goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on September 01, 2012, 07:16:15 AM
-
mitigating factors do not count, they don't count when a none (D) is in the Whitehouse, so they don't count now.
The Barry W. Obama Administration . . . Friend to Big Oil.
http://news.yahoo.com/oil-surges-bernanke-speech-205907391.html
Big Oil --------> :kstategrad:
-
non
-
so if Obama leads the dems to economic policies that lead to the worst depression in a generation Dax will give him credit for low oil prices. Got it. :dance:
-
Which party took control of Congress in 2006?
Which party had control of Congress and the Whitehouse in 2008?l
Which party still controls the Whitehouse and the Senate in 2010?
Who can forget Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House in 2006 shrieking about gas prices that were $1 something a gallon.
-
so if Obama leads the dems to economic policies that lead to the worst depression in a generation Dax will give him credit for low oil prices. Got it. :dance:
Exactly which economic policies led to the most recent "depression"?
-
so if Obama leads the dems to economic policies that lead to the worst depression in a generation Dax will give him credit for low oil prices. Got it. :dance:
Exactly which economic policies led to the most recent "depression"?
unquestionably bush
see his tax cuts which are still crippling our economy
-
so if Obama leads the dems to economic policies that lead to the worst depression in a generation Dax will give him credit for low oil prices. Got it. :dance:
Exactly which economic policies led to the most recent "depression"?
unquestionably bush
see his tax cuts which are still crippling our economy
Had nothing to do with low interest rates, free money for banks, easy credit etc?
-
so if Obama leads the dems to economic policies that lead to the worst depression in a generation Dax will give him credit for low oil prices. Got it. :dance:
Exactly which economic policies led to the most recent "depression"?
unquestionably bush
see his tax cuts which are still crippling our economy
Be serious. I really want to know. I hear tards bitch about "those economic policies" that caused this recession, but invariably none of the tards can identify a single policy and explain how it was the cause of that. Here's your shot.
-
so if Obama leads the dems to economic policies that lead to the worst depression in a generation Dax will give him credit for low oil prices. Got it. :dance:
Exactly which economic policies led to the most recent "depression"?
unquestionably bush
see his tax cuts which are still crippling our economy
Be serious. I really want to know. I hear tards bitch about "those economic policies" that caused this recession, but invariably none of the tards can identify a single policy and explain how it was the cause of that. Here's your shot.
I honestly believe Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was one of the worst piece of legislation allowed in America. It shows what drunk politicians on both sides are capable of when they listen to big business instead of history. Also don't dare quote the factcheck.org piece on Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act because a child's logic can see through that piece of crap. Every time I read it I'm stunned they keep that garbage up. The fact is repealing Glass-Steagall allowed for the conditions which they blame for the causes of the depression. Without the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act we wouldn't have debt swaps, we wouldn't have mortgages repackaged as AAA investment securities. Without Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act we wouldn't have allowed these banks and insurance companies to become intertwined without the liquidity to bleed out their losses.
Another piece of legislation that is tangentially related that I hate is the Telecom Act of 1996, another bipartisan rape of the American public. That Act has allowed the consolidation of media outlets into the empires we know today. It has allowed the American consumer to be raped by these companies because they have been allowed to combine and monopolize services, and control the information that Americans need to make informed decisions.
I do think the Bush tax cuts are worthless. I have never seen a time in America where tax the rich has been a bad thing. If you can source me some info on that I would be very interested to see it. The fact is that middle class families will use an extra few dollars in their pocket to maybe buy a TV or pay down debt. A rich person, >1million annually lets say, isn't going to need an extra bit of money to make another purchase. They aren't going to need that money to hire another person at a small business. The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job. That is going to be based off supply and demand of the economy. All those tax cuts have done is bleed away valuable tax receipts from the Federal government.
-
Crazy Stupid Guy that lives off Roe used to have a sign in his yard bitching about high gas prices with the quote that said, "Bush and his friends have done well".
He hasn't had that sign up in a little over 3.5 years.
I also really hope Romney wins so the media can start bitching about them again. Going to be great
-
Crazy Stupid Guy that lives off Roe used to have a sign in his yard bitching about high gas prices with the quote that said, "Bush and his friends have done well".
He hasn't had that sign up in a little over 3.5 years.
I also really hope Romney wins so the media can start bitching about them again. Going to be great
Man, I used to always get a chuckle driving by those signs.
I dont think they are up anymore though, at least I havent noticed it recently.
-
They were pretty great. I don't drive that way anymore, but I think he may have moved. Some of his crazy stupid signs were so long that you had to drive by 3 times to read the whole thing.
-
A rich person, >1million annually lets say, isn't going to need an extra bit of money to make another purchase. They aren't going to need that money to hire another person at a small business. The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job. That is going to be based off supply and demand of the economy. All those tax cuts have done is bleed away valuable tax receipts from the Federal government.
You use >1million to define rich, but right now the political landscape sets the "rich" line at 250K. Tax levels on small business owners whose income tax says they make this much (but actually take home significantly less) do have a significant impact on their ability to hire additional people on the job and the motivation to hire additional people. You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
You're also looking at it wrong with "The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job." It's not about needing the money to hire that person or not, it's about if hiring that person gives them a net benefit. If you raise taxes on them, you lower the take home pay each employee provides to the business owner. You can make the arguement as to whether they "need" the money or not, their "need" of the money has zero impact on their business decisions. You may think this is the way business owners should work, buy no tax law changes will change how they actually operate/think.
-
Presidents have very little control over anything that can control gas prices.
Domestic Oil Production is way up compared to the Bush years, yet gas prices are higher.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311)
Neither side has any pressure to exert on OPEC at this point. They own it, we are their customers, end of story.
Obama released a small portion of the strategic oil reserves in '09 (I think it was '09, may have been '10), and that started the drop in gas prices that lasted for a couple years (I'm not saying THAT was the cause, but it did happen), but it is at best a temporary measure, and it is a risky step to take.
Neither side can control the weather. Gas prices have spiked recently because of the threat of Isaac slowing production, and reduced corn for ethanol production due to the drought in the Midwest...both of these will have VERY little effect on the actual supply, but they lead into my next point...
The only way gas prices will ever go down over the long haul (I feel) is if speculators are kicked out of the game all together. All they do is play on fear, and natural events to jack the prices up & make a quick buck. I am pro Free Market, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the world needs to be open to have exponential profits made off of it.
Lastly, gas prices are still waaaaay cheaper in the US than they are in other places in the world...Prices are per gallon as ofAugust 13: Norway - $10.12...Turkey - $9.41...Israel - $9.28...Hong Kong - $8.61...Netherlands - $8.26...Denmark - $8.20...Italy - $8.15...Sweden - $8.14...Greece - $7.92...UK - $7.87.....the US is the 51st most expensive Country to buy a Gallon of Gas according to...
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51 (http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51)
:blah:
-
Presidents have very little control over anything that can control gas prices.
Domestic Oil Production is way up compared to the Bush years, yet gas prices are higher.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311)
Neither side has any pressure to exert on OPEC at this point. They own it, we are their customers, end of story.
Obama released a small portion of the strategic oil reserves in '09 (I think it was '09, may have been '10), and that started the drop in gas prices that lasted for a couple years (I'm not saying THAT was the cause, but it did happen), but it is at best a temporary measure, and it is a risky step to take.
Neither side can control the weather. Gas prices have spiked recently because of the threat of Isaac slowing production, and reduced corn for ethanol production due to the drought in the Midwest...both of these will have VERY little effect on the actual supply, but they lead into my next point...
The only way gas prices will ever go down over the long haul (I feel) is if speculators are kicked out of the game all together. All they do is play on fear, and natural events to jack the prices up & make a quick buck. I am pro Free Market, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the world needs to be open to have exponential profits made off of it.
Lastly, gas prices are still waaaaay cheaper in the US than they are in other places in the world...Prices are per gallon as ofAugust 13: Norway - $10.12...Turkey - $9.41...Israel - $9.28...Hong Kong - $8.61...Netherlands - $8.26...Denmark - $8.20...Italy - $8.15...Sweden - $8.14...Greece - $7.92...UK - $7.87.....the US is the 51st most expensive Country to buy a Gallon of Gas according to...
