Ohio Democrat proposes 100% tax

[Buckeye_Nut]

1) The democrats are not socialst. If they were, there would already be a national health system.

Many democratic economic & social positions root in socialism. You might want to have a clue about socialist politics before adding to the discussion. It's an ongoing issue that continues to be on the democrat wish list.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206355,00.html

Kerry was just talking about it today, in fact. LOL
Granted, he's not talking about "Billary-care" plan in todays quote, but it's the same ol, same ol socialist rhetoric.

Once again, the democrats are missing the issue, and they're barking up the wrong tree(as usual). Availability of HC is not an issue in this country. The real issue is cost, and the democrats offer nothing to solve the crisis. Of the roughly 42-44 million uninsureds in our nation(population 300mill), the majority of that number are uninsured "by choice". I even broke that 42-44 million down in another thread in this very forum. You can search for it if you like. I'll just give you a little teaser..... IE... about 7-8 million of the 42-44 are wealthy who choose to pay out of pocket rather than to pay HC premiums. Another 8 million are children who are currently elligible for for Govt HC, but for whatever reasons, their parents chose not to enroll them in the program. I can break it down further too, but why bother? Some people prefer to remain in the dark regardless of the facts being presented. The fact of the matter is that 'VERY FEW' are uninsured & want it. The reality is that our currently population is roughly 300mill, and only about 1-2% of the total population are uninsured, and want it. Availability is NOT an issue. The real issue is cost.

The reason we dont currently have a socialist healthcare plan is because the democrats have been evicted from power, and their 'plan' got kicked to the curb.(for good reasons)

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Normally I don't like to get into these economic debates. But this one drives me insane. The lackadaisical ignorance is frightening.

Why isn't gasoline certified a utility?

Maybe because it isnt

The last time the govt tried to get involved was in the 70s when they tried to impose price controls thanks to Jimmy Carter, and he made a huge mess out of things. Those old enough to remember the gasoline crisis of 1979 may recall sitting in long lines of cars at filling stations, waiting -- sometimes for hours -- only to reach an empty pump. This was one of the most common consequences of price control throughout history -- a shortage.

Luckily, Ronnie came around soon afterwards to clean up the mess.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Maybe because it isnt

The last time the govt tried to get involved was in the 70s when they tried to impose price controls thanks to Jimmy Carter, and he made a huge mess out of things. Those old enough to remember the gasoline crisis of 1979 may recall sitting in long lines of cars at filling stations, waiting -- sometimes for hours -- only to reach an empty pump. This was one of the most common consequences of price control throughout history -- a shortage.

Luckily, Ronnie came around soon afterwards to clean up the mess.

Wouldn't you think economic incentives for auto corporations to push all electric vehicles would be a move to reduce demand for oil? Isn't it strange these incentives only exist for hybrid gas/electric cars? What if W was into coal instead of oil - ever wonder what may be different?

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

1st: you come off as if I just insulted your mom...get a grip.

2nd: Gee wiz, sorry I miss typed something after midnight and hit 7 instead of 8.

3rd: Who has Ohio State #1 other than perhaps some "local Ohio State experts"? Most preason picks I see have the Buckeyes #4 (which is where they finished last year).

4th: I do more than "follow" the sport.

Last the comment was meant more as a lite hearted rib...so again, get a grip.

I'm always game for a little football smack-talk. If you're gonna dish it, you better be prepared take it too. My guess is that it wasnt a typo, and you werent even aware that teams were reverting back to a 12 game season in '06.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Wouldn't you think economic incentives for auto corporations to push all electric vehicles would be a move to reduce demand for oil? Isn't it strange these incentives only exist for hybrid gas/electric cars? What if W was into coal instead of oil - ever wonder what may be different?

Sure, but there has to be demand first. GM doesnt make them because the buying public isnt asking for energizer bunny powered cars

Once the public asks, they'll build them. IE....Hybrids.

My solution to the problem is to convert California into an "Oil Refining State". Since those on the left are responsible for why the USA has not built a single refinery in more than 3 decades (which certainly contrubutes to the current supply problem & high prices) while our population and world oil demand has grown geometrically, we'll play catchup by turning the "left coast" into an industrial oil producing state. We have three decades of catchup to do, and california sounds like as good as any place to start.

I dont buy into the environmentalist rhetoric. They are getting what they wanted, so they should revel in the high prices. Democrats dont think we pay enough at the pump anyway, because their solution to our oil demand are big fat gas taxes and fining oil companies to try to sell cheaper gass to the working man!

LOL.... The democrat run state of Minnesota went so far as to fine Midwest Oil $140,000 for selling gas too cheap! Where was the liberal media outrage from that story?? LOL

How dare they do such a thing like selling cheap gas!! You'll never hear such a story reported on the CNN evening broacast while they discuss the endless pain at the pump topics! If you're lucky, you'll find a link to it in fine print somewhere.....LOL The truth of the matter is that the Democrats dont care at all about the pain at the pump, or the working man. If they did, they'd cut the excessive federal highway taxes and work to increase supply. Ive surely never seen a federal truck fixing potholes, that's for sure.

 

[jaxvon]

Buckeye_Nut,

While you chide liberals for their shortcomings and ridiculous ideas, it's equally amusing to see just how much you buy into the conservative mantra.

My take on the original topic? Preposterous idea. And re: new refineries, I think it's because a lot of our new refineries are on the new oil platforms themselves.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Buckeye_Nut,

While you chide liberals for their shortcomings and ridiculous ideas, it's equally amusing to see just how much you buy into the conservative mantra.

That's because I'm a far-right leaning pundit I believe the liberals are wrong on a point by point basis on virtually every single issue. That's also how I get paid because I earn my living in the political arena

If you have a response for my statements, lay it on me! If you believe my comments to be untrue, then you had better explain yourself and point out the error of my ways The USA has not built a new oil refinery in more than 30 years. You believe we have built oil refineries in the past 30 years, but we built refineries out at sea? Are you kidding me?
Some of these responses leave me completely dumbfounded.
LOL
Please link me up to information regarding these new off-shore oil refineries, because I've never heard of them.
Thanks

 

[Mort Corey]

Gee, you Ohio guys ought not complain about big oil subsidies....look at all the money we're wasting subsidizing the corn pone industry (Archer Daniels Midland in a big way) and then mandating that ethanol be added to gasoline....this is going to keep flyover country running (And by the time they finish this nonsense gas will be four bucks a gallon and you'll get less miles per gallon due to the additive.)

Now as to making the lovely PRK the refinery state....heck, we don't even let them shut down the ones that are here as it is. We're also the pioneers of using methane conversion....since we have an abundance in Sacramento.

Mort

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Buckeye_Nut: Sure, but there has to be demand first. GM doesnt make them because the buying public isnt asking for energizer bunny powered cars

Once the public asks, they'll build them. IE....Hybrids.

The EV1 didn't catch on because the cost of gas was reasonable. At $40,000, it didn't make sense, even with multiple tax credits. If gas hits $4 a gallon, you better believe electric vehicles will catch on, seeing how they only cost pennies a night to recharge. The tax incentives have to be there for an EV to be successful. Yes, GM spent over 4 billion dollars developing the vehicle, but their timing was off. Do some research on the mileage/cost on an EV versus hybrid, and you'll see the advantages of all electric.

 

[majorloser]

I'm still waiting for an stock electric or hybrid car to break 12's in a quarter mile.

 

[10010011]

Maybe because it isnt

The last time the govt tried to get involved was in the 70s when they tried to impose price controls thanks to Jimmy Carter, and he made a huge mess out of things. Those old enough to remember the gasoline crisis of 1979 may recall sitting in long lines of cars at filling stations, waiting -- sometimes for hours -- only to reach an empty pump. This was one of the most common consequences of price control throughout history -- a shortage.

