7 dollar a gallon gas damm obama
Options
DB Cooper
Members Posts: 746
President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.
That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.
So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?
Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.
The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.
AFP/Getty Images
Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.
That sure was true of global-warming policy, and especially the cap-and-trade bill. Many observers thought the measure, introduced last year in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), was dead: The American people didn't seem to think that the so-called global-warming crisis justified a price-hiking, job-killing, economy-crushing redesign of our energy supply amid a fragile recovery. Passing another major piece of legislation, one every bit as unpopular as ObamaCare, appeared unlikely in an election year.
So Obama and congressional proponents of cap-and-trade spent several months rebranding it -- downplaying the global-warming rationale and claiming that it was really a jobs bill (the so-called green jobs were supposed to spring from the new clean-energy economy) and an energy-independence bill (that will somehow stick it to OPEC).
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) even reportedly declined to introduce their new cap-and-trade proposal in the Senate on Earth Day, because they wanted to de-emphasize the global-warming message. Instead, Kerry called the American Power Act "a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence."
But the new marketing strategy wasn't working. Few believe the green-jobs hype -- with good reason. In Spain, for example, green jobs have been an expensive bust, with each position created requiring, on average, $774,000 in government subsidies. And the logic of getting us off oil imports via a unilateral measure that punishes American coal, oil and natural gas never made any sense at all.
Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade -- again -- as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less.
The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector.
Of course, doing so would reduce gasoline use and also raise market share for hugely expensive alternative fuels and vehicles that could never compete otherwise. Less gasoline demand means less need for drilling and thus a slightly reduced chance of a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill -- but only slightly. Oil will still be a vital part of America's energy mix.
Oil-spill risks should be addressed directly -- such as finding out why the leak occurred and requiring new preventive measures or preparing an improved cleanup plan for the next incident. Cap-and-trade is no fix and would cause trillions of dollars in collateral economic damage along the way.
Emanuel was wrong. The administration shouldn't view each crisis -- including the oil spill -- as an opportunity to be exploited, but as a problem to be addressed. And America can't afford $7-a-gallon gas.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK#ixzz0rsWYGiF1
obama is a ? ?
glad i didnt vote for him
That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.
So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?
Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.
The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.
AFP/Getty Images
Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.
That sure was true of global-warming policy, and especially the cap-and-trade bill. Many observers thought the measure, introduced last year in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), was dead: The American people didn't seem to think that the so-called global-warming crisis justified a price-hiking, job-killing, economy-crushing redesign of our energy supply amid a fragile recovery. Passing another major piece of legislation, one every bit as unpopular as ObamaCare, appeared unlikely in an election year.
So Obama and congressional proponents of cap-and-trade spent several months rebranding it -- downplaying the global-warming rationale and claiming that it was really a jobs bill (the so-called green jobs were supposed to spring from the new clean-energy economy) and an energy-independence bill (that will somehow stick it to OPEC).
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) even reportedly declined to introduce their new cap-and-trade proposal in the Senate on Earth Day, because they wanted to de-emphasize the global-warming message. Instead, Kerry called the American Power Act "a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence."
But the new marketing strategy wasn't working. Few believe the green-jobs hype -- with good reason. In Spain, for example, green jobs have been an expensive bust, with each position created requiring, on average, $774,000 in government subsidies. And the logic of getting us off oil imports via a unilateral measure that punishes American coal, oil and natural gas never made any sense at all.
Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade -- again -- as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less.
The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector.
Of course, doing so would reduce gasoline use and also raise market share for hugely expensive alternative fuels and vehicles that could never compete otherwise. Less gasoline demand means less need for drilling and thus a slightly reduced chance of a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill -- but only slightly. Oil will still be a vital part of America's energy mix.
Oil-spill risks should be addressed directly -- such as finding out why the leak occurred and requiring new preventive measures or preparing an improved cleanup plan for the next incident. Cap-and-trade is no fix and would cause trillions of dollars in collateral economic damage along the way.
