Peak Oil News and Message Boards

You asked why, I told you. Never said it was my wish.

Read what I said, don't read into it.

Newfie wrote:You asked why, I told you. Never said it was my wish.

Read what I said, don't read into it.

I did read what you said. You are comparing government to a parent. Where do people(not you obviously) get such foolish notions?

Because we are heard animals, well domesticated. We like to think of ourselves as wolves. We are sheep who desire a Shepard.

It's in our genes.

There is more evidence, more fulsome explanations but that's the nub of it.

It's taken me a long time and a lot of reading and observation to come to this conclusion.

I do not desire a government sheepherder. I wish to be left alone. If you social engineers desire to set up a utopia, go buy the land, move in your hippie scum, and leave me the hell out of it.

Cog wrote:I do not desire a government sheepherder. I wish to be left alone. If you social engineers desire to set up a utopia, go buy the land, move in your hippie scum, and leave me the hell out of it.

I understqnd your desire, but you may as well desire to live on the moon.

In the world we live in the vast majority of the people feel very differently from you. And, because there are so many of us populating all over the place, there is precious little space to be left alone.

Perhaps a small boat in a big ocean?

Cog,

Out of curiosity, I recall (or did I make it up?) that you are a surveyor who works on road and highway projects?

I spent my career working in transit.

So, ironically, should this Obama bill pass we would be two of the beneficiaries.

That is indeed true. But I am not limited to working on roads. I've worked on McDonald's, Walgreens, etc private construction projects, subdivision construction, boundary surveys both small and large, and any number of other infrastructure projects that have zilch to do with roads and bridges.

Cog wrote:That is indeed true. But I am not limited to working on roads. I've worked on McDonald's, Walgreens, etc private construction projects, subdivision construction, boundary surveys both small and large, and any number of other infrastructure projects that have zilch to do with roads and bridges.

How do you get to each of those places? How are they built? Where does the merchandise come from? It's all connected, one big fugly mess.

Obama needs to run for congress so he can get his stupid idea up for vote. I see no mechanism for such a proposal to even see the light of day in the House. No need to oppose it.. it'll never be in a position to get voted on.

AgentR11 wrote:Obama needs to run for congress so he can get his stupid idea up for vote. I see no mechanism for such a proposal to even see the light of day in the House. No need to oppose it.. it'll never be in a position to get voted on.

1. The $10 bbl tax is apparently included in next year's budget, which Obama will release later this week and which will form a starting point for negotiations over next year's budget in the house.

2. The most likely mechanism for the $10 bbl tax to see the light of day in the house is for the Ds to win the house in 2016 or 2018 and then pass this new tax.

3. President Hillary will then sign it into law.

$10 is a good start.

Lore wrote:$10 is a good start.

To create a recession.

Yes, a good deep recession in order to return to some semblance of balance and get the government stripped down.

Plantagenet wrote: which will form a starting point for negotiations over next year's budget in the house.

I think you left out the word... "not".

Obama's budget will be delivered to congress, and then placed on a shelf, providing a place where spiders and silverfish may safely camp out for the remainder of the year.

2. The most likely mechanism for the $10 bbl tax to see the light of day in the house is for the Ds to win the house in 2016 or 2018 and then pass this new tax.

Nuclear Armageddon is more likely than the D's winning the house in '16 or '18. '22.. maybe.

Might as well pray for aliens to show up and grant us a completely new energy technology to run our society. Your odds will be better.

Newfie wrote:Yes, a good deep recession in order to return to some semblance of balance and get the government stripped down.

The dollar would need to be "reset" to a much lower value, or else the debt load of the population will cause almost everyone to go into default. Considering the FED can barely manage to keep the inflation rate above zero; you'd be talking about some very radical, and overt monetization.

Possible of course, but odds are it'd be political suicide for whoever oversaw such a decision.

Nope. No new oil tax; not this decade anyway.

Cog wrote:Instead of feeding the bloated federal government, we should be starving it into submission.

Is it some occupying army? Should the United States be broken up into 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

More seriously, I think that the tax is a good idea, at least in the absence of raising fuel taxes.

All taxes applied to raw materials used to manufacture other goods are basically regressive taxes - they tend to suppress the industries that use those materials, reduce employment, and increase the cost of those goods for everybody from a "one percenter" to the government welfare "clients" enjoying their generations old status as non-workers.

Since transportation is in fact a key component of everything we consume regardless of source, and since oil is used for ship, rail, and truck transport - the effects of $10/barrel taxation are gonna be further economic malaise no matter how one spends the tax revenues.

If reducing petroleum imports (versus domestic petroleum production) is a particular goal (I believe very much that it should be) then apply such a tax to the barrels of oil imported to this country, and thus encourage domestic oil production.

If the improved efficiency of private vehicles is the goal, then apply the tax to the finished fuels (gasoline and diesel) rather than to the raw materials, because that same barrel of oil also is used for space heating, for plastics, for fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides, and in fact for thousands of other products. Then encourage the use of other tech such as Battery Electric Vehicles by establishing a national network of charging stations for BEVs, by mandating that such tax revenues be used for such new transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, make the use of those government-funded vehicle charging stations that use solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable energy sources free for licensed driver taxpayers.

The POTUS needs to be more up front with what his actual goals are with this tax. The only thing I can read into the application of a $10 tax to every barrel of petroleum is "Let's stick it to the oil companies!".

If you are so juvenile that this thought gives you joy, and so thoughtless as to believe that a $10 a barrel tax on petroleum will actually benefit anyone, than you need to substitute THINKING for FEELING.

lpetrich wrote:

Cog wrote:Instead of feeding the bloated federal government, we should be starving it into submission.

Is it some occupying army? Should the United States be broken up into 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

More seriously, I think that the tax is a good idea, at least in the absence of raising fuel taxes.

The Founders intended that many matters be dealt with and settled by the states. Which is why this is in the Constitution.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This does not create 50 nations but rather retains power in its appropriate place.