Luckily, Ronnie came around soon afterwards to clean up the mess.

Um wrong, Jimmy Carter and did not cause the feul shortage in the 70's...

The oil crisis began in earnest on October 17, 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) announced, as a result of the ongoing Yom Kippur War, that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Syria and Egypt (i.e., to the United States and its allies in Western Europe).

Another "inconvient truth"

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I'm still waiting for an stock electric or hybrid car to break 12's in a quarter mile.

The Accord V6 hybrid beats the V6 gas Accord in almost every category (performance). I think it runs just under 15.9 in the quarter. There is a give and take with fuel economy. I'd like to see a car get better than 20mpg and do 12's in the quarter mile. (bikes don't count )

 

[majorloser]

The Accord V6 hybrid beats the V6 gas Accord in almost every category (performance). I think it runs just under 15.9 in the quarter. There is a give and take with fuel economy. I'd like to see a car get better than 20mpg and do 12's in the quarter mile. (bikes don't count )

I figure low 12's would be quite respectable. Not asking for much.

Now if Dr. Z could come up with a hybrid hemi.............

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Um wrong, Jimmy Carter and did not cause the feul shortage in the 70's...
The oil crisis began in earnest on October 17, 1973,

If you had read my post a little more carefully, you would see that I pointed specifically to the 1979 gas crisis brought on by US Government intervention when Jimmy carter instituted price controls. Granted the two events were partially related, but they are also two distinctly different events. I was clearly referring to Carter's blundering attempt to ‘fix’ things with price controls in 79, which in turn, caused the ‘79 crisis. Understand? In the end, all he did was foul everything up much worse.

Needless to say, it was a huge mistake and many experts in the industry warned Jimmy of exactly what would happen before he did it, but he did it anyway. I don’t know.... maybe being that he came from a big government democrat 'school of thought', he thought the government could preside over and control the laws of supply and demand?? I'm not sure, but either way, he was sadly proven wrong. Luckily ronnie came along shortly afterwards to clean the '79 mess.

What really boggles my mind is that even today, I hear left leaning broadcasters suggesting that we employ price controls once again to 'fix things' today. Don’t they have a grasp on history, or learn from past mistakes?

........it just blows me away!!

I have watched quite a few of these recent oil exec 'interrogations' in recent months by the media, and more than a few times, the strong suggestion that price controls were necessary to fix the current problems were voiced. Needless to say, the oil execs didn’t waste any time re-educating the naive interviewer in a crash course in economics 101.

 

[10010011]

If you had read my post a little more carefully, you would see that I pointed specifically to the 1979 gas crisis brought on by US Government intervention when Jimmy carter instituted price controls. Granted the two events were related, but they are also two distinctly different events. I was clearly referring to Carter's blundering attempt to ‘fix’ things, which in turn, caused the ‘79 crisis. Understand?

I don't remeber any gas crisis in 79. Certainly not long lines and stations running out of gas like before.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Google it

See, that's partly my point. How can people attempt to debate and contribute to a political topic, if they dont know past history, or anything about the topic in the first place? The 79 crisis was brought on mostly by events in Iran, and the Carter response to them. Im sure '73 was still in the back of their minds, but the Iranian revolution was what triggered Carters 'price controls' that caused the 79 crisis. Had he done nothing and kept his cool, there would have been no crisis or run on the pumps.

Some of the responses in the political discussions leave me dumbfounded for that very reason. Granted, it's in fun, but some of the responses come from so far out in left field, that it leaves me scratching my head.

 

[hemiram]

I sure remember the 79 mess. I worked at a gas station at the time, so I had no problems getting gas, but people were lined up at 7am like we were giving it away. It didn't last long, but it was a mess while it was happening.

 

[majorloser]

The Old Days

I was too young to drive in '79 but I remember waiting in line to pump gas for my mother and sisters. Odd and even days based on license plate numbers.

