Democrats’ Gas Solution; More Taxes

The Democrats have long believed that more taxes are the answer to every problem we face. They tax anything and they increase the taxes on everything just to cover their out of control spending. Of course there are those who defend the so called “progressives” and indicate that higher taxes are necessary but that is foolish thinking by people who either don’t pay taxes, hide their income so they are not subjected to taxes, or don’t understand how a budget is supposed to work.

The cost of gasoline is hurting a lot of people in this country. Gasoline went from a little over $2.00 a gallon when the Democrats took control of Congress to over $4.00 a gallon now. Fair or not, it happened on their watch and if they can blame all that is evil on Republicans when they had control then turn about is certainly fair play.


Many groups are calling for an end to the moronic restrictions this country has on drilling for our own oil. The President and the Congress have banned oil exploration in many areas that we own, areas that have known deposits of oil. The President lifted the Executive Order banning the drilling but Democrats in Congress continue to obstruct our progress. They simply will not allow drilling. People like Al Gore (who obstructs from outside Congress) and Nancy Pelosi have stated we cannot drill our way out of the problem which is a silly and illogical statement because it is patently false. Drilling and using the oil we have will provide relief while alternatives to fossil fuels are developed (they have talked about developing alternatives for decades but it is just talk). It is insane to eliminate one form of dependable fuel when no viable alternative exists and I don’t care how much Al Gore cries about it. Gorebal Warming is a hoax and the idea that drilling will not help us is as stupid as saying that a man dying of thirst cannot drink his way out of it.

What is the solution that Democrats have for high gas prices? They want to increase taxes. Not only the taxes on oil company profits (which would be passed on to consumers) but on the gasoline that consumers buy. Congress is considering raising the tax by 10 cents a gallon. This comes after a member of a construction industry told members that a gas tax holiday (I do not favor that, I favor eliminating the gas tax altogether) would decrease the amount of money available for transportation projects, which are already down because people are driving less, and would result in a large number of construction employees (read union) out of work just before an election. Democrats cannot afford to lose votes so they want to boost the gas tax to ensure that union workers have jobs.

The transportation trust fund is no different than any other fund in government. They raid it and use the money for whatever they wish. They also call the Social Security money a Trust Fund but it has been raided more times than the Lost Ark. Transportation money is used for all kinds of projects and some of them even deal with transportation.

This idea is only the beginning of the pain that they want you to feel at the pump. In addition to the 10 cents a gallon, they want to index it to construction cost inflation. That whole idea is just ready made for corruption. Additionally, the taxes you pay on gas would continually change based on the inflation in construction and it would be a percentage of the price you are paying per gallon. I have seen ideas like this and there is no reverse button. If there is no inflation or things are really good (like costs go down) they keep the price at the last level. In other words, it can only increase and not decrease.

They are also looking at implementing congestion pricing and charging people for the number of miles they drive a year. I thought that the gas tax accomplished that. The more miles you drive the more gas you use so the more taxes you pay. People who use fuel efficient cars save money. If they charge by the miles then everyone pays the same regardless of how fuel efficient they are.

Government will continue to increase what we pay and the people in it do not care what it costs us or how it hurts us. Remember, when they raise the gas tax YOU will be paying for the tax on your gas and on theirs because we pay for their cars, their insurance, their registration and their gas. They do not care how it affects YOU because it will not affect them. They are only concerned with how far they can push you before you decide not to vote for them.

We need to solve this problem and we can start by eliminating the people who vote for tax increases and work our way back from there. We could consider driving fewer miles but then they would only raise taxes more because they need us to drive in order to keep the union workers employed.

This should be a great example of all the price gouging that Democrats cried about. They don’t do anything to get the gas to market but they extort a portion of the price from people. When they make BILLIONS of dollars from taxing oil they increase the amount they take but when the oil companies make BILLIONS off a product they brought to market, the government wants to punish them. The only people gouging you have been elected to office.

Get rid of them NOW.

Source:
My Way News

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

27 Responses to “Democrats’ Gas Solution; More Taxes”

  1. Bunny Colvin says:

    C’mon BigDo****,

    Out of control spending the fault of the Dems? You needn’t look any further than your man-crush GW Bush to see the real $$$ evaporate. But he’s a repubber, so you’re fine with it, right?

    Gas prices solely the fault of a Democratic-controlled congress? Don’t you think some of the blame should be spread to the oil companies? Or perhaps the unnecessary war in Iraq? Or maybe an energy policy crafted in secrecy by Dick(face) Cheney and energy industry lobbyists?

    Nah, you don’t wanna hear any of that. Reality is a dirty word in republican circles, and all you’re concerned about is towing the party line.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Beech Outdoor Advertising-Purveyors of Fear

  2. Big Dog says:

    Bunny,
    I have afforded you a little room. My name is Big DOG and not the other vile things you are calling me. You will use my name correctly here.

    I have had many problems with this president so a man crush would be a stretch. He was simply the better of the choices offered at the time.

    How can the oil companies be responsible for a global commodity that is priced on the world market. The OPEC nations control production and therefore price. If the Democrats would stop blocking drilling we could have oil flowing in as little as a year. The platforms already off the West Coast would provide it.

    It is your opinion that the war is unnecessary. However, spending for it is Constitutional. The same cannot be said for social programs.

    The secret energy policy. Did they deliver it in black helicopters? We have not had a good energy policy in decades and that encompasses a time before DC was in the White House.

    Now Bunny, if you can’t be nice stay home. Also, take your fight with Reinhart to your site. If he comments there, address it there.

  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    Sorry Dog. Your boy W likes to give nicknames and I thought I would do the same. Guess not. I’ll call you Dog or BD from now on- no sweat.

    Because if they are the only ones selling it, they can control the price. Are you honestly trying to tell me that oil companies have no say in the pricing of their product?

    Drill, drill, drill. All I ever hear from the repubbers. Instead of moving to alternative energies, you guys just wanna drill it dry. I don’t know about you, but I have a beach house. And I’d rather not have to look out at an oil rig while relaxing on the beach.

    Spending for social programs is unconstitutional? Please explain.

    You can spin it however you want. It is indeed a secret energy policy, crafted by energy industry lobbyists and executives. Including Enron.

    You aren’t exactly “nice” to some of your readers, but I’ll try to ease up since it appears I’ve hurt your feelings. If Swinehart attacks me here, I’ll shut him down here. If he comes at me there, I’ll do it there. Fair enough?

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Beech Outdoor Advertising-Purveyors of Fear

  4. Big Dog says:

    Fair enough.

    You did not hurt my feelings. I like a bit of civility. The ones you read about me being less than nice to are those who have a history. I might not agree with you but you seem like an intelligent person (though misguided) and I expect more from you.

  5. Scott says:

    Bunny again you spew things without thought or supporting information.

    Oil companies have some say in the price of their product, but they also realize that unlike other products the price of theirs directly impacts EVERYTHING else. Why do you think their profit margin is lower than that of other industries? If they jack up the price of oil then their costs also skyrocket. The price to get their product to market increases, the amount they have to pay employees increases, the cost to run their offices increases. The oil companies are no more insular than you or any other company is.

    Second if you are relaxing on the beach you cannot see an oil rig. The maximum distance you can see on a clear day from sea level is roughly 3 miles (shorter people can see slightly less, taller people can see slightly more) due to the curvature of the earth. No oil rigs are allowed that close to the shoreline. So stop spewing liberal propaganda designed to scare people into voting for their policies. You can Google the Horizon if you don’t believe me.

    The US Constitution makes no provisions for the Federal Government to implement or oversee social programs. These are the province of the States via the 10th amendment that states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Since the gas shortages of the 70’s both Democrats and Republicans in both Congress and the White house have failed to provide a responsible energy policy. Where is the proof of the “secret energy policy”? What facts or evidence do you have to support your position?

  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    Scottie-

    Spare me your cockamamy economic theories. As usual, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Oil companies profit margins have risen substantially over the past ten years or so. So what if their margins are lower than other industries? Most of the oilmen I watched testify on the Hill seemed to be doing fine. Checking my 401(k) statement, I see that oil stocks have gone through the roof over the past few years. Lee Raymond pocketed $400 mill when he retired from ExxonMobil a few years back- not too shabby. Never hear of any widespread layoffs at any of the oil companies. What are you an oil industry lobbyist? Funny, I had you pegged for a convenience store clerk.

    Strange, last time I was in Huntington Beach I saw oil rigs off the coast. I’m 6’2″- I don’t consider myself extremely tall. Maybe I should get tested to determine if I have superhuman vision.

    We can talk Constitution some other time. Your boyfriend GW Bush has no respect for it, so I’d rather not discuss with you.

    I have no proof of the secret energy policy. It was held in SECRET, and Dick(face) Cheney must have forgotten to send me an invite with the time, place, and secret password.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  7. Big Dog says:

    The oil companies have a 10% (give or take a percent or 2) and that is reasonable. They make a lot of money because they sell a lot of product (and more than gas, petroleum makes plastic, Styrofoam etc).

    Microsoft’s profit margin is greater than 20% but no one goes after them because they are not selling so much stuff that they have a huge raw number in revenue but their percentage is more than twice that of oil. The profit on a gallon of gas is 8-10 cents.

    I also don’t care if I can see an oil rig. I see gas stations all the time. It is part of getting what we need. Perhaps the people worried about the way an oil rig looks could spend more time cleaning up their cities.

  8. Scott says:

    Huntington Beach, CA? That odd I wonder how you could see them past Santa Catalina Island and San Clemente Island.

    Also the Satellite imagery for that area doesn’t show any oil rigs, and since motor boats show up in the images I’m sure an oil derrick wouldn’t be hard to spot. I also happen to have a friend who lives in OC who tells me you’re full of manure. Stop shoveling the liberal BS, cause I keep proving you wrong.

    Again you take the typical liberal tack, can’t back up your BS with facts or even logical reasoning so you resort to personal attacks and insults. GG Bunny, it only proves you know you’ve been made to look foolish.

  9. Reason says:

    Just to clarify about Huntington Beach:

    It was covered with pumps 80 years ago but they’re all gone for the most part. North of there 50 miles up PCH past Malibu and you start to see the rigs though.

  10. Reason says:

    Also HB is also often closed not because of oil but because of bacteria from waste and storm run off. This is true for many CA beaches.

  11. Bunny Colvin says:

    Scottie,

    Wrong again. You’re on a roll lately buddy.

    I take it you know better than what I’ve seen with my own eyes. Oil rigs can clearly be seen off the coasts of both Huntington and Seal beaches (except when it is extremely hazy). Your imaginary friend in OC must be blind or very stupid (which wouldn’t surprise me considering he’s your friend). Here’s a snapshot taken from Huntington Beach…

    http://parkerlab.bio.uci.edu/pictures/photography%20pictures/bigthumbs/screenOil%20rig%202.jpg

    And a little bonus for you, Scottie. A recap of the oil spill of 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara…

    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oilspill/69oilspill_articles2.html

    I’m foolish? You’re the king of foolishness, my friend.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  12. Big Dog says:

    Sorry bunny but that picture looks like a painting which would make it an artist’s rendition. I don’t know if you can see oil rigs or not and I don’t really care (like I said clean up the cities and stop worrying about an offshore rig) but a painting is not proof one way or the other.

    Yes, there have been oil spills and they have been bad but that should not stop us from obtaining and using it. Do we stop driving because some people have terrible accidents?

  13. Bunny Colvin says:

    That “picture” is a photograph, not a painting. The link I included in my comments takes you to the site of a PHOTOGRAPHER. The definition of a photographer is “a person who takes photographs”. It mentions nothing about painting. I believe you would call one who paints a PAINTER. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    Of course you don’t care, Doggie. You likely don’t live near a coastline with oil rigs visable from the beach. You say “drill it up”! It doesn’t have any neagtive impact on you.

    Here’s another PHOTOGRAPH of an oil rig off Huntington Beach. (Just because I’m in such a giving mood)…http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/4920962.jpg

    Don’t let Scottie drag you into arguments you can’t win, Dog. I can tell you’re smarter than that.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  14. Big Dog says:

    I did not say it was not a photo, only that it looked like a painting. But I really don’t care how it was rendered.

    There is no way I can lose this argument because I do not care therefore I cannot lose. It does not matter to me if there are oil rigs or not. BTW, I live in the East Coast with the Atlantic Ocean. Can’t say there are any oil rigs here but I would not care if they were.

    If we drill off the coasts of other states and California does not allow it then they should have to keep paying $5 for a gallon of gas. They should be denied oil from the states that allow it to be drilled or they should have to pay the rate that was in effect before we drilled.

    I don’t care if they decide not to drill, I just don’t want the people to benefit from others. Either you are in it to help or you pay the higher rate.

  15. Bunny Colvin says:

    The spin certainly does NOT stop here on this site. Billo would not be pleased.

    Oh, ok. There is no way you can lose an argument because you don’t care? Well, I don’t care if the pillow biters up the street want to get married, therefore I cannot lose that argument. Tell that to John Hagee.

    Another flawed argument you present- states not producing oil should have to pay more than those that do. Your home turf, the Old Line State of Maryland doesn’t produce much oil. Ready to pay up? Doubtful.

    No oil from Jersey, want to start drilling there? Sweet, perhaps you can move north and supervise the project. You can buy my shore house in Cape May. I’ll get a place somewhere that I can relax on the beach without the ugly site and potential hazard of oil rigs.

    Here’s a photograph (not painting) of the Murphy Oil spill of 2005…http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/hurricanes/katrina/murphyoil/images/120905_clip_image002.jpg

    Looks like fun, huh? Imagine if one of those houses was yours. Would you “care” then?

  16. Big Dog says:

    The point is if you can produce oil and choose not to then you should be made to pay more. If there was an oil spill that affected my house I would have to deal with it. I do not live life worrying about things that have little chance of happening. I have a greater chance of getting killed in a car wreck or getting cancer than I do being in a huge oil spill.

    The Murphy Oil Spill came from an above ground storage tank and not an oil rig. Since it happened in an area devastated by a hurricane it is unlikely that the homes would have been salvagable whether the oil spilled or not.

    Since my state has plenty of those tanks it could happen but is VERY unlikely. You have a better chance of being killed in any major city than you do of being involved in an oil spill.

    I am willing to bet more people have been killed by hurricanes an/or tornadoes than by oil spills. It is unlikely even if the selfish jackasses in CA won’t allow us to drill. Just think, all the pollution they generate there and they won’t allow oil drilling.

  17. Bunny Colvin says:

    Never said that oil spills are responsilbe for as many deaths as other types of tragedies. Never once. Are the only issues of concern to you the ones that could potentially kill you? Good, keep your mouth shut about taxes, gay rights and abortion then.

    No thanks on the bet. I’m making $$$ watching the Phillies beat the Mets as we speak. I’ll make my own bets, but thanks anyway.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  18. Big Dog says:

    I am not worried about those things that can or cannot kill me. I do have a right to speak about any subject I find objectionable. Taxes certainly affect me more than an oil spill because I can count on taxes happening.

    I believe abortion to be murder so I have a right to speak about it and there is a difference between gay rights (they already have rights without labeling them gay rights). I don’t believe they should be allowed to push their agenda on the majority that does not favor it. I also believe that if a business does not want to do work for gay people for religious reasons then they should be protected by the First Amendment.

  19. Bunny Colvin says:

    How about businesses that do not want to do work for minorities or people with disabilities? First Amendment protect them?

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  20. Bunny Colvin says:

    Better yet, should religious group that use drugs on your “bad” list (rastafarians/marijuana or some native american groups/peyote) in their ceremonies be protected from prosecution under the First Amendment?

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  21. Big Dog says:

    No, there is no First Amendment protection for that. People who have a religious conviction against homosexuality should be protected because the government can not interfere in their religious beliefs.

    Suppose a couple was having a wedding reception and hired a Muslim butcher to cater it and then wanted a pig cooked and butchered. Could the government force the Muslim to mess with the pig? Same thing for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and violates their religion.

    People with disabilities and minorities do not fall in that category.

  22. Big Dog says:

    Some of them are protected. Those items are illegal so they should not be allowed to use them. Satanic worshipers believe in human sacrifice and that religion is recognized in this country. We cannot allow them to kill just because it is their religion.

    There is a difference between illegal activity and legal activity.

  23. Bunny Colvin says:

    Oh, how about “religious groups” who wish to exclude minorities and people with disabilites because they have a “religious conviction” that compels them to do so? Are you claiming no such groups exist? Maybe not on your street, but I’m telling you they’re out there.

    Any couple that hires a Muslim butcher (lotta those around) and then wants him to butcher a pig should be denied the right to marry and reproduce. Stupidity is very often hereditary.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..Lost In Translation?…Nope!

  24. Reason says:

    Bunny that photo could be anywhere.

    Take this one for example i could tell you this was off the coast of MD and you can see it from Ocean City.

    http://nickambrose.com/diving/photos/linked-to/oil-rigs-aug-5-2007/small/oil-rigs-aug-5-2007-1.jpg

    Doesn’t make it true, and since there are no identifying landmarks (and with photoshop I could drop a rig right next to the Statue of Liberty) it makes it hard to use a picture as any kind of evidence.

  25. Bunny Colvin says:

    Teh…great, your’re back.

    The photos I included in my comments weren’t “photoshopped”. I don’t even know how to “photoshop”. Regardless, my point was that oil rigs are clearly visable off the coasts of several southern Californa towns. And it doesn’t require superhuman vision to see them from the beach.

    This is the last proof I’ll offer of the platforms existence. (It’s from Aera Energy’s website. They’re the company that operates the rig). “Reason”‘s next comment may accuse me of creating the website itself, but I think more REASONable readers will take my word for it…http://www.aeraenergy.com/whoweare/HuntingtonBeach.htm

    As noted on the webpage, the platform is 1.3 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. Evidently too far for Scottie’s imaginary SoCal friend to see it, but easy to spot by 99.9999999% of beachgoers not suffering from blindness.

    Where is Scottie anyway? Hasn’t had much to say since I proved him a liar.

    Bunny Colvins last blog post..T. Boone Pickens- Who is this guy on my T.V. every 10 minutes?

  26. Bunny Colvin says:

    Yo Scott…you giving up on this one?

    Maybe politics just aint your thing, dog.

  27. […] on to consumers but on the gasoline that consumers buy. Congress is considering raising the tax byhttp://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-gas-solution-more-taxes/Carbon Tax Center ? We Explain Gasoline Demand including why it??s … … via socially determined […]