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51 (http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51)
:blah:
and here is why
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urban.org%2FPublicationImages%2F1000845%2F1000845.jpg&hash=9e2869461991b4d2dbca81c5d5f885d49ea573d5)
-
and here is why
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urban.org%2FPublicationImages%2F1000845%2F1000845.jpg&hash=9e2869461991b4d2dbca81c5d5f885d49ea573d5)
god damn obama taxing us to death :shakesfist:
-
and here is why
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urban.org%2FPublicationImages%2F1000845%2F1000845.jpg&hash=9e2869461991b4d2dbca81c5d5f885d49ea573d5)
god damn obama taxing us to death :shakesfist:
That would come in the second term.
-
and here is why
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urban.org%2FPublicationImages%2F1000845%2F1000845.jpg&hash=9e2869461991b4d2dbca81c5d5f885d49ea573d5)
god damn obama taxing us to death :shakesfist:
That would come in the second term.
Only if you are :kstategrad: :kstategrad: :kstategrad:
Normal folks like us would only pay more in taxes under Mitt Rmoney
-
Presidents have very little control over anything that can control gas prices.
Domestic Oil Production is way up compared to the Bush years, yet gas prices are higher.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311)
Neither side has any pressure to exert on OPEC at this point. They own it, we are their customers, end of story.
Obama released a small portion of the strategic oil reserves in '09 (I think it was '09, may have been '10), and that started the drop in gas prices that lasted for a couple years (I'm not saying THAT was the cause, but it did happen), but it is at best a temporary measure, and it is a risky step to take.
Neither side can control the weather. Gas prices have spiked recently because of the threat of Isaac slowing production, and reduced corn for ethanol production due to the drought in the Midwest...both of these will have VERY little effect on the actual supply, but they lead into my next point...
The only way gas prices will ever go down over the long haul (I feel) is if speculators are kicked out of the game all together. All they do is play on fear, and natural events to jack the prices up & make a quick buck. I am pro Free Market, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the world needs to be open to have exponential profits made off of it.
Lastly, gas prices are still waaaaay cheaper in the US than they are in other places in the world...Prices are per gallon as ofAugust 13: Norway - $10.12...Turkey - $9.41...Israel - $9.28...Hong Kong - $8.61...Netherlands - $8.26...Denmark - $8.20...Italy - $8.15...Sweden - $8.14...Greece - $7.92...UK - $7.87.....the US is the 51st most expensive Country to buy a Gallon of Gas according to...
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51 (http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51)
:blah:
Cept for ones that really want the prices to be higher. Also, my point was how hard it makes me LOL that the media and everyone was losing their minds when gas prices went up and they blamed Bush because he lives in TX. Now, the president has little to do with gas prices rising.
Pretty sure Romney's policies will somehow make them stay high.
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
-
Presidents have very little control over anything that can control gas prices.
Domestic Oil Production is way up compared to the Bush years, yet gas prices are higher.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-report-us-oil-imports-down-domestic-production-highest-since-2003-20120311)
Neither side has any pressure to exert on OPEC at this point. They own it, we are their customers, end of story.
Obama released a small portion of the strategic oil reserves in '09 (I think it was '09, may have been '10), and that started the drop in gas prices that lasted for a couple years (I'm not saying THAT was the cause, but it did happen), but it is at best a temporary measure, and it is a risky step to take.
Neither side can control the weather. Gas prices have spiked recently because of the threat of Isaac slowing production, and reduced corn for ethanol production due to the drought in the Midwest...both of these will have VERY little effect on the actual supply, but they lead into my next point...
The only way gas prices will ever go down over the long haul (I feel) is if speculators are kicked out of the game all together. All they do is play on fear, and natural events to jack the prices up & make a quick buck. I am pro Free Market, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the world needs to be open to have exponential profits made off of it.
Lastly, gas prices are still waaaaay cheaper in the US than they are in other places in the world...Prices are per gallon as ofAugust 13: Norway - $10.12...Turkey - $9.41...Israel - $9.28...Hong Kong - $8.61...Netherlands - $8.26...Denmark - $8.20...Italy - $8.15...Sweden - $8.14...Greece - $7.92...UK - $7.87.....the US is the 51st most expensive Country to buy a Gallon of Gas according to...
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51 (http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide51)
:blah:
Cept for ones that really want the prices to be higher. Also, my point was how hard it makes me LOL that the media and everyone was losing their minds when gas prices went up and they blamed Bush because he lives in TX. Now, the president has little to do with gas prices rising.
Pretty sure Romney's policies will somehow make them stay high.
Yes, yes, I'm sure Obama is doing everything in his power to ensure gas prices stay high 60 some days away from his election day, because that is simply genius.
When did it become OK to think the president, this one or the last one, is nothing more than a terrorist in the White House? When did we cross that threshold which seperated crap like that from the crazy MF'ers that always existed to being on every god damn cable news network & AM radio station? It's rough ridin' stupid, and we will never go forward with thoughts like, "He really wants gas prices to be higher" being an argument that is somehow accepted as valid by, I dunno 30-40% of the country?
:blah:
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
I can say that I don't have any problem with a slight tax hike for everyone who makes over $100k, as long as that tax increase accompanies a budget decrease.
-
Cept for ones that really want the prices to be higher. Also, my point was how hard it makes me LOL that the media and everyone was losing their minds when gas prices went up and they blamed Bush because he lives in TX. Now, the president has little to do with gas prices rising.
Pretty sure Romney's policies will somehow make them stay high.
I've always thought blaming the president for gas prices (Bush included) is somewhat ridiculous, but I can see some instances where blame might be warranted. For example, if Newt somehow would have won the republican nomination and then been elected president, he absolutely should have been held to his ridiculous gas price promises.
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
I can say that I don't have any problem with a slight tax hike for everyone who makes over $100k, as long as that tax increase accompanies a budget decrease.
I think most of the people I know that make over $100k would agree with you on this, however most realize that if their taxes are raised they're just going to grow another government program for someone else's benefit without any impact on the debt or spending deficit. That's how government works, on both sides. You take what you can get from people who wouldn't vote for you anyway and give it to the people in demographics who are likely to be undecided to buy their vote.
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
Nope. Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush. Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever. whoop-dee-doo.
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
Nope. Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush. Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever. whoop-dee-doo.
Who the eff told barborugby to bring his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) rough ridin' schtick over here?
-
I don't mind high gas prices.
-
I don't mind high gas prices.
I seriously only spend about $30 per month on gas, but I can see where current prices could cause serious problems with a lot of Americans. They are a concern.
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
-
I don't mind high gas prices.
I seriously only spend about $30 per month on gas, but I can see where current prices could cause serious problems with a lot of Americans. They are a concern.
No
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
this
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
Nope. Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush. Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever. whoop-dee-doo.
Who the eff told barborugby to bring his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) rough ridin' schtick over here?
No clue what that means. Hope I helped with the confusion though.
-
A rich person, >1million annually lets say, isn't going to need an extra bit of money to make another purchase. They aren't going to need that money to hire another person at a small business. The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job. That is going to be based off supply and demand of the economy. All those tax cuts have done is bleed away valuable tax receipts from the Federal government.
You use >1million to define rich, but right now the political landscape sets the "rich" line at 250K. Tax levels on small business owners whose income tax says they make this much (but actually take home significantly less) do have a significant impact on their ability to hire additional people on the job and the motivation to hire additional people. You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
You're also looking at it wrong with "The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job." It's not about needing the money to hire that person or not, it's about if hiring that person gives them a net benefit. If you raise taxes on them, you lower the take home pay each employee provides to the business owner. You can make the arguement as to whether they "need" the money or not, their "need" of the money has zero impact on their business decisions. You may think this is the way business owners should work, buy no tax law changes will change how they actually operate/think.
the 250k mark is the top of middle class, not the start of rich. Obama has even said as much, that heavier taxation wouldn't kick in until 7 figures.
I'm not sure i agree with you on real versus on paper income for those small business owners. Even a very modest accountant will know enough to shield income and assets that are used for the operation of a small business. Good accountants like MittBot has are going to make your tax rate 17% or less.
To the point about the rich person hiring a beneficial person, you just indicted the Bush tax cuts as a waste of time. A rich person isn't going to wait for a Bush tax cut to make a hiring decision. That is the absurdity of supply side economics as the modern Republicans have envisioned them. This last depression cut a huge swath through the middle class but did nothing to really hurt the richest of the rich. Giving them more money isn't going to help things as much as MittBot and Ryan want to convince you otherwise. It has NEVER worked that way in history and there are multiple eras where it has been tried. Arguably a payroll tax reduction does spur hiring because it makes the cost of having an employee cheaper. So the only real impact on the owners than are wages and possible benefits. Which in theory would be paid for by increased sales or more sprockets produced, or more 'X' being done. Taxes wouldn't be recovered in the same way.
-
You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
who do you think is proposing anything like this?
Right now its the Dems. Thats the line where above it the want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and below it, keep them. That's also their rich/middle class line since they refer to it as keeping taxes low for middle class and raising for the rich. My original point is now whenever you talk about rich/poor in America, that's the line because that's what the president has set it at. You can't just go "screw the rich, they make millions."
Nope. Mr/Mrs 250k would pay at the same rate as under Bush. Mr/Mrs 251k would pay like 30 bucks extra or whatever. whoop-dee-doo.
Who the eff told barborugby to bring his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) rough ridin' schtick over here?
No clue what that means. Hope I helped with the confusion though.
It means you take one line out of entire posts and try to go down a rabbit hole with that one line rather than reply to what the discussion is actually about. Its rough ridin' annoying. If you are going to get into the discussion, come back with an actual answer/rebuttal like ednksu did.
-
A rich person, >1million annually lets say, isn't going to need an extra bit of money to make another purchase. They aren't going to need that money to hire another person at a small business. The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job. That is going to be based off supply and demand of the economy. All those tax cuts have done is bleed away valuable tax receipts from the Federal government.
You use >1million to define rich, but right now the political landscape sets the "rich" line at 250K. Tax levels on small business owners whose income tax says they make this much (but actually take home significantly less) do have a significant impact on their ability to hire additional people on the job and the motivation to hire additional people. You can't say "look at how it affects someone who makes $1MM, lets raise taxes on the business owner who makes $250K while providing 20 jobs."
You're also looking at it wrong with "The really rich people sure as crap don't need the extra money to hire another person at a job." It's not about needing the money to hire that person or not, it's about if hiring that person gives them a net benefit. If you raise taxes on them, you lower the take home pay each employee provides to the business owner. You can make the arguement as to whether they "need" the money or not, their "need" of the money has zero impact on their business decisions. You may think this is the way business owners should work, buy no tax law changes will change how they actually operate/think.
the 250k mark is the top of middle class, not the start of rich. Obama has even said as much, that heavier taxation wouldn't kick in until 7 figures.
I'm not sure i agree with you on real versus on paper income for those small business owners. Even a very modest accountant will know enough to shield income and assets that are used for the operation of a small business. Good accountants like MittBot has are going to make your tax rate 17% or less.
To the point about the rich person hiring a beneficial person, you just indicted the Bush tax cuts as a waste of time. A rich person isn't going to wait for a Bush tax cut to make a hiring decision. That is the absurdity of supply side economics as the modern Republicans have envisioned them. This last depression cut a huge swath through the middle class but did nothing to really hurt the richest of the rich. Giving them more money isn't going to help things as much as MittBot and Ryan want to convince you otherwise. It has NEVER worked that way in history and there are multiple eras where it has been tried. Arguably a payroll tax reduction does spur hiring because it makes the cost of having an employee cheaper. So the only real impact on the owners than are wages and possible benefits. Which in theory would be paid for by increased sales or more sprockets produced, or more 'X' being done. Taxes wouldn't be recovered in the same way.
ednksu killed it with this post.
Prez Pimp Clinton killed it when he summed up the Republican theme in Tampa, "Basically they are blaming Obama for not cleaning up the big mess they left him with fast enough."
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
I am curious about this as well.
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
I am curious about this as well.
High gas prices only hurt the poor and cause the price of everything to increase. Most poor people can't afford to live close to where they work in urban areas or places like California.
-
inflation
-
the 250k mark is the top of middle class, not the start of rich. Obama has even said as much, that heavier taxation wouldn't kick in until 7 figures.
I'm not sure i agree with you on real versus on paper income for those small business owners. Even a very modest accountant will know enough to shield income and assets that are used for the operation of a small business. Good accountants like MittBot has are going to make your tax rate 17% or less.
To the point about the rich person hiring a beneficial person, you just indicted the Bush tax cuts as a waste of time. A rich person isn't going to wait for a Bush tax cut to make a hiring decision. That is the absurdity of supply side economics as the modern Republicans have envisioned them. This last depression cut a huge swath through the middle class but did nothing to really hurt the richest of the rich. Giving them more money isn't going to help things as much as MittBot and Ryan want to convince you otherwise. It has NEVER worked that way in history and there are multiple eras where it has been tried. Arguably a payroll tax reduction does spur hiring because it makes the cost of having an employee cheaper. So the only real impact on the owners than are wages and possible benefits. Which in theory would be paid for by increased sales or more sprockets produced, or more 'X' being done. Taxes wouldn't be recovered in the same way.
If 250K is the top of the middle class, but not the start of the rich, what are the people from 250K-999K? How can heavier taxation not kick in until $1MM if the tax cuts for earnings from $250K to $999K are going away? Multiple dems have said multiple times that they want to raise taxes on the rich by doing away with the tax cuts above $250K.
On the paper vs. actual income for small business owners, I know it's there because I've seen it on multiple tax returns. Also, your statement on MittBot having a 17% tax rate has nothing to do with small business owners. MittBot is driving his down with a large percentage of his income being taxed at a lower capital gains tax. This has a much, much smaller affect on small business owners. I agree with some of what you said on the Bush tax cuts, but they were needed at the time to get people spending again. That's a different issue than why they are around now (buying votes, neither side wanted a deal made prior to the election). Back to my original statement, if you want to raise taxes on them because you think they need to pay more taxes, fine. You can think that. The only thing is you can't say "they have millions, they'll pay for their people anyway" because that's not how they think. Are keeping the Bush tax cuts a good, long term plan for employeement, no. Will there be no negative effect if they expire because "those guys have millions, they'll pay anyway", no. There will be a short term affect. Also, you missed the biggest impact on small business owners, rising healthcare costs.
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
I am curious about this as well.
I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.
In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'
-
Really is sad to see so many on here willing to wage war on the poor.
Sad, sad, sad
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
I am curious about this as well.
I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.
In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'
The market sets the price. Oil should not cost more now just because the price will have to eventually be higher.
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
I am curious about this as well.
I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.
In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'
The market sets the price. Oil should not cost more now just because the price will have to eventually be higher.
Yeah it should. If a barrel of crude is $97 dollars now, but is expected to go up to $160 a barrel, the price will rise. Major downstream consumers will start trying to set up collars on their oil futures with midstream suppliers to hedge against the expected $160 barrel price, trying to get collars below that. As they start to buy futures, at say $130, midstream suppliers will start to cut their current supplies and buy up more crude to up their reserves so they have more inventory to sell at $130 in the future while purchasing it at a lower cost now. This will start to eat away current supply from the midstream, driving up prices now for downstream. Plus their will be a higher demand from midstream producers for base crude, thus driving up the cost of crude now, thus raising prices all the way through the stream even more.
You are right that the market sets the prices, but part of that whole market is the futures market, which drives up price within the whole market based on anticipation that eventually prices will be higher.
-
There's a lot of explaining going here . . . market factors, "what it should be", and various blatherings about this or that.
No, no, no . . . using political history as our guide, the price of gas at the pump is purely an issue derived from the Executive branch of our government.
Accordingly and based on the reality of record prices at pump. . . Barry W. Obama . . . friend to Big Oil.
Barry W. Obama . . . owned by big oil.
-
There's a lot of explaining going here . . . market factors, "what it should be", and various blatherings about this or that.
No, no, no . . . using political history as our guide, the price of gas at the pump is purely an issue derived from the Executive branch of our government.
Accordingly and based on the reality of record prices at pump. . . Barry W. Obama . . . friend to Big Oil.
Barry W. Obama . . . owned by big oil.
sad, really
-
gas should cost MUCH more than it does now
How much higher is MUCH higher, and why should it cost more?
I am curious about this as well.
I think what he is saying is that since the supply is at or at least near Peak Oil, the price will eventually be exponentially higher...if it is raised in stages in an attempt stave off demand, and promote new technology, it may prevent the sudden panic when it is officially announced that we have reached Peak Oil, and the price of everything petroleum based skyrockets.
In my opinion, new technology is going to advance much slower if gas prices remain 'reasonable'
The market sets the price. Oil should not cost more now just because the price will have to eventually be higher.
Yeah it should. If a barrel of crude is $97 dollars now, but is expected to go up to $160 a barrel, the price will rise. Major downstream consumers will start trying to set up collars on their oil futures with midstream suppliers to hedge against the expected $160 barrel price, trying to get collars below that. As they start to buy futures, at say $130, midstream suppliers will start to cut their current supplies and buy up more crude to up their reserves so they have more inventory to sell at $130 in the future while purchasing it at a lower cost now. This will start to eat away current supply from the midstream, driving up prices now for downstream. Plus their will be a higher demand from midstream producers for base crude, thus driving up the cost of crude now, thus raising prices all the way through the stream even more.
You are right that the market sets the prices, but part of that whole market is the futures market, which drives up price within the whole market based on anticipation that eventually prices will be higher.
The flaw in that argument is that this is already happening, so why should prices be higher than they are now?
-
There's a lot of explaining going here . . . market factors, "what it should be", and various blatherings about this or that.
No, no, no . . . using political history as our guide, the price of gas at the pump is purely an issue derived from the Executive branch of our government.
Accordingly and based on the reality of record prices at pump. . . Barry W. Obama . . . friend to Big Oil.
Barry W. Obama . . . owned by big oil.
sad, really
More like Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
-
My answer to this thread
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.thetimes-tribune.com%2Fjohncole%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2F031612coletoon.jpg&hash=6d9e0cd037265fb695d5cae5cd8c008b72a330da)
-
Oh, I get it, now that a DEMOCRAT is in the Whitehouse the economy is "complex", gas prices are "market driven" . . . the various factors driving the economy are intricate and expansive.
LOL
-
The flaw in that argument is that this is already happening, so why should prices be higher than they are now?
Sorry, I don't necessarily agree that gas prices should be higher now. Just explaining how anticipation of future higher (or lower) prices affect the current price. Without anticipation and futures markets, prices right now would be different. The futures market has brought the price for the overall market to where it is today.
-
Oh, I get it, now that a DEMOCRAT is in the Whitehouse the economy is "complex", gas prices are "market driven" . . . the various factors driving the economy are intricate and expansive.
LOL
Read my first post. NEITHER party can do a GD thing about the vast majority of what controls Gas Prices. Just because your party is full of retards that BELIEVE Newt and his cronies when they say, "If I am elected I'll have gas @ $2.50 overnight," DOESN'T MAKE A WORD OF IT rough ridin' TRUE.
You probably voted for the kid in Elementary School that ran for class president on the platform of having Coke in the water fountains
-
Oh, I get it, now that a DEMOCRAT is in the Whitehouse the economy is "complex", gas prices are "market driven" . . . the various factors driving the economy are intricate and expansive.
LOL
Read my first post. NEITHER party can do a GD thing about the vast majority of what controls Gas Prices. Just because your party is full of retards that BELIEVE Newt and his cronies when they say, "If I am elected I'll have gas @ $2.50 overnight," DOESN'T MAKE A WORD OF IT rough ridin' TRUE.
You probably voted for the kid in Elementary School that ran for class president on the platform of having Coke in the water fountains
:facepalm:
You're living way to far in reality, and no where close to political reality.
-
Oh, I get it, now that a DEMOCRAT is in the Whitehouse the economy is "complex", gas prices are "market driven" . . . the various factors driving the economy are intricate and expansive.
LOL
Read my first post. NEITHER party can do a GD thing about the vast majority of what controls Gas Prices. Just because your party is full of retards that BELIEVE Newt and his cronies when they say, "If I am elected I'll have gas @ $2.50 overnight," DOESN'T MAKE A WORD OF IT rough ridin' TRUE.
You probably voted for the kid in Elementary School that ran for class president on the platform of having Coke in the water fountains
:facepalm:
You're living way to far in reality, and no where close to political reality.
It is a side effect of Liberalism
-
Oh, I get it, now that a DEMOCRAT is in the Whitehouse the economy is "complex", gas prices are "market driven" . . . the various factors driving the economy are intricate and expansive.
LOL
Read my first post. NEITHER party can do a GD thing about the vast majority of what controls Gas Prices. Just because your party is full of retards that BELIEVE Newt and his cronies when they say, "If I am elected I'll have gas @ $2.50 overnight," DOESN'T MAKE A WORD OF IT rough ridin' TRUE.
You probably voted for the kid in Elementary School that ran for class president on the platform of having Coke in the water fountains
:facepalm:
You're living way to far in reality, and no where close to political reality.
It is a side effect of Liberalism
Hardly
Just say NO to high gas prices . . . Unless a Democrat is President
-
So basically, having a commodity that made transportation cheap, fast and affordable for everyone fundamentally changed our society in terms of where we live, work, and get our basic necessities. Now that it is obvious this commodity won't last forever, it is becoming less affordable, and or way of living is becoming untenable for the poorer parts off society, and may become so for everyone. Color me shocked.
It's not an Obama problem, it's not a Republican problem, it's a society problem.
-
So basically, having a commodity that made transportation cheap, fast and affordable for everyone fundamentally changed our society in terms of where we live, work, and get our basic necessities. Now that it is obvious this commodity won't last forever, it is becoming less affordable, and or way of living is becoming untenable for the poorer parts off society, and may become so for everyone. Color me shocked.
It's not an Obama problem, it's not a Republican problem, it's a society problem.
But 4 or 5 years ago, it was clearly a Republican/Bush problem according to the people marching on the street corners in the fake peace movement and Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats standing on the floors of congress.
What changed . . . Oh yeah. . . A democrat was elected president. Now it's a complex societal problem.
Check . . . Got it.
-
So basically, having a commodity that made transportation cheap, fast and affordable for everyone fundamentally changed our society in terms of where we live, work, and get our basic necessities. Now that it is obvious this commodity won't last forever, it is becoming less affordable, and or way of living is becoming untenable for the poorer parts off society, and may become so for everyone. Color me shocked.
It's not an Obama problem, it's not a Republican problem, it's a society problem.
But 4 or 5 years ago, it was clearly a Republican/Bush problem according to the people marching on the street corners in the fake peace movement and Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats standing on the floors of congress.
What changed . . . Oh yeah. . . A democrat was elected president. Now it's a complex societal problem.
Check . . . Got it.
Just because an issue got politicized doesn't mean it should have been. T's and P's dax, sorry people haven't crushed Obama on gas prices so that GW and your repubs could get your mental reparations.
-
So basically, having a commodity that made transportation cheap, fast and affordable for everyone fundamentally changed our society in terms of where we live, work, and get our basic necessities. Now that it is obvious this commodity won't last forever, it is becoming less affordable, and or way of living is becoming untenable for the poorer parts off society, and may become so for everyone. Color me shocked.
It's not an Obama problem, it's not a Republican problem, it's a society problem.
But 4 or 5 years ago, it was clearly a Republican/Bush problem according to the people marching on the street corners in the fake peace movement and Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats standing on the floors of congress.
What changed . . . Oh yeah. . . A democrat was elected president. Now it's a complex societal problem.
Check . . . Got it.
Just because an issue got politicized doesn't mean it should have been. T's and P's dax, sorry people haven't crushed Obama on gas prices so that GW and your repubs could get your mental reparations.