Granted, that was NOTHING compared to the run on gas after hurricane Wilma last year in South Florida. Gas lines were 4 to 5 miles long (no exaggeration) if the station had electricity. The year before after the four hurricanes hit the whole state was almost empty for gas. The storms hit during the statewide gas tax break (long story). Stations were already short of gas.

The United States population is more spread out then most of the world powers. Public transportation wil not work for most Americans. We like our wide open spaces. Unfortunately it means we all require personal transportation. Not all people can use an electric automobile. They're just not "family friendly". Sure, I could live without my gas hog pickup truck. You think I like paying $80 to fill up? I'd end up paying to have stuff delivered to my house. But at $50+ per delivery, gas is cheaper. A truck, SUV or station wagon will most likely be in my future for a long time. Even if (or when) gas prices double I'll just make less trips and use my gas more wisely.

This will only make people stay at home more often. No more weekend trips or summer vacation trips. We already have a generation of couch potato, computer surfin' kids. Even with more efficient automobiles we will still be dependent on fossil fuels.

Can I get air conditioning installed in a horse and buggy?

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Not all people can use an electric automobile. They're just not "family friendly".

Thats not even the real serious problem. Anybody who's been to Europe can tell you that human beings are quite capable of building a car the size of a Ford Focus that has 7 seats and gets 35mpg. Americans have been driving bloated cars for decades and wouldn't know a small car if it parallel-parked sideways in their rectum. In Asia it gets even better, I've seen a family of four riding around on a 50cc scooter!

The real problem with electric vehicles are 1. small range, and 2. recharge time.

Sure Joe Average can go to work and the grocery-store every day and not exceed his Zap! car's 50 mile range, but not any 18 wheelers, or ambulances, taxis, buses, police cars, cargo vans, ambulances, etc etc etc. The produce department of the grocery store would literally disappear. Trucks filled with California melons would take 20 days to reach North Carolina. Food would rot in the truck if it could only travel 200 miles before needing a 10 hour recharge. And nobody wants the following emergency situations to happen:

*"911"
"My elderly father just had a heart attack!"
"The local ambulance took a junky to the hospital earlier today so you'll have to wait for the rescue squad from the next county to get there in 35-40 minutes. Good luck"

*"911"
"Somebody's robbing the 7-11 across the street!"
"We'll send an officer over on a bicycle right away!"

 

[10010011]

Google it

See, that's partly my point. How can people attempt to debate and contribute to a political topic, if they dont know past history, or anything about the topic in the first place? The 79 crisis was brought on mostly by events in Iran, and the Carter response to them. Im sure '73 was still in the back of their minds, but the Iranian revolution was what triggered Carters 'price controls' that caused the 79 crisis. Had he done nothing and kept his cool, there would have been no crisis or run on the pumps.

I did Google it and here is something intresting I found...

The 1979 (or second) oil crisis occurred in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. In the wake of protests, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled his country in early 1979, allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to gain control. The protests shattered the Iranian oil sector. While the new regime resumed oil exports, it was inconsistent and at a lower volume, forcing up prices. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations increased production to offset the decline, and the overall loss in production was about 4%. However, a widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than would be expected under normal circumstances.

President Jimmy Carter made symbolic efforts to encourage energy conservation, such as urging citizens in a famous July 15, 1979, 'malaise' speechto turn down their thermostats. He also installed solar power panels on the roof of the White House and a wood-burning stove in the living quarters. However, his successor Ronald Reagan, ordered the solar panels removed and the wood stove dismantled.

Carter's fire-side speech argued the oil crisis was "the moral equivalent of war." More importantly, Carter, as part of his administration's efforts at deregulation, proposed removing price controls that had been imposed in the administration of Richard Nixon during the 1973 crisis. Congress reluctantly agreed to remove price controls in phases; they were finally dismantled in 1981 under Reagan.

So due to a Republican lead Congress that reluctantly agreed to remove Republican enacted price controls and would only do so slowly in phases. Somehow Reagan gets all the credit for removing price controls because the last one was removed (as scheduled) while he happend to be in office?