$100 Gas Rebates
Written by Sam on April 28th, 2006I’m not even sure what to say about this because it goes so far beyond absurdity it would actually be quite humorous if it wasn’t sadly so real. Can we officially say the Republican Party is now the “I’m not quite as Socialist as the other guy” party? What is wrong with our government when educated, elected officials come up with an idea so blatantly stupid and think it’s the cat’s meow of the day?
Here is an idea. Lower the friggin gas tax!! Yeah, right. That’s not going to happen. Once the price crunch is over the Republicans don’t want to have to be the ones to say, “Ok, time to raise it back up again.”
Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon………
……. “Our plan would give taxpayers a hundred dollar gas tax holiday rebate check to help ease the pain that they’re feeling at the pump,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Thursday.
Frist is such an ass. There is no way I am supporting this guy for President in ‘08. This whole move is nothing but pure cowardess.
28
PM
If you want to give Americans monetary relief at the pump, fine, but do it an a normal manner: cut or eliminate the gas tax. Though either method of going about it would help with just a little cash, the method Frist is proposing is borne out of the socialistic “need” for everyone to take care of everyone else. BS. Cut the tax, we’ll save that way - don’t turn this into a handout program.
28
PM
The next time we invade a country so that we can get cheap oil, we should make sure that we actually get some cheap oil out of it.
28
PM
WAR FOR OIL!!
…. I couldn’t help myself.
29
PM
David, can you even explain how invading another country would “get” us cheap oil?
29
PM
Mike,
Countries that don’t like us have lots of oil. We have tanks and guns, as well as some big boats to transport the oil. Seems pretty simple to me. Ethical? Probably not. But possible? Sure. Wars have been fought for worse reasons than ensuring a steady supply of the most important natural resource in the history of the world.
29
PM
“Countries that don’t like us have lots of oil. We have tanks and guns, as well as some big boats to transport the oil. Seems pretty simple to me.”
I am sure it does. It would seem pretty clear that you have only a rudimentary understanding of the international oil markets or even how the modern world economy functions.
I’ll explain it for you. Countries don’t have assets, companies do. Iraq never sold even a single barrel of oil on the international market. They sold “oil rights” to companies which then pumped and sold the oil around the world.
Here is something else you don’t seem to understand: whether or not a country has oil deposits within its borders is irrelevant to the price of oil within that country. Example: England imports no oil, all of its oil is pumped from the North Sea. Yet oil in England is as expensive as in the US where we purchase some of our oil from abroad. Why? Because the free market determines the price of oil worldwide. Invading Iraq doesn’t “get” the US any oil it wouldn’t normally have had, all it would do is disrupt the supply chain from that country and raise the price of oil everywhere. This is basic, simple high school economics.
30
AM
“Invading Iraq doesn’t “get” the US any oil it wouldn’t normally have had”
Wasn’t there some sort of “embargo”, something that made trading with Iraq illegal?
30
AM
“Wasn’t there some sort of “embargo”, something that made trading with Iraq illegal?”
Yes, however Iraq was producing oil at full capacity and was still under its export quotas. The embargo was a farce that only prevented advanced military hardware from entering the country. No doubt you have read about the Russian/French/German efforts to circumvent the embargo and still supply the Iraqis with advanced weaponry in exchange for oil rights contracts.
Look man, you have a lot of reading to do before you are ready to discuss this issue in depth.