Emanuel was wrong. The administration shouldn't view each crisis -- including the oil spill -- as an opportunity to be exploited, but as a problem to be addressed. And America can't afford $7-a-gallon gas.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK#ixzz0rsWYGiF1
obama is a ? ?
glad i didnt vote for him
Comments
-
You hate him cause he is black!!!!!!!! *sarcasm*
-
the quote about crises is true. of course, gas is subsidized in the us anyway. if it wasn't you would already be paying $7 plus/gallon. they needed to do what california tried to do and make the car companies produce a certain percentage of electric cars per year. and raise that percentage over the course of ten years.
now, what that has to do with the gulf spill is for you to decide. -
Threadstarter is an idiot. We SHOULD be taxing the ? outta gas. U.S gas prices are the cheapest in the Western World. Slap another dollar on the gas tax and you reduce driving, reduce oil consumption (AND oil prices), increase public transportation usage, increase fuel-efficient car sales, increase badly needed tax revenue (which you can refund to the people by cutting payroll taxes if you like).
You know what the gas tax is now? 18 ? CENTS. And Clinton had to have a huge legislative fight just to increase it 4 cents. smh @ spoiled ass Americans -
Swiffness! wrote: »Threadstarter is an idiot. We SHOULD be taxing the ? outta gas. U.S gas prices are the cheapest in the Western World. Slap another dollar on the gas tax and you reduce driving, reduce oil consumption (AND oil prices), increase public transportation usage, increase fuel-efficient car sales, increase badly needed tax revenue (which you can refund to the people by cutting payroll taxes if you like).
You know what the gas tax is now? 18 ? CENTS. And Clinton had to have a huge legislative fight just to increase it 4 cents. smh @ spoiled ass Americans
If this was 10 years ago, yes. Today? The way the economy is going, no one can afford to pay an additional 5 cents. It may sound stupid but it's expensive when you gotta balance out family/bills etc with other things. -
no one can afford to pay an additional 5 cents.
? . That additional 5 cents is chillin in your couch as we speak. -
Swiffness! wrote: »? . That additional 5 cents is chillin in your couch as we speak.
I'm not suffering heavily from this, but many people are. I know of family/friends who are just making it. An additional $1 or 2 makes all the difference in what's gonna be eaten tonight or how much longer the lights can be on.
Sad, it really is. We've been put into a struggle world wide it's just gonna be no recovery. -
I'm not suffering heavily from this, but many people are. I know of family/friends who are just making it. An additional $1 or 2 makes all the difference in what's gonna be eaten tonight or how much longer the lights can be on.
Sad, it really is. We've been put into a struggle world wide it's just gonna be no recovery.
But as I pointed out, you can cut other taxes to compensate. -
Swiffness! wrote: »But as I pointed out, you can cut other taxes to compensate.
True. But it's all now just a cluster of fuckery. There's so much to re-arrange to make something else okay enough to do. -
would it help if i said Ben Lieberman works for The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute which is a Conservative think tank.....
-
would it help if i said Ben Lieberman works for The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute which is a Conservative think tank.....
and he wrote it for the NEW YORK POST.
FOH wit that -
Swiffness! wrote: »and he wrote it for the NEW YORK POST.
FOH wit that
And your point is what?? He wouldnt be bias at all?? -
? that, Im gonna start riding a bike and lose like 100 lbs at the same time
-
And your point is what?? He wouldnt be bias at all??
? THE NEW YORK POST, that's my point
-
Swiffness! wrote: »
ohh my fault i misread what you first posted lol. -
do it, youll be killing a million birds
good for the ecosystem
put big oil companies out of buisness
fat americans will get more excersise
the cost of living will be reduced in a way
*crip walks* -
in fairness, that's the federal tax, right? it's not the only gas tax in effect. and you WILL be coming down hard on poorer Americans when you tax gas. i often lack sympathy because the average person i hear complaining most is some soccer mom in a BMW SUV, but the fact is that people who make less are going to feel this tax the most. some people don't have public transportation as an option.Swiffness! wrote: »You know what the gas tax is now? 18 ? CENTS. And Clinton had to have a huge legislative fight just to increase it 4 cents. smh @ spoiled ass Americans -
i guess none of yall own cars
-
I take the train for the most part so I could care less. Obama should encourage Congress to build more public transportation so our dependence on oil is reduced at least a little bit, I hear trains in some parts of Asia and Europe are much faster than America now. That's because the govts of the world are investing in their nations, while dumb Americans like investing on wars that are making us broke.
-
you can write-off the tax at the end of the year..
shouldnt be a problem unless you use your car alot.. and how much is the tax..
if they charging you cigarette money tax for gasoline.. then its time for everybody to get their mongoose's out..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDZpvxRnFM
