Government Loves $4 Gas

[speakerman39]

Well, you are

Over 62 million people voted for George Bush in 2004. The US population at that time was about 300 million. Do the math

Right, BUT how many of them are of the voting age of 18???? More importantly, how many of those that are 18 were even registered voters??? I read this and never professed to be an expert. My point is more people could vote and perhaps end up with better results. Who really gives a $h*t on the specifics that happened back in 04 as what matters is what is going to happen come November 08 right? Oh, remember Florida was more or less a wash out from what I recall.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[jonnythan]

Right, BUT how many of them are of the voting age of 18???? More importantly, how many of those that are 18 were even registered voters??? I read this and never professed to be an expert. My point is more people could vote and perhaps end up with better results. Who really gives a $h*t on the specifics that happened back in 04 as what matters is what is going to happen come November 08 right? Oh, remember Florida was more or less a wash out from what I recall.

Cheers,

Phil

Huh? You said only about 17% of Americans voted. The reality is that more than that many voted for one person, and almost the same amount voted for the other guy. Those percentages only get bigger when you rule out those under 18. I was just correcting your obvious wrong information.

Ah well.

 

[speakerman39]

Huh? You said only about 17% of Americans voted. The reality is that more than that many voted for one person, and almost the same amount voted for the other guy. Those percentages only get bigger when you rule out those under 18. I was just correcting your obvious wrong information.

Ah well.

Ok great. Thanks for the correction.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Rickster71]

Maybe you might want to consider relocating.

If the woman in the white shorts is available; relocating may be do-able.
Would I have to bring my wife?

Don't get my original post wrong; I'm all for capitalism.
Though, I don't think the government is in any hurry to pressure OPEC; due to such a huge tax windfall.

 

[Rickster71]

One thing Americans can do is get off of their a$$e$ and vote when the time comes. In the last Presidential election, ONLY 17% nationwide voted. That is just pathetic.

Cheers,

Phil

Hi Phil, I said the same thing to an old timer, some years ago.
His reply was, "That's a good thing, because 50% of them are too stupid to vote"

 

[MDS]

I love a good conspiracy theory, but the US government has nothing to do with it, except in a tangential way...by living beyond our means. The US is the largest consumer of oil and gas world wide and the US dollar is the world's reserve currncy. Oil is priced in dollars and as the dollar weakens, the price of oil goes up.

The dollar is weakening becuase 'the full faith and credit of the US' means absolutely nothing. The US is no longer a good credit risk. It took a mere twenty years to go from the world's largest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation in the history of civilazation.

All of our problems were caused by ourselves.

 

[Dan]

The weak dollar may actually be part of the governmants plan if they are actually that clever. When the boomers start to retire in large numbers in about 4-5 years, their 401K money in the market will begin to be sold to pay for retirement. All that money leaving the market will cause stock prices to drop. This may have already begun as the smarter ones put more of their 401k into bonds.

Greenspan's solution was a weak dollar to encourage foreign investment in the market. He thought of this oh about ten years ago.

 

[rnatalli]

If the woman in the white shorts is available; relocating may be do-able.
Would I have to bring my wife?

In Russia, it isn't uncommon for men to have two families going or to have a family and a side dish. Go for it

 

[ChunkyDark]

But, is it a peer reviewed publication

Exactly! Wikipedia is fine for arguing on the intertubes, but doesn't have any place in college level research papers.

For an example I compared the quoted Federal pdf to what was in the wiki article. The federal pdf had 3,689 votes for Róger Calero and the wiki had 10,800.

I did read an article awhile back that some colleges are having students write wiki entries instead of traditional research papers. I think this a great response to the changing times and will help get more high quality and reviewed works out there.

 

[jonnythan]

The other 7,100 votes for Calero include the votes for James Harris, the party's 2000 candidate.

Calero is ineligible to become President, so some states did not allow him on the ballot. Harris was on the ballot in these states instead.

You would know this if you read footnote on the chart.

 

[Mort Corey]

Reading through this with Russia and voting in the same thread kind of reminded my of good old Uncle Joe Stalin....it doesn't matter who or how many vote for anything, it's who counts the votes that matters (or something close)

Mort

 

[speakerman39]

Hi Phil, I said the same thing to an old timer, some years ago.
His reply was, "That's a good thing, because 50% of them are too stupid to vote"

You know Rick, you may have a point.......LOL!!!!!!

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Audioholics]

If the woman in the white shorts is available; relocating may be do-able.

I think that's a guy with long hair.

 

[Rickster71]

I think that's a guy with long hair.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[ChunkyDark]

but but but

The other 7,100 votes for Calero include the votes for James Harris, the party's 2000 candidate.