I don't need T and P's . . . I just enjoy the living hypocrisy of the left.
-
what I like most about dax is that he isn't anti-left: he's just anti-hypocrisy. And that I can admire.
-
what I like most about dax is that he isn't anti-left: he's just anti-hypocrisy. And that I can admire.
If only he wasn't being so hypocritical in his criticism
-
what I like most about dax is that he isn't anti-left: he's just anti-hypocrisy. And that I can admire.
Both side are hypocrites on many issues. I just find the left to be a lot more comical, the left does what I call "explainer mode" much better than the right, which is is a good attribute to have in the political arena. I think the left can shift into "Nathan Thurm" mode much better than the right as well.
EMAWesome . . . what do you want me to slam Republicans on, I'll be happy to do it. One little reminder though, Romney isn't president yet, and may never be president.
-
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY
-
Dax is going to need a bigger net at the rate this is going.
-
what I like most about dax is that he isn't anti-left: he's just anti-hypocrisy. And that I can admire.
:thumbs:
-
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY
$3.05 :lol:
$3.49 :lol:
-
look at how serious Nancy was . . . she was gonna fix those failed policies!!
2012: crickets
-
Hey San Francisco area Costco Customers . . . $3.99 a gallon, and NO congressional investigations by Nancy Pelosi.
-
Inflation
-
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY
She is fantastic.
-
what I like most about dax is that he isn't anti-left: he's just anti-hypocrisy. And that I can admire.
Both side are hypocrites on many issues. I just find the left to be a lot more comical, the left does what I call "explainer mode" much better than the right, which is is a good attribute to have in the political arena. I think the left can shift into "Nathan Thurm" mode much better than the right as well.
EMAWesome . . . what do you want me to slam Republicans on, I'll be happy to do it. One little reminder though, Romney isn't president yet, and may never be president.
The only thing worthy of slamming the Right on is their obstructionist activities (well, that and their antiquated views on abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, well crap, just pick one I reckon this list could get long). Having the Senate Minority leader come out and say, the number one goal of the Repubs in Congress is to make this presidency a failure is borderline treason. If the Left had publicly said something of that ilk there would have been effigies burning all over red states, and would have been brandished (even more than they HAVE been) as Un-patriotic. The fact that the right is doing it is somehow viewed AS patriotic.
Romney will never be president. I said in '04 if the best the Dems can do is run out John Kerry, they don't deserve the WH. The same can be said in '12 w/ Romney.
-
Has anyone debated the Hawkish stance of some of our politicians have taken against Iran has driven up oil speculation and prices?
Thank you, and I'll listen off of the air.
* As an aside, as long as we continue to threaten war on every Arab state, we're going to see gas prices go up. It's the nature of speculation. Could we potentially use the direct AND indirect costs of war to help estimate the costs of such activities on our economy?
-
I'm surprised that the great ethanol debate hasn't at least been mentioned when discussing record high gas prices. Remember those mandatory E10 stickers on pumps and the "I'm not filling up with that there etheenol (sic) crowd because I like to eat yellow corn (no Iowa) and it makes my engine blow up?" With the banning of MTBE and subsequent replacement with ethanol, bye-bye E10 stickers in the majority of states. Add in the loss of ethanol subsidies, the permanent or temporary closure of ethanol plants due to corn prices, and the fact that the other unbanned additives are more expensive than four years ago, and you have a two-fold effect on gas prices at the pump. The ethanol factor is one example of the many variables that go into the gasoline price (less ozone emitting fuel during the summer from expensive additives/refining is another one that comes to mind) that the current president watched over. Ironically, the majority of the subtle variables that were changed over the last four years are the ones that had the most say in where the price is now. 97 buck oil and record high gas prices? :jerk:
-
I'm surprised that the great ethanol debate hasn't at least been mentioned when discussing record high gas prices. Remember those mandatory E10 stickers on pumps and the "I'm not filling up with that there etheenol (sic) crowd because I like to eat yellow corn (no Iowa) and it makes my engine blow up?" With the banning of MTBE and subsequent replacement with ethanol, bye-bye E10 stickers in the majority of states. Add in the loss of ethanol subsidies, the permanent or temporary closure of ethanol plants due to corn prices, and the fact that the other unbanned additives are more expensive than four years ago, and you have a two-fold effect on gas prices at the pump. The ethanol factor is one example of the many variables that go into the gasoline price (less ozone emitting fuel during the summer from expensive additives/refining is another one that comes to mind) that the current president watched over. Ironically, the majority of the subtle variables that were changed over the last four years are the ones that had the most say in where the price is now. 97 buck oil and record high gas prices? :jerk:
I've read this post twice, and I'm still not quite sure which side of the ethanol debate EMAWican has chosen to take. I think it's the big government side, though.
-
Has anyone debated the Hawkish stance of some of our politicians have taken against Iran has driven up oil speculation and prices?
Thank you, and I'll listen off of the air.
* As an aside, as long as we continue to threaten war on every Arab state, we're going to see gas prices go up. It's the nature of speculation. Could we potentially use the direct AND indirect costs of war to help estimate the costs of such activities on our economy?
I agree 100%
It's like if we threatened to attack Alaska you would expect gold futures to go up too. Couple this with inflation in commodities over the years and I still don't see why people are surprised gas is so high.
-
I'm surprised that the great ethanol debate hasn't at least been mentioned when discussing record high gas prices. Remember those mandatory E10 stickers on pumps and the "I'm not filling up with that there etheenol (sic) crowd because I like to eat yellow corn (no Iowa) and it makes my engine blow up?" With the banning of MTBE and subsequent replacement with ethanol, bye-bye E10 stickers in the majority of states. Add in the loss of ethanol subsidies, the permanent or temporary closure of ethanol plants due to corn prices, and the fact that the other unbanned additives are more expensive than four years ago, and you have a two-fold effect on gas prices at the pump. The ethanol factor is one example of the many variables that go into the gasoline price (less ozone emitting fuel during the summer from expensive additives/refining is another one that comes to mind) that the current president watched over. Ironically, the majority of the subtle variables that were changed over the last four years are the ones that had the most say in where the price is now. 97 buck oil and record high gas prices? :jerk:
No idea which side you were taking.
Ethanol as a fuel is a total waste of resources and takes a relatively exorbitant amount of energy to derive fuel that we can use for our vehicles in this way. Production of ethanol fuel (after the corn / plant material is at the refinery) uses far more energy that we get out of it. Could be that technology could change this, but we are nowhere close.
-
I'm surprised that the great ethanol debate hasn't at least been mentioned when discussing record high gas prices. Remember those mandatory E10 stickers on pumps and the "I'm not filling up with that there etheenol (sic) crowd because I like to eat yellow corn (no Iowa) and it makes my engine blow up?" With the banning of MTBE and subsequent replacement with ethanol, bye-bye E10 stickers in the majority of states. Add in the loss of ethanol subsidies, the permanent or temporary closure of ethanol plants due to corn prices, and the fact that the other unbanned additives are more expensive than four years ago, and you have a two-fold effect on gas prices at the pump. The ethanol factor is one example of the many variables that go into the gasoline price (less ozone emitting fuel during the summer from expensive additives/refining is another one that comes to mind) that the current president watched over. Ironically, the majority of the subtle variables that were changed over the last four years are the ones that had the most say in where the price is now. 97 buck oil and record high gas prices? :jerk:
I've read this post twice, and I'm still not quite sure which side of the ethanol debate EMAWican has chosen to take. I think it's the big government side, though.
The ethanol debate is irrelevant. I was using that to illustrate that it's not as easy as drill, pump, refine, speculate, price, distribute, use.
-
I'm surprised that the great ethanol debate hasn't at least been mentioned when discussing record high gas prices. Remember those mandatory E10 stickers on pumps and the "I'm not filling up with that there etheenol (sic) crowd because I like to eat yellow corn (no Iowa) and it makes my engine blow up?" With the banning of MTBE and subsequent replacement with ethanol, bye-bye E10 stickers in the majority of states. Add in the loss of ethanol subsidies, the permanent or temporary closure of ethanol plants due to corn prices, and the fact that the other unbanned additives are more expensive than four years ago, and you have a two-fold effect on gas prices at the pump. The ethanol factor is one example of the many variables that go into the gasoline price (less ozone emitting fuel during the summer from expensive additives/refining is another one that comes to mind) that the current president watched over. Ironically, the majority of the subtle variables that were changed over the last four years are the ones that had the most say in where the price is now. 97 buck oil and record high gas prices? :jerk:
No idea which side you were taking.
Ethanol as a fuel is a total waste of resources and takes a relatively exorbitant amount of energy to derive fuel that we can use for our vehicles in this way. Production of ethanol fuel (after the corn / plant material is at the refinery) uses far more energy that we get out of it. Could be that technology could change this, but we are nowhere close.
That's the point. There's 3-10% - always closer to 10% - ethanol in that next tank when you fill up and you don't have a say in it. Thanks to the banning on MTBE (and a couple other minute reasons) more expensive ethanol has replaced pure ole petroleum gasoline. That's why gas prices are at all-time highs. The make-up of "gasoline" is completely different than it was four years ago, which makes it more expensive. Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
-
Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
I immediately thought of "Bring back leaded gasoline :cyclist:" but yeah I agree mostly.
-
Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
I immediately thought of "Bring back leaded gasoline :cyclist:" but yeah I agree mostly.
My new favorite is more expensive "ozone-friendly gasoline" that has to be mixed for the summer months and is distributed in certain areas (KC is the closest for most of us). Who says the president doesn't have a say in gas prices? In 2006 when the EPA wanted to lower the ozone standard from 84 ppb to 60-70 ppb and settled on 75 ppb, that directly would increase our gas prices without anyone even realizing it. Obama rejecting lowering the new standards last year probably saved another 10-20 cents per gallon of increased cost at the pump. The ozone standard is up for review next year btw :runaway:
-
Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
I immediately thought of "Bring back leaded gasoline :cyclist:" but yeah I agree mostly.
My new favorite is more expensive "ozone-friendly gasoline" that has to be mixed for the summer months and is distributed in certain areas (KC is the closest for most of us). Who says the president doesn't have a say in gas prices? In 2006 when the EPA wanted to lower the ozone standard from 84 ppb to 60-70 ppb and settled on 75 ppb, that directly would increase our gas prices without anyone even realizing it. Obama rejecting lowering the new standards last year probably saved another 10-20 cents per gallon of increased cost at the pump. The ozone standard is up for review next year btw :runaway:
If this "ozone-friendly gasoline" is actually ozone-friendly, then count me in.
-
Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
I immediately thought of "Bring back leaded gasoline :cyclist:" but yeah I agree mostly.
My new favorite is more expensive "ozone-friendly gasoline" that has to be mixed for the summer months and is distributed in certain areas (KC is the closest for most of us). Who says the president doesn't have a say in gas prices? In 2006 when the EPA wanted to lower the ozone standard from 84 ppb to 60-70 ppb and settled on 75 ppb, that directly would increase our gas prices without anyone even realizing it. Obama rejecting lowering the new standards last year probably saved another 10-20 cents per gallon of increased cost at the pump. The ozone standard is up for review next year btw :runaway:
If this "ozone-friendly gasoline" is actually ozone-friendly, then count me in.
"Ozone-friendly" just as much as "carbon credits" help the environment. Just another rough ridin' line to make people feel better.... :facepalm:
-
This is why I am against new drilling in the USA. Wait for all the other chumps to run out of oil, then open up alaska drilling and become chamillionaires. I think this stance may be why the survey told me i was in love with Jill Stein.
-
Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
I immediately thought of "Bring back leaded gasoline :cyclist:" but yeah I agree mostly.
My new favorite is more expensive "ozone-friendly gasoline" that has to be mixed for the summer months and is distributed in certain areas (KC is the closest for most of us). Who says the president doesn't have a say in gas prices? In 2006 when the EPA wanted to lower the ozone standard from 84 ppb to 60-70 ppb and settled on 75 ppb, that directly would increase our gas prices without anyone even realizing it. Obama rejecting lowering the new standards last year probably saved another 10-20 cents per gallon of increased cost at the pump. The ozone standard is up for review next year btw :runaway:
If this "ozone-friendly gasoline" is actually ozone-friendly, then count me in.
"Ozone-friendly" just as much as "carbon credits" help the environment. Just another rough ridin' line to make people feel better.... :facepalm:
Typical deal, "ozone-friendly gasoline" does help with strickly ground-level ozone, because it lowers the amount of VOCs emitted, but than we add more ethanol to the mixture, which emitts CO2, a greenhouse gas, during production, and then the EPA gets all pissy and regulates greenhouse gases (CO2), which in turn raises the cost of ethanol, which in turn raises the cost of gas two to three-fold. All because of that one ozone standard that was lowered in 2006 that the president approved. It goes on and on.
-
Goodbye to the days of "petroleum gasoline".
I immediately thought of "Bring back leaded gasoline :cyclist:" but yeah I agree mostly.
My new favorite is more expensive "ozone-friendly gasoline" that has to be mixed for the summer months and is distributed in certain areas (KC is the closest for most of us). Who says the president doesn't have a say in gas prices? In 2006 when the EPA wanted to lower the ozone standard from 84 ppb to 60-70 ppb and settled on 75 ppb, that directly would increase our gas prices without anyone even realizing it. Obama rejecting lowering the new standards last year probably saved another 10-20 cents per gallon of increased cost at the pump. The ozone standard is up for review next year btw :runaway:
If this "ozone-friendly gasoline" is actually ozone-friendly, then count me in.
"Ozone-friendly" just as much as "carbon credits" help the environment. Just another rough ridin' line to make people feel better.... :facepalm:
Typical deal, "ozone-friendly gasoline" does help with strickly ground-level ozone, because it lowers the amount of VOCs emitted, but than we add more ethanol to the mixture, which emitts CO2, a greenhouse gas, during production, and then the EPA gets all pissy and regulates greenhouse gases (CO2), which in turn raises the cost of ethanol, which in turn raises the cost of gas two to three-fold. All because of that one ozone standard that was lowered in 2006 that the president approved. It goes on and on.
Blame Bush. :shakesfist:
-
This is why I am against new drilling in the USA. Wait for all the other chumps to run out of oil, then open up alaska drilling and become chamillionaires. I think this stance may be why the survey told me i was in love with Jill Stein.
This is pretty much a foolproof plan.
-
oh man
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enviroknow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Foil_production_chart.png&hash=95d638fd4d387cc7dde0dac2d3f00d070e68a74c)
-
oh man
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enviroknow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Foil_production_chart.png&hash=95d638fd4d387cc7dde0dac2d3f00d070e68a74c)
The dates must be off for that huge spike. Looks like it starts in 2008 when Bush opened up oil leases to ease the futures price. Obama yanked a bunch of leases after a ton of money was put into exploration.
-
Just waiting on Pelosi to launch those new set of hearings due to the failed energy policies of the Obama administration. I will admit that she's probably hampered by the minority status of her party in the house, but she's still got a bully pulpit. Strangely, no cry to the majority by Pelosi to do such a thing.
-
oh man
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.enviroknow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Foil_production_chart.png&hash=95d638fd4d387cc7dde0dac2d3f00d070e68a74c)
The dates must be off for that huge spike. Looks like it starts in 2008 when Bush opened up oil leases to ease the futures price. Obama yanked a bunch of leases after a ton of money was put into exploration.
Great job by Bush opening up those lands & reacting to falling domestic production. I mean, his reaction time was rough ridin' phenomanal, the guy is surely a world class ping-pong player with reaction time like that!
If he were a Left wing prez, & I were a crazy right wing guy, I'd say something with absolute certainty that is 100% false...like, "I heard on Rush Beckitty's show that he was just waiting for all of his elitist, Harvard educated cronies to buy up all them lands before he released them for oil production, and he's coming after your GUNS," but saying something like that would just be wrong. :nono:
-
If you're going to talk oil production and point out that spike in 2008, you need to discuss the annual average domestic crude oil price as well (in $ / bbl).
