Posted on 02/29/2012 8:08:50 AM PST by Hojczyk
The government, state and federal, have ZERO interest in lowering the price of oil. The higher the cost at the pump, the more money the government rakes in from the taxes on a gallon of fuel.
I want to have a picture of Chu handing the office keys to the new Energy Secretary Palin next January...
email!
I don't think this is correct. Federal gasoline tax is a flat $0.18 or so on each gallon. Each state and locality adds their own taxes per gallon on top of that. I think in reality, the tax revenues decrease as people cut back on gasoline purchases.
Still, I don't know where all that money is going. The price of crude oil drops, and yet gas prices go up.
Cost effective are the kewy words. The only way to bring our economy back is cheap energy as in Drill here, drill now.
Regardless of all the hype science is no where near cheap energy with cellulosic and/or algae. It may be economically feasible if gas is $10 a gallon but that is not cheap and the US economy will be destroyed by then.
Just because things can be accomplished in the lab does not mean they will ever be ever be economically viable. There are collateral issues not directly related to the science that prevent economic feasibility of both cellulosic and algae.
Further, the Germans had a plant producing 50 million gallon per year of ethanol from wood-based feedstock back in the 1890s. It proved not to be economically feasible back then even though they were able to achieve 50 gallons per ton.
Today some cellulosic technology companies brag about 60 gallons per ton. With such nominal improvement in yield in over 100 years do we really believe the next breakthrough to bring celullosic fuels to commercial reality is just around the corner?
This is sickening. It is nothing but a personal agenda by Chu fostered by obastard. Nothing but treachery, fraud and self-interest... if you dig down you will most likely find direct benefit to Chu and obsstard throughout the whole scam.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
This agenda by the administration is driven by ideology not necessity. Furthermore, the alternatives have been shown to be uneconomic. The economic ignorance of this administration is further illustrated by their insistence that replacement of a superior economic alternative by one that is vastly more expensive and raises the cost of virtually everything somehow makes the U.S. more competitive? Horseshit.
We have never found it expedient to replace an existing product without good economic or technical reasons... there are no such reasons to force abandoning oil. The only reason this administration has is unavowed... control and a econut agenda and feathering their own wealth.
Apparently they have not heard that for every dollar gas goes up, our GDP goes down by 1.3%. I think that was the number I heard, it could have been 1.6.
So.... given that our GDP is growing by what 1.3% that this might be a wee little problem...
Not for those idiots anyway. Why should they care? They have their cushy government jobs and Oblidiot has SS service and chauffeurs for the rest of his life. They are the one percent, and it is THEY who do not care.
And I guess those batteries come fully charged and never run low. And as soon as the magic batteries are invented they appear in your magically converted to electric cars.
The heck with drilling for oil, building power plants, expanding coal and nuclear use, Magic friggin batteries are coming to save us!
“I want to have a picture of Chu handing the office keys to the new Energy Secretary Palin next January...”
I am not the biggest Palin fan when it comes to the talk of her for President and/or VP but she would make a fantastic Secretary of Energy, of that, I have no doubt.
This country cannot afford $5 gasoline. The whole house of cards will come down again, before the election, emergency measures.
That’s nice. How do I get them to you, hmmm?
Making little stickers of fact to put in all sorts of places is one of the best Ideas I have seen in a long time.
I’m going to start doing it. We need to start spreading fear. That is right, I said spread fear. I also think we should start taking a few economies with the truth in our favor. Take your quotes out of context to reinforce your fear mongering based on fact. For example:
“Under my plans energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
instead of
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama told the Chronicle . “Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
The fact is: Electricity rates have skyrocketed even with natural gas prices at historically low inflation adjusted prices.
USA Today 12/13/2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-13/electric-bills/51840042/1
It will only get much much worse:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/get-ready-for-electricity-prices-to-necessarily-skyrocket/
Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump? That will be just the appetizer. Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit and Newsalert)
The amount that "people" can cut back on their consumption of fuel is negligible compared the the revenue these high prices generate for the government. In CA the combined state and federal taxes per gallon is 67.5 cents. The Feds take 18.4 cents, and CA takes the remaining. The CA tax has two levels - a flat rate, and a sales tax per dollar spent. This does not include the taxes levied on the businesses that sell fuel, transport the fuel, etc.
The more a gallon of fuel costs the more in taxes is collected. Some reduction in use may take place, but the overall effect is an increase in tax revenue to the government. Why would they want to get prices down?
The Obama administration won’t have to worry about gas prices after November because the will be sent out of town by rail.
I’m not referring to a “rationing,” I’m referring to a subsidy. Like food stamps. The cost of food increases for everyone who pays out of their pocket, and the price really doesn’t matter to those getting the subsidy. A welfare card with extra “fixins” is nothing like rationing. But I did understand what you meant, I just may not have articulated what I had meant, well.
It is actually the inverse.
The $.18/gallon is a fixed rate.
The higher the price the less people drive.
Therefore, the less revenue the govt. takes in.
This is also why the govt. has no interest in promoting a natural gas based automobile. They have no way of taxing the natural gas if you could fill up at home. It would be a huge revenue loser for the feds and the state govts.
Oh, no doubt about it, nothing’s like petroleum. Personally, I believe it’s impossible to run out of the stuff, as I believe it’s largely abiotic, but it may get harder to get at. I realize that not everyone holds that opinion, so I’m not looking for an argument. If all else fails, we could hook Obama’s Unicorns to treadmill generators and power the galaxy on “hope and change,” alone!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.