Gas-tax gimmick doesn't make sense as political strategy or as ...

boola-boola wrote:

Wow did you figure all this out for yourself or did someone help you, what geology college did you attend to get the oil supply of alaska. Would that make you and all the other right wingers happy to anililate alaska for the last drops of oil. Face the real facts, use your mentality and use reality, peak oil is now, no matter where you drill, its only 40-50 years away from being gone, and thats from the experts that started some of the first oil wells in in saudi arabia.

boola-boola wrote:

Wow did you figure all this out for yourself or did someone help you, what geology college did you attend to get the oil supply of alaska. Would that make you and all the other right wingers happy to anililate alaska for the last drops of oil. Face the real facts, use your mentality and use reality, peak oil is now, no matter where you drill, its only 40-50 years away from being gone, and thats from the experts that started some of the first oil wells in in saudi arabia.

East Side wrote:

<quoted text>
OPEC is at peak extraction.. and will gradually draw dow its production.. I believe domestically we have many wells untapped, and also have oil trapped in rock... Mainly northern US and canada.

moral hazard wrote:

<quoted text>
"Believe" what you will, but US domestic oil production peaked in 1970 and has declined ever since. Alaska peaked in 1988 and has declined to about 40% of peak production today. Peak production occurs when oil from new wells cannot make up for the rate of depletion from existing wells--hence a net decline in production. This holds true for individual wells, large fields, countries and the world. World oil production peaked in 2005 and has been on a plateau, where new wells have been not-quite replacing depletion (net loss about 1mbpd world-wide so far). This can't be sustained much longer--another year or so--and when world production begins to fall off the plateau (2009-10)there will be a price superspike that will make the present spike in prices look mild.

Jim F Allentown wrote:

How can anyone say the Democrats "at least seek to address this failure" relating to the lack of an energy policy when they oppose nuclear energy, oppose drilling for oil domestically, and create disincentives for building refineries.
IMO, the Republicans are at fault for believing that there is no role for government (opposition to mandating increased automobile fuel economy) and Democrats are at fault for what I outlined in the previous paragraph.

East Side wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah.. all are to blame.. you got that one right. I find the funniest thing is when Hillary states that we should tax corporations for this. Now, lets think logically here. Do you really think that oil companies are going to allow this to affect their profits? NO! They will simply charge the consumer the differance.. F'in hillarious that hillary fully believes this would work.. it would only hurt us!

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>Actually we should remove all corporate taxes entirely, this would put our exports on an even footing with the rest of the world who don't tax their industries.
We should pay more attention to people like Ron Paul.

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>Actually we should remove all corporate taxes entirely, this would put our exports on an even footing with the rest of the world who don't tax their industries.
We should pay more attention to people like Ron Paul.

Americans for Obama wrote:

Gas is very high. It literally does not make any sense for gas to be this high! We all should be outraged!

Get Informed wrote:

Yes, you should be outraged at Congress and the politicians that continue to allow this to happen. Don't point your finger in the wrong direction before you learn the real facts. It's not the oil company. The follwing comes from the Federal Trade Commission:
Of a $1 you pay for gas it breaks up the following way:
- 72% for the cost of crude. Crude Costs are controlled by OPEC and future traders on Wall Street not the oil companies. The Oil companies simply pay what the market price is!
- 16% for the cost of refining and distribution to service centers
- 12% for taxes from various goverment's local and Federal
The oil company make 8.3 cents per gallon! That's less than 9% profit. You wouldn't open up a business if someone told you that you would only make 9%. The Liberal Media focuses on the dollar profit and that is simply from the volume of refined crude and gasoline sold but does not represent the real fact that 8.3 cents per gallon is not a windfall profit, Mr Obama and Ms Clinton!
You want to be outraged get outraged at our Congress that keeps stalling on drilling in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, etc. Get outraged that Washington won't give incentives for companies to build more refinery's. It takes 7 to 10 years to build a refinery and companies are not going to invest money for that length of time with no returns unless our government provides incentives. So we sit around and complain and don't do the necessary things to turn this around.
Finally, Hillary is calling for "windfall profit taxes" Well first as mentioned previously there is no windfall profit and next do you think more taxation will not show up in what you pay at the pump. That's where the current taxes show up? HELLO!
<quoted text>

ceart99 wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you kidding me? I'd open a business making a 1% profit if I knew that was going to be a profit on billions of dollars of sales every year. Only a true idiot would turn down a deal like that. These companies are making more and more money each year and are consistently the most profitable companies in the world. I agree with you that the tax holiday is not the solution but it would take a lot of convincing to get me to agree that the solution is to give these companies access to more oil at the cost of the environment.