Calero is ineligible to become President, so some states did not allow him on the ballot. Harris was on the ballot in these states instead.

You would know this if you read footnote on the chart.

I was going to reply with something devastatingly witty , but appears we are both causalities of some collateral misinformation. Apparently some thug has wiped poor Roger from the 2004 election!
I was looking for the (b) footnote because I had indeed read it, but it wasn’t there along with Calero. Looking at the edit logs it appears that someone from the Audioholics forum just wants us all to get along and removed it.

 

[jonnythan]

The article on Calero himself includes all the pertinent information.

 

[Tarub]

The Energy Non-Crisis

Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use. (1hr 15min. long)

<embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="fs=true" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

 

[tbewick]

I think our government loves the fact that gas is $4.00 a gallon.
They are sitting back, and making more money (and doing nothing) while raking in extra tax revenue. The politicians (Democrats and Republicans) are taking us for a ride.

The gas tax which you are talking about is presumably not revenue-neutral. A revenue-neutral gas tax does appear to have advantages over other taxes:

'A gas tax increase — coupled with an offsetting reduction in other taxes, such as the Social Security tax on wages — could make most American households better off, while reducing oil imports (read dependence on Middle Eastern regimes), local pollution, urban congestion, road accidents, and global climate change. This revenue-neutral tax reform would exemplify the market-based approaches to environmental protection and resource management I examined in previous columns.

Such a change need not constitute a new tax, but a reform of existing ones. It is well known — both from economic theory and numerous empirical studies — that taxes tend to reduce the extent to which people undertake the taxed activity. In the United States, most tax revenues are raised by levies on labor and investment; the resulting reduction in these fundamentally desirable activities is viewed as an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of the need to raise revenue for government operations. Would it not make more sense to raise the revenue we need by taxing undesirable activities, instead of desirable ones?

Combustion of gasoline in motor vehicles produces local air pollution as well as carbon dioxide that contributes to global climate change, increases imports of oil, and exacerbates urban highway congestion. Can anyone really claim that — given a choice between discouraging work and discouraging gasoline consumption — it is better to discourage work?'

Economist Prof. Robert Stavins, "A Tale of Two Taxes, A Challenge to Hill." The Environmental Forum, Volume 21, Number 6, November/December, 2004, p. 12.
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~rstavins/Forum/Column_4.pdf

 

[Rickster71]

The gas tax which you are talking about is presumably not revenue-neutral.

I wasn't speaking of Gas Tax.
I was talking about corporate taxes.
Exxon Mobile paid 30 Billion dollars in taxes in 2007?! (at a 41% tax rate)
If one corp. (Exxon) paid $30 Billion; added to what taxes all the other oil companies are paying!
It's becomes inconceivable, the amount of money the U.S. government is raking in. Just by holding it's hand out.
(This becomes analogous to paying the mafia money. If your pizza restaurant is busy, the mafia wants more money.)

Allow me to give another example: My wife and I work / run a local charity event every year.
A friend of ours, also helps at the event; and won the 50/50 raffle. It was $10,000.
They will end up with $7,000 after taxes.
Our silent partner, the government gets $3,000 for doing nothing!
It bothers me, knowing how hard this person works, and knowing the full $10k could go towards his two daughter's education.

 

[Pyrrho]

I wasn't speaking of Gas Tax.
I was talking about corporate taxes.
Exxon Mobile paid 30 Billion dollars in taxes in 2007?! (at a 41% tax rate)
If one corp. (Exxon) paid $30 Billion; added to what taxes all the other oil companies are paying!
It's becomes inconceivable, the amount of money the U.S. government is raking in. Just by holding it's hand out.
(This becomes analogous to paying the mafia money. If your pizza restaurant is busy, the mafia wants more money.)

Allow me to give another example: My wife and I work / run a local charity event every year.
A friend of ours, also helps at the event; and won the 50/50 raffle. It was $10,000.
They will end up with $7,000 after taxes.
Our silent partner, the government gets $3,000 for doing nothing!
It bothers me, knowing how hard this person works, and knowing the full $10k could go towards his two daughter's education.

The government subsidizes education, and that money must come from somewhere. There is a good chance that your friend has already received much more than $3k in education benefits, and will receive much more in the future if his children go to college.


On a completely different subject, but related to what you have said, if I were unkind, I would be suspicious of the honesty of a raffle in which a friend of the person running it, who also was involved in the event, wins the raffle. I suggest that you don't allow people involved in running a raffle to enter it, even if the raffle is honest, because it will give the impression that cheating has taken place if someone involved in the process wins.