neighborhood that the most inefficient vehicles on the road appear to be driven by the poorest people. If perhaps, the cost of gas drove them to drive more fuel efficient vehicles rather than the cheaper to buy, but more expensive to run, they would be encouraging the type of reform you are suggesting. They are wasting their money to foster political ideals that do not seem to be in their best interests.