D'ohmer Simpson 0 Posted May 2, 2006 Stupid idea anyway, glad to see them back off it WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, under pressure from business leaders, retreated Monday from a plan that would have used a tax increase on oil companies and other businesses to fund a $100 gasoline rebate for millions of motorists. Aids to several Republican senators, including some who support the proposal, said Monday they have received generally negative feedback from the public in telephone calls and e-mails. "There are some who say this is a Band-Aid and they want a real solution. .... There are people who say, `Do you think I can be satisfied so easily,'" said Don Steward, an aide to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. He said almost all of the comments received about the rebate — which Cornyn has characterized as "a theatrical response" — have been negative. Another Senate staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the senator was among those who have been pushing the GOP energy package, said voters know that with gas costing more than $3 a gallon the rebate likely will pay for only a couple of tanks of gas. "It's probably one fill-up for a Sequoia," added the aide, referring to the Toyota SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon in city driving. full story Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravens 03 0 Posted May 2, 2006 Is sending a $100 check to every car owner a rebate? How about lowering the tax for a period of time. Thus, if you drive alot and have paid alot, you will save alot. If you drive a little, and have paid a little, you will save a little. And if you have a car and haven't driven it - you have not been affected by the prices and don't deserve a $100 check. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 2, 2006 Hey, I have an idea. Let the market handle it naturally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mighty_thor 115 Posted May 2, 2006 Good. I wasn't going to be eligible for the $100 anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 2, 2006 Hey, I have an idea. Let the market handle it naturally. The problem with gas and oil is that it affects the price of everything. Unless you want to have some major inflation, they better do something soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Garcia 8 Posted May 2, 2006 Typical, now watch Congress go back into the closet for a few months about this subject. They are just putting on a show, acting like they want to do something about it. When in reality they could care less, their allegiance is to big money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 2, 2006 The problem with gas and oil is that it affects the price of everything. Unless you want to have some major inflation, they better do something soon. So you suggest that the government steps in to adjust the market unnaturally? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mighty_thor 115 Posted May 2, 2006 Hey, I have an idea. Let the market handle it naturally. I kind of agree with the hands off approach. Now, maybe people will start conserving gas and we will become less dependent on the middle east. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D'ohmer Simpson 0 Posted May 2, 2006 And if you have a car and haven't driven it - you have not been affected by the prices and don't deserve a $100 check. Like those scooter driving phags Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 2, 2006 So you suggest that the government steps in to adjust the market unnaturally? It happens all of the time. If you let it happen "naturally" then you run the risk of inflation. Ever hear of the Federal Reserve? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 2, 2006 It happens all of the time. If you let it happen "naturally" then you run the risk of inflation. Ever hear of the Federal Reserve? No, I understand that there are steps to be taken so that we don't have a late 70's episode. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that alternatives are not going to be pushed into the market place until the demand goes up. The only way demand goes up is the price of oil goes up. Did you watch Meet the Press on Sunday? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 2, 2006 No, I understand that there are steps to be taken so that we don't have a late 70's episode. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that alternatives are not going to be pushed into the market place until the demand goes up. The only way demand goes up is the price of oil goes up. Did you watch Meet the Press on Sunday? There are short term steps to be taken and long term steps. The short term steps are necessary to prevent inflation and the long term steps are necessary to reduce our reliance on oil. However, those long term steps have been necessary for 30 years and nothing has changed. I think that you mean that demand goes down if the price goes up. That is basic economics. No, I did not watch Meet the Press. I don't need people to tell me that there needs to be some action taken in both the short and long term to address the problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D'ohmer Simpson 0 Posted May 2, 2006 No blood for oil! Too late Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 2, 2006 There are short term steps to be taken and long term steps. The short term steps are necessary to prevent inflation and the long term steps are necessary to reduce our reliance on oil. However, those long term steps have been necessary for 30 years and nothing has changed. I agree. I think that you mean that demand goes down if the price goes up. That is basic economics. I meant exactly what I wrote. I want the demand to go up, so that price goes up, so that companies begin to spend more on R&D for alternative fuel vehicles and that the car companies are forced to raise MPG to keep up. No, I did not watch Meet the Press. I don't need people to tell me that there needs to be some action taken in both the short and long term to address the problem. I guess I am a dummy that needs to listen to the Secretary of Energy and other Senators about the current developments regarding the energy situation. I guess next time I will just call you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 2, 2006 I guess I am a dummy Umm. OK, I guess. I meant exactly what I wrote. I want the demand to go up, so that price goes up, so that companies begin to spend more on R&D for alternative fuel vehicles and that the car companies are forced to raise MPG to keep up. Here is what you wrote No, I understand that there are steps to be taken so that we don't have a late 70's episode. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that alternatives are not going to be pushed into the market place until the demand goes up. The only way demand goes up is the price of oil goes up. Did you watch Meet the Press on Sunday? If the price goes up, then demand goes down. If the demand goes up, then the price goes up. Two totally different things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cdub100 3,390 Posted May 2, 2006 Has anyone blamed Bush yet? BUSH!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted May 2, 2006 Umm. OK, I guess. Here is what you wrote If the price goes up, then demand goes down. If the demand goes up, then the price goes up. Two totally different things. If I can speak for Toro, I think he means that as the price of oil goes up, demand for alternatives goes up. I tend to agree with him, the only way America is ever going to get serious about alternatives is if the price of oil stays high. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 2, 2006 If I can speak for Toro, I think he means that as the price of oil goes up, demand for alternatives goes up. I tend to agree with him, the only way America is ever going to get serious about alternatives is if the price of oil stays high. That's what I was trying to say. Man. I haven't even started drinking yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted May 2, 2006 If I can speak for Toro, I think he means that as the price of oil goes up, demand for alternatives goes up. I tend to agree with him, the only way America is ever going to get serious about alternatives is if the price of oil stays high. I think that he meant that he wants the price of oil to be so high that alternatives become more viable options. I agree with that, but that is not what he said. He said that if the price goes up, demand goes up and that is not the case. He should have said that if demand goes up, then the price goes up. I have no problem with the premise that we need to have alternatives and we need to have them soon. I disagree that we should let that happen naturally or we are going to have inflation that is going bring the economy to its knees (even worse than it is already). Take away the tax breaks for the oil companies and give them to the alternative energy companies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,999 Posted May 2, 2006 I think that what Toro meant to say is he doesn't care how high the price of gas is since his MIL pays for his anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted May 2, 2006 If I can speak for Toro, I think he means that as the price of oil goes up, demand for alternatives goes up. I tend to agree with him, the only way America is ever going to get serious about alternatives is if the price of oil stays high. The government can do plenty to encourage alternative fuel research and production. And they can also impact supply by raising CAFE standards on fleets, and quit exempting heavy vehicles from inclusion in those fleets. There's no reason at all to sit back and let Mexxoil rape us all summer while Congress does nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D'ohmer Simpson 0 Posted May 2, 2006 I think that what Toro meant to say is he doesn't care how high the price of gas is since his MIL pays for his anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted May 2, 2006 The government can do plenty to encourage alternative fuel research and production. And they can also impact supply by raising CAFE standards on fleets, and quit exempting heavy vehicles from inclusion in those fleets. There's no reason at all to sit back and let Mexxoil rape us all summer while Congress does nothing. The government isn't going to do those things until the public demands they do those things and the public isn't going to demand they do those - or be willing to endure inconvenient and painful change - until the price of oil demands such change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 822 Posted May 2, 2006 a tax increase on oil companies and other businesses to fund a $100 gasoline rebate for millions of motorists. Wouldn't the "oil companies and other businesses" just pass this new tax increase onto the consumers? So everyone gets a rebate, and then everyone has to pay higher prices.... What kind of plan is that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 0 Posted May 2, 2006 The government isn't going to do those things until the public demands they do those things and the public isn't going to demand they do those - or be willing to endure inconvenient and painful change - until the price of oil demands such change. how about some focking leadership for a change? Nobody demanded we invade Iraq, either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spork in the road 2 Posted May 2, 2006 Generally I'm not in favor of government interference because I think politicians are often tempted to do things that are good in the short-term but not in the long-term. That being said, if congress wanted to do something effective they can provide more incentives to build refineries. There hasn't been a new refinery built since the 70's. The $100 rebate idea is just stupid from a macroeconomic standpoint. It wouldn't change anything and would represent a huge cost when we are already running up enormous deficits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D'ohmer Simpson 0 Posted May 2, 2006 Wouldn't the "oil companies and other businesses" just pass this new tax increase onto the consumers? So everyone gets a rebate, and then everyone has to pay higher prices.... What kind of plan is that? A Republican plan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted May 2, 2006 I think that he meant that he wants the price of oil to be so high that alternatives become more viable options. I agree with that, but that is not what he said. Actually, Captain English. If you look what I said: I guess the point that I am trying to make is that alternatives are not going to be pushed into the market place until the demand goes up. The only way demand goes up is the price of oil goes up. You will notice that in the first sentence I directly relate the word demand to alternatives. Thus, in the second sentence, I used demand in the same context as the previous sentence and further qualified the use of price as it relates to oil, not alternatives. Subsequently, I was correct in my statement. It was you who made an incorrect inference that I meant the demand for oil, not alternatives. Rusty - can we get a ruling on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isotopes 1 Posted May 2, 2006 Wouldn't the "oil companies and other businesses" just pass this new tax increase onto the consumers? So everyone gets a rebate, and then everyone has to pay higher prices.... What kind of plan is that? Almost... Everyone gets a rebate but only those buying gas have to pay it back. So the people driving have to pay for the rebates the non-drivers got. Brilliant! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted May 2, 2006 how about some focking leadership for a change? Good one torrid! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 2, 2006 how about some focking leadership for a change? Nobody demanded we invade Iraq, either. First, if Clinton had not vetoed a Bill authorizing drilling in ANWAR back in '95 we would be pumping it into our tanks today. Maybe these high prices will cause the current pols to grow a pair and pass a bill to do just that. Second, Saddam pretty miuch demanded we invade Iraq by refusing to adhere to the Cease Fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted May 3, 2006 First, if Clinton had not vetoed a Bill Clinton/Kerry's fault Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 364 Posted May 3, 2006 Bunch of retreads running this mother humping gubment. I want my focking $100. NOW. That will buy me a bus pass for 5 weeks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted May 3, 2006 Clinton/Kerry's fault The FACT Clinton vetoed the bill means we have less oil of our own. Libs and Eco-Nuts are making the same argument today they did ten years ago: "But we won't see the oil for years". Shortsighted idiots, like we won't need oil ten years from now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites