Barr is the only candidate running who supports the FairTax.

*duck* :D

Essency Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Damn skippy...This crisis is going to take efforts on every front. I just hope like hell that the govt. gets out of the way and allows the market to do what it does best....RESPOND. If the useless govt. wants to help...how about tax incentives for alternative energy...WAY beyond the normal....Lets get this PARTY started!!!!

Tax incentives? TAX INCENTIVES? How about getting rid of the f'n regressive, and VERY Communistic, tax system we have now and implement the Fair Tax? THAT would bring this country back to being a nation who prides herself on ingenuity and competitiveness.

You get a beer for that one. Bring on FairTax.

Regressive tax system?..How so?

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Regressive tax system?..How so?

The more you make, the higher percentage you pay in taxes. Not just dollars, the percentage. It punishes success. I can link you to a DU site where some are saying people making 200K should be taxed at 93%.

Bottom line from reading these posts is that everyone agrees that this crisis should be attacked from multiple fronts INCLUDING expanding drilling in ANWR and off the U.S. coast .... yet Barack and the rest of the Dems continue to reject this. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the Republicans I heard from aren't rejecting alternative energies, they're just pushing for increased oil expansion in the U.S. as a way to stem the problem while we are researching alternative energies.

I keep reading from Dems about their plan to use "alternative clean energy" or "reducing emissions" without a real plan of how to get that done. At least with increased drilling and refining we know of a proven method to help this problem.

nachoman91 Wrote:Bottom line from reading these posts is that everyone agrees that this crisis should be attacked from multiple fronts INCLUDING expanding drilling in ANWR and off the U.S. coast .... yet Barack and the rest of the Dems continue to reject this. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the Republicans I heard from aren't rejecting alternative energies, they're just pushing for increased oil expansion in the U.S. as a way to stem the problem while we are researching alternative energies.

I keep reading from Dems about their plan to use "alternative clean energy" or "reducing emissions" without a real plan of how to get that done. At least with increased drilling and refining we know of a proven method to help this problem.

The Republicans are overstating the effect that drilling for oil would have. They also push the issue as an immediate solution, which is ridiculous. Both parties are in the wrong.

Perhaps you should keep reading their plans because I'm fairly certain the Democrats keep talking about biofuels, solar and wind energies, hydrogen fuel cells, and a cap-and-trade system for emission reduction. Those are real plans. They need funding and some need more research to refine them into viable alternatives. I don't know how much more proof you need for those solutions.

Both parties need to quit their partisan bickering and start solving this problem. Both parties are in the way of a multi-faceted approach that will, in the long-term, offer a means of energy independence and a more environmentally-friendly America.

perunapower Wrote:The Republicans are overstating the effect that drilling for oil would have. They also push the issue as an immediate solution, which is ridiculous. Both parties are in the wrong.

How do you know? Can you state, for a fact...and if your life depended on it, that the numbers you're throwing up, as to how much oil to which we have access once we drill, as being a surety? Or are you doing the exact opposite and understanding, or worse, guessing?

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Regressive tax system?..How so?

The more you make, the higher percentage you pay in taxes. Not just dollars, the percentage. It punishes success. I can link you to a DU site where some are saying people making 200K should be taxed at 93%.

Reb...Do me a favor and wikipedia...progressive taxation....You have me very confused.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Reb...Do me a favor and wikipedia...progressive taxation....You have me very confused.

It's semantics. You call it "progressive" I call it "regressive". I know the dictionary definition is "progressive", but I don't believe that's an accurate enough term. I wasn't mistaken by using it. It was my intention. I've always called it a "regressive" tax.

Rebel Wrote:How do you know? Can you state, for a fact...and if your life depended on it, that the numbers you're throwing up, as to how much oil to which we have access once we drill, as being a surety? Or are you doing the exact opposite and understanding, or worse, guessing?

Where did I say that Republicans are overstating how much oil we have? I didn't. I don't know, they don't know.

I said they are overstating the effect that drilling would have. Newt Gingrich had three points that he said would immediately lower oil prices: releasing 1/3 of the SPR, drilling here, and pursuing alternative fuels. Releasing 1/3 of the SPR would have an immediate effect on the world oil market, thus dropping prices, but then we're more vulnerable to shortages. The other two points take YEARS to implement and reap the benefits.

Also, please show me which numbers I have thrown up. I found two sets of years, one was cited, the other I put a question mark after to convey that it was an educated guess from prior readings that I didn't feel like finding again.

We need to consult a higher authority on "regressive or progressive" and what we should do about our energy CRISIS!



T BONE over at YAHOO!

Machiavelli Wrote:We need to consult a higher authority on "regressive or progressive" and what we should do about our energy CRISIS!



T BONE over at YAHOO!

Or your bud Clark Kent at gather.com

Hey T-Bone's word is good around these parts. I have no idea who Clark Kent is @ gather.com. T-Bone the Tyrannosaur will live in the spin room forever. I think he is a legend. LONG LIVE T BONE!!!!!

perunapower Wrote:I said they are overstating the effect that drilling would have. Newt Gingrich had three points that he said would immediately lower oil prices: releasing 1/3 of the SPR, drilling here, and pursuing alternative fuels. Releasing 1/3 of the SPR would have an immediate effect on the world oil market, thus dropping prices, but then we're more vulnerable to shortages. The other two points take YEARS to implement and reap the benefits.

Do you have any eternal basis for your belief that they are overstating?

I think that maintaining we can go back to $2/gallon or even $3/gallon is clearly overstating. But it would enable us to hold the line at or near current levels longer, and that is a very significant effect.

The comment that drill here, drill now and pursuing alternatives would both take years to implement glosses over two key differentials. Drill here, drill now can have an effect quicker, and at lower cost, than alternatives.

The problem with alternatives is not the technology itself. Articles pointing out that the technology is either here or very close for an alternative fuel ignores the real problem. The limiting factor is the infrastructure to deliver the alternatives in sufficient volume to have an impact. Brasil dealt with this problem by getting Petrobras onboard from the start of the alternative fuels program. We should be doing the same with ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, et al.

Ethanol helps. But we are pushing about as hard as we can to produce corn ethanol domestically, and we are at about 10% of current gasoline consumption. Every little bit helps, to be sure, but that isn't enough to have a major impact. We would need at least a FOURFOLD or FIVEFOLD increase to get there. That isn't going to happen soon, maybe never. We could have every car in the US converted to flex fuel, and it wouldn't have an impact yet because we don't have the volume of ethanol and we don't have the number of delivery points. Foreign ethanol would help, but that's going to take some law changes.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Reb...Do me a favor and wikipedia...progressive taxation....You have me very confused.

It's semantics. You call it "progressive" I call it "regressive". I know the dictionary definition is "progressive", but I don't believe that's an accurate enough term. I wasn't mistaken by using it. It was my intention. I've always called it a "regressive" tax.

I agree with you totally...That our current "progressive" tax system is marxist...since it is one of the 10 tenents of communisim put forth by CM.

The FairTax would be an improvement over our current system...but ..its just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The FT is still theft because you could not live a productive life without the force its taxation....and...I dont like it because it would make it harder for those of us the wish not to allow the theft to evade it.

I advocate a voluntary society without the force of government.

Taxation is force...is coersive and is immoral...as is government.

I submit to government theft to survive,take care of my family and not be imprisoned for a nonviolent crime of "not wanting to be robbed"...but...I will never support our current system or any alternative method of taxation on principle.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The FairTax would be an improvement over our current system...but ..its just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The FT is still theft because you could not live a productive life without the force its taxation....and...I dont like it because it would make it harder for those of us the wish not to allow the theft to evade it.

It's voluntary taxation. How do you expect the government to pay for a military? People to regulate interstate commerce? Who do they tax? Surely you're not suggesting they create their own companies to pay for it. Why, that would be Socialism.

The operation of government costs money, Fo. No one works for free.

BTW:

Quote:I submit to government theft to survive,take care of my family and not be imprisoned for a nonviolent crime of "not wanting to be robbed"...but...I will never support our current system or any alternative method of taxation on principle.

You want much, but are against any measures to pay for it. Libertarian? I'm thinking Anarchist. All plans, no solutions. Without a military, you won't be free.

perunapower Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Saying that increased drilling will get us back to $2 a gallon (or even $3 a gallon) is overstating the effect. But that doesn't mean that it won't have a significant effect. The effect will be to enable us to hold the line at $4 (or $5 if it's up to that level by then) instead of rising to the $8-10 range. I'd call that a significant effect, to be sure. The same argument applies to the impact of shale oil on diesel. And to some extent, in the long run diesel and gasoline are substitutes, so yes, there would be an effect on gasoline demand and hence on gasoline pricing.

I have a hard time thinking that our reserves are going to have that significant of an effect on gasoline prices. If we had a domestic oil market, then I would be more inclined to believe it would have that effect, but it's all internationally sold. I don't know if you listened to that NPR clip I posted prior in this thread, the guest on there, Henry Lee, the director of Environment and National Resources Program at Harvard, said the time table for offshore would be somewhere in the scope of 8-14 years from now, if it were allowed today. I think ANWR would be faster than that though, probably 5-8 years (?). The mere prospect of us drilling may drop it a few dollars, but without something substantive I don't think it'll have a tremendous effect for a few years, at the earliest.

I'm not saying it won't because I don't know for sure. I'm not a fortune teller, but more can't hurt in a market where demand exceeds supply. I think if we start drilling we'll more than likely slow the price increase and perhaps introduce some stability into a unusually volatile commodities market.

We also need to strengthen the dollar; that'll help more than drilling in my opinion. Unfortunately, that's also a complex problem that's not going to fix itself overnight.

Quote:Clean renewable energy needs to be the long-term focus; that is where dems have a better handle than repubs right now. But dems are wrong in way overplaying the short-term relief that can be provided by non-fossil sources. Repubs are partly to blame here too, because are implying that cost reduction is an achievable short-term goal, when in reality what is achievable short-term is some degree of stabilization at current levels.

Agreed.

Quote:We are debating, and making, too many policy decisions based on a very narrow point of view that considers our internal situation only. This is not surprising given most Americans' lack of travel to, and understanding of, foreign countries. Our decisions about energy, about taxes, about health care, and about the environment need to be made with consideration given to what is happening, and to what works and doesn't work, in the rest of the world.

Agreed. We need to be learning from other countries like many countries are learning from us. As much as this country likes to think it always knows best, there are other brains abroad creating solutions to the same problems and sometimes they will get better solutions than we will.

Enviornmentalist always push out the time period on drilling to the maximum to suit their push for alternatives. I am fine with alternatives and believe we should pursue them while at the same time drilling. I have listened to two different CEO's of major oil companies on CNBS squash those timelines. They say we can bring oil in the eastern part of the Gulf to market within 2-3yrs and ANWR withing 3-4yrs. If we treat our energy crisis like the national crisis it is then we could devote our resources into getting this oil to the market even sooner. The greatest obstacle much of this drilling faces is red tape and not the logistics of actually getting the equipment there, drilling and getting the oil to market.

No matter what the solution is we need to get the enviornmentalist, politicians and oil companies into the same room where there is some give and take and we come up with a new energy policy. Clearly what we are doing is failing. At the end of the day even if you are against drilling you have to acknowledge that the worlds thirst for oil is not going to end in the next 50yrs and we are sitting on top of Trillions of dollars worth of energy that could create a lot of jobs right here in the U.S.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The FairTax would be an improvement over our current system...but ..its just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The FT is still theft because you could not live a productive life without the force its taxation....and...I dont like it because it would make it harder for those of us the wish not to allow the theft to evade it.

It's voluntary taxation. How do you expect the government to pay for a military? People to regulate interstate commerce? Who do they tax? Surely you're not suggesting they create their own companies to pay for it. Why, that would be Socialism.

The operation of government costs money, Fo. No one works for free.

BTW:

Quote:I submit to government theft to survive,take care of my family and not be imprisoned for a nonviolent crime of "not wanting to be robbed"...but...I will never support our current system or any alternative method of taxation on principle.

You want much, but are against any measures to pay for it. Libertarian? I'm thinking Anarchist. All plans, no solutions. Without a military, you won't be free.

No...I dont want anything from the government. I prefer to call my view Freemarketeerism. I fully support voluntary financial support of things, including a defense. I think the freemarket solutions can provide anything necessary, without coersion....Just takes a leap away from wanting to steal from my neighbor to accomplish things.
Anarchy "is"...Government "is not" the natural order of things.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Do you have any eternal basis for your belief that they are overstating?

All of the stories I posted at the top of the thread? All of the experts who say that any effect of drilling domestically wouldn't be felt for years and would have a small effect.

I mean what else do you want me to post? All you're going to rebut with is "how do you know that for sure?" I've linked to a Anchorage Daily News article, a Reuters article, a Time article, and a NPR interview, all of which say about the same thing. Conservatives say it would significantly decrease oil prices immediately. How can something that takes the better part of a decade help immediately?

I am NOT saying that we don't need to drill; I am just perplexed at how people think that drilling would be an immediate (or highly effective) means of driving down oil prices.

WSJ article

MSNBC article

That link has the following question (which is why I believe that conservative advocates for more domestic drilling are overstating the effect it would have).

Quote:Q: How is increasing American production by 1 million barrels a day, which is about 1.5 percent of daily global oil consumption, going to bring about the 25 percent drop in oil prices that many proponents of increased Alaskan and offshore drilling have suggested? … Shouldn't that just be one of many plans to increase supply and decrease demand that will really bring a drop in prices?

The answer is rather lengthy, so I'll just let you read it yourself without me posting it. But in short, it discusses how we don't have enough oil to dramatically influence the world oil market and it would be close to 10 years before we even could see the gains from the oil we do drill. That's according to Department of Energy estimates, not the Sierra Club or Greenpeace or some other environmental advocates.

Every little bit of oil helps, but an immediate, substantial effect from opening land to drilling is a complete misrepresentation of facts, deliberating misleading the public, and pandering to people's hurting wallets because of the price of gasoline.

perunapower Wrote:All of the stories I posted at the top of the thread? All of the experts who say that any effect of drilling domestically wouldn't be felt for years and would have a small effect.

I mean what else do you want me to post? All you're going to rebut with is "how do you know that for sure?" I've linked to a Anchorage Daily News article, a Reuters article, a Time article, and a NPR interview, all of which say about the same thing. Conservatives say it would significantly decrease oil prices immediately. How can something that takes the better part of a decade help immediately?

I am NOT saying that we don't need to drill; I am just perplexed at how people think that drilling would be an immediate (or highly effective) means of driving down oil prices.

What would NOT drilling do? What shape would we be in if we had told the tree-hugger to sit down, shut the **** up, and started drilling soon after.....decades ago?

Liberal policies aren't the reason OPEC is screwing us right now, but they ARE the reason we weren't prepared for it.

Rebel Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:All of the stories I posted at the top of the thread? All of the experts who say that any effect of drilling domestically wouldn't be felt for years and would have a small effect.

I mean what else do you want me to post? All you're going to rebut with is "how do you know that for sure?" I've linked to a Anchorage Daily News article, a Reuters article, a Time article, and a NPR interview, all of which say about the same thing. Conservatives say it would significantly decrease oil prices immediately. How can something that takes the better part of a decade help immediately?

I am NOT saying that we don't need to drill; I am just perplexed at how people think that drilling would be an immediate (or highly effective) means of driving down oil prices.

What would NOT drilling do? What shape would we be in if we had told the tree-hugger to sit down, shut the **** up, and started drilling soon after.....decades ago?

Liberal policies aren't the reason OPEC is screwing us right now, but they ARE the reason we weren't prepared for it.

Are you seriously incapable of reading? Read the whole damn thing. Either you're not reading what I'm writing or you're a moron because I am explicitly saying we need to drill. I'm not even hiding it! I'll even it bold it to show you where I said it. I'll repeat it too. We need to drill. We also need to be realistic when it comes to how much drilling is going to affect gas and oil prices.