2006 $58.30
2007 $64.20
2008 $91.48
2009 $53.48
2010 $71.21
2011 $87.04
That's why production spiked up-higher oil prices. Abandoned wells/oil fields that were considered marginal for oil production for 10+ years previous were suddenly able to turn a profit. You also had horizontal directional drilling (HDD) gain popularity in this timeframe that effected oil production as well. Keep in mind 2008 was when Bush ended the ban on offshore drilling. Nobody foresaw the recession in late 2008-09 coming either, so that's why prices plummeted in 2009. Speculation was gaining wide-spread popularity. The oil production boom in 2008 was the second coming of Christ to the devout oil big wigs.
Suddenly, all of these oil companies had invested :combofan: amounts of money because oil was 120+ bucks per barrel and they were forced to up their production even more to pay the bills.
Obama was simply the placeholder when all of this was going on. :lol:
-
Obama wasn't just a placeholder, he and the EPA have tried to stifle a production on federal and private land since he got in office using any means they can.
-
Obama wasn't just a placeholder, he and the EPA have tried to stifle a production on federal and private land since he got in office using any means they can.
Maybe he should try harder so production will continue to increase.
-
Something needs to happen (cheaper gas or better alternative). Not sure how economy can fully recover when some people are making 6-7 bucks an hour and using a days pay a week to fill up.
PS- I'm not an economist guy, I just think about stuff that makes sense to me. :D
-
Obama wasn't just a placeholder, he and the EPA have tried to stifle a production on federal and private land since he got in office using any means they can.
Source?
-
Something needs to happen (cheaper gas or better alternative). Not sure how economy can fully recover when some people are making 6-7 bucks an hour and using a days pay a week to fill up.
PS- I'm not an economist guy, I just think about stuff that makes sense to me. :D
federal minimum wage is $7.25, fwiw
-
Something needs to happen (cheaper gas or better alternative). Not sure how economy can fully recover when some people are making 6-7 bucks an hour and using a days pay a week to fill up.
PS- I'm not an economist guy, I just think about stuff that makes sense to me. :D
federal minimum wage is $7.25, fwiw
And you lose how much to tax....
-
Obama wasn't just a placeholder, he and the EPA have tried to stifle a production on federal and private land since he got in office using any means they can.
Source?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrBqDE.jpg&hash=2f55fee710e706e81cb1f111f27df46fd72da041)
-
Inflation
-
Source?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrBqDE.jpg&hash=2f55fee710e706e81cb1f111f27df46fd72da041)
esa, passed in 1973. sceloporus arenicolus proposed as a candidate species in '82, removed from candidacy in '85, proposed again in '94, candidate listing mechanism changed in '96 removing arenicolus from candidacy without a new review of status, proposed again in '01, '02 dept. of interior sued for not substantively justifying reasons not to list, court orders review of status, '04 dept of interior publishes review, stating that listing is justified, but is precluded by higher priority candidates, '10 proposed for listing as endangered, '12 not listed as part of a conservation agreement between dept of interior and and private and state interests.
obama plays a long game, fortunately he was able to defeat himself.
-
rough ridin' obama. goddammit about these gas prices.
-
LOL, I've been away from the dome too long. Guess there's just been too much going on in the football forums.
inflation
Inflation
Inflation
3 times Pike ended this thread.
According to this chart below, gas is actually cheaper now than it was during the bush years.. LOL at all of you.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oilvoice.com%2Fckfinder%2Fuserfiles%2Fimages%2Fcost_of_barrel_of_oil_in_gold_vs_dollars.jpg&hash=3a6ffbacac249029cc5985c3e79b250612184f8f)
:dance:
-
now plot the price of gold
-
Gold is not at these prices levels because of inflation hedging. It's because of demand, especially in the Asian markets, as shown below:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz81%2Fksurocks00%2Frando%2FGoldAsia1.png&hash=8b34e59beeb9d8171eec76e5f5ae8de413d26e5a)
Lolz :dubious:
-
now plot the price of gold
See... SD gets it.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farchivestrader.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Fhistorical-gold-price-trend-chart-in-dollars.gif&hash=7c525efe384d2a3ff5bc6c04a5a5e6710d428f13)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F5x0pon.jpg&hash=039e5a67862c15a9918e337210398132282134f6)
-
Gold is not at these prices levels because of inflation hedging. It's because of demand, especially in the Asian markets, as shown below:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz81%2Fksurocks00%2Frando%2FGoldAsia1.png&hash=8b34e59beeb9d8171eec76e5f5ae8de413d26e5a)
Lolz :dubious:
nice ten year chart.
-
Now do housing.
-
Now do housing.
Are you expecting a different trend line?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Now do housing.
Are you expecting a different trend line?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Yes, slightly, and since the cost of housing has a much greater impact on the actual purchasing power of the dollar to most Americans than the cost of gold or oil, it's also more relevant to your argument.
-
Heinballz, are you taking out loans in the increasingly worthless American dollar and buying gold? Seems like an easy way to get rich if what you say is true.
-
Why do we value gold so high? As far as metals go, it isn't particularly useful.
-
Why do we value gold so high? As far as metals go, it isn't particularly useful.
It's pretty rare, as far as metals go.
-
Now do housing.
Are you expecting a different trend line?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
Yes, slightly, and since the cost of housing has a much greater impact on the actual purchasing power of the dollar to most Americans than the cost of gold or oil, it's also more relevant to your argument.
What market? As I see it - housing prices aren't affected as dramatically in the Midwest as they are on the coast; Not to mention gold is global and is subject to the same factors that would effect any other commodity - and housing may be affected by things that might not effect gold - such as unemployment or natural disasters.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on anyting - but I just don't see how it could be any different or more accurate. Plus I'm feeling kind of lazy right now. But you're welcome to pull some stats.
Heinballz, are you taking out loans in the increasingly worthless American dollar and buying gold? Seems like an easy way to get rich if what you say is true.
Look at the graph around 1980. It can collapse. I suppose if you knew about QE1, QE2 & now QE3 several years in advance this would have been a great idea. Maybe Lt. Dan will invest all my bubba gump money in some fruit company for me; so I won't have to worry about money no more... which would be nice... you know... one less thing.
-
What market? As I see it - housing prices aren't affected as dramatically in the Midwest as they are on the coast; Not to mention gold is global and is subject to the same factors that would effect any other commodity - and housing may be affected by things that might not effect gold - such as unemployment or natural disasters.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarketblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fprice-to-household-income.jpg&hash=bc3d4babcdf5374f480111704613f4e5925c9a48)
The point is that you can't just look at a single commodity like gold or oil (especially oil) and say that we're experiencing hyper-inflation. I could look at only the housing market and say that we must be experiencing massive deflation, but that would be equally as dumb. Gold is very overvalued right now, and eventually its bubble will pop. That will not indicate the dollar getting stronger.
-
Pay cash.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2F2012-09-26_15-15-38_325.jpg&hash=818237de9910d07dbfe6a49328fd7565aca3c0a0)
-
What market? As I see it - housing prices aren't affected as dramatically in the Midwest as they are on the coast; Not to mention gold is global and is subject to the same factors that would effect any other commodity - and housing may be affected by things that might not effect gold - such as unemployment or natural disasters.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarketblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fprice-to-household-income.jpg&hash=bc3d4babcdf5374f480111704613f4e5925c9a48)
The point is that you can't just look at a single commodity like gold or oil (especially oil) and say that we're experiencing hyper-inflation. I could look at only the housing market and say that we must be experiencing massive deflation, but that would be equally as dumb. Gold is very overvalued right now, and eventually its bubble will pop. That will not indicate the dollar getting stronger.
Agreed - which is why I listed more than ten years. I'll admit Gold is a pretty horrible short term indicator of inflation; but you can't deny that over the last 50 it illustrates my point pretty clearly. And who said anything about hyper inflation? Gas going from 1.50 to 3.50 in 4 years hardly quantifies as hyper inflation - just as the changes you've seen in gold prices don't.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Gas going from 1.50 to 3.50 in 4 years hardly quantifies as hyper inflation - just as the changes you've seen in gold prices don't.
Interesting time choice, since 4 years and a few months ago, gas was more expensive than it is today.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F66.70.86.64%2FChartServer%2Fch.gaschart%3FCountry%3DCanada%26amp%3BCrude%3Df%26amp%3BPeriod%3D60%26amp%3BAreas%3DUSA%2520Average%2C%2C%26amp%3BUnit%3DUS%2520%24%2FG&hash=234dfd489816b6ff999349add634ad9a75dd1108)
-
so?
You want a prediction that you can test my theory against? July of next year - regardless of what happens in November - you'll see gas over $4.50.
-
so?
You want a prediction that you can test my theory against? July of next year - regardless of what happens in November - you'll see gas over $4.50.
There wasn't much of a larger point there, just that it may have been better to say 12 years ago or whenever gas was consistently that cheap. I'm sure we will see gas that expensive.
-
Great thread Dax.
-
:lol:
-
i get so disappointed when these kinds of threads are bumped and it turns out i didn't (basically didn't) post in them. goddamnit.
-
Just waiting on Pelosi to launch those new set of hearings due to the failed energy policies of the Obama administration. I will admit that she's probably hampered by the minority status of her party in the house, but she's still got a bully pulpit. Strangely, no cry to the majority by Pelosi to do such a thing.
This is still a fair point
-
fun thread
-
This thread is why he is so mad
-
Gas going from 1.50 to 3.50 in 4 years hardly quantifies as hyper inflation - just as the changes you've seen in gold prices don't.
Interesting time choice, since 4 years and a few months ago, gas was more expensive than it is today.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F66.70.86.64%2FChartServer%2Fch.gaschart%3FCountry%3DCanada%26amp%3BCrude%3Df%26amp%3BPeriod%3D60%26amp%3BAreas%3DUSA%2520Average%2C%2C%26amp%3BUnit%3DUS%2520%24%2FG&hash=234dfd489816b6ff999349add634ad9a75dd1108)
The post and image in it are pretty :lol: right now.
-
People voting based upon, and politicians taking credit for or blaming others for gas prices, is like the most bottom feeding lowest common denominator thing in politics.
How many times did Obama tap into the spr for this purpose? Remember when michelle bachman ran on it? Nancy Pelosi indicted "big oil" to testify about it
All pathetic
-
People voting based upon, and politicians taking credit for or blaming others for gas prices, is like the most bottom feeding lowest common denominator thing in politics.
How many times did Obama tap into the spr for this purpose? Remember when michelle bachman ran on it? Nancy Pelosi indicted "big oil" to testify about it
All pathetic
I do wonder how much longer gasoline price will be a political football now that supply isn't much of an issue above $80/ barrel or so.
-
People voting based upon, and politicians taking credit for or blaming others for gas prices, is like the most bottom feeding lowest common denominator thing in politics.
How many times did Obama tap into the spr for this purpose? Remember when michelle bachman ran on it? Nancy Pelosi indicted "big oil" to testify about it
All pathetic
I do wonder how much longer gasoline price will be a political football now that supply isn't much of an issue above $80/ barrel or so.
It's been way cheaper before, so probably never. We'll just see some of this nonsense shifted to other bullshit things like free junior college / ITT tech, or "closing the wage gap" and similar platitudes.
-
I haven't seen obummer taking much of a victory lap except crapping on Keystone
-
Good to see the usual suspects missed the point...as usual
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Good to see the usual suspects missed the point...as usual
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's the point?
-
Politics
-
Politics
I know you fancy yourself a better writer than that.
-
The idiocy of a politician trying to make political capital out of gas prices . . . then again, I look back at the Dems getting Congress in 2006 and then the Whitehouse in 2008 as one protracted series of political fails, with a few exceptions.
-
I haven't seen obummer taking much of a victory lap except crapping on Keystone
I bet he's super pissed about the low gas prices.
-
I haven't seen obummer taking much of a victory lap except crapping on Keystone
I bet he's super pissed about the low gas prices.
Dax thinks he will exploit for his political gain.
-
The idiocy of a politician trying to make political capital out of gas prices . . . then again, I look back at the Dems getting Congress in 2006 and then the Whitehouse in 2008 as one protracted series of political fails, with a few exceptions.
I guess he isn't a friend to Big Oil after all.
-
Remember the 2014 debate with Romney where Obama was trying to take credit for the boom domestic oil production, and Romney was like, "are you rough ridin' kidding with that bullshit?" :lol:
So pathetic.
-
The idiocy of a politician trying to make political capital out of gas prices . . . then again, I look back at the Dems getting Congress in 2006 and then the Whitehouse in 2008 as one protracted series of political fails, with a few exceptions.
I guess he isn't a friend to Big Oil after all.
Your ignorance shines through.
-
The irony is that politicians could have at least a marginal impact on gas prices by boosting domestic production on federal land and easing constraints on distribution. Obama has done the opposite of that, but fortunately production on private land is booming, coupled with weakerer global demand.
-
The irony is that politicians could have at least a marginal impact on gas prices by boosting domestic production on federal land and easing constraints on distribution. Obama has done the opposite of that, but fortunately production on private land is booming, coupled with weakerer global demand.
Yes, oil prices have come down in spite of Obama policies. He would prefer $10 per gallon gas.
-
So the high prices were his fault, low prices aren't his? Fair
-
i can't wait till he destroys them on keystone and gas drops below $1.50
-
So the high prices were his fault, low prices aren't his? Fair
Like, nobody is saying that.
-
i can't wait till he destroys them on keystone and gas drops below $1.50
If he opposes keystone (which only a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) would oppose) the republicans win. If he supports it the republicans win.
-
i can't wait till he destroys them on keystone and gas drops below $1.50
If he opposes keystone (which only a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) would oppose) the republicans win. If he supports it the republicans win.
so pathetic. small government conservatives want the governor of nebraska to use his eminent domain power to take land from farmers and give it to a foreign corporation to transport a foreign product to houston for export. ONLY A COMPLETE Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) WOULD OPPOSE. lol you rough ridin' idiots.
-
Smashing.
-
Dugout should probably just quit this thread.
-
i can't wait till he destroys them on keystone and gas drops below $1.50
If he opposes keystone (which only a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) would oppose) the republicans win. If he supports it the republicans win.
so pathetic. small government conservatives want the governor of nebraska to use his eminent domain power to take land from farmers and give it to a foreign corporation to transport a foreign product to houston for export. ONLY A COMPLETE Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) WOULD OPPOSE. lol you rough ridin' idiots.
Because in your brain small government conservative means anarchist, and a two thousand mile pipeline with terminals all over the Midwest is nothing more than a McDonald's straw rammed into the ground in Canada and poking back out in the gulf, transporting oil our economy won't use and refined somewhere else in the world, I'll allow this. Basically, because you are a huge Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) who drinks copious amounts of libtard Kool aid.
-
Dugout should probably just quit this thread.
Why do low gas prices make you so mad?
-
i can't wait till he destroys them on keystone and gas drops below $1.50
If he opposes keystone (which only a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) would oppose) the republicans win. If he supports it the republicans win.
so pathetic. small government conservatives want the governor of nebraska to use his eminent domain power to take land from farmers and give it to a foreign corporation to transport a foreign product to houston for export. ONLY A COMPLETE Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) WOULD OPPOSE. lol you rough ridin' idiots.
Because in your brain small government conservative means anarchist, and a two thousand mile pipeline with terminals all over the Midwest is nothing more than a McDonald's straw rammed into the ground in Canada and poking back out in the gulf, transporting oil our economy won't use and refined somewhere else in the world, I'll allow this. Basically, because you are a huge Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) who drinks copious amounts of libtard Kool aid.
"government, please take my land and give it to transcanada corp. " -fake sugar dick
-
Dugout should probably just quit this thread.
Why do low gas prices make you so mad?
They don't make me mad. You're flailing here, I mean really badly, friend
-
Dugout should probably just quit this thread.
Why do low gas prices make you so mad?
They don't make me mad. You're flailing here, I mean really badly, friend
I wish you tried to make sense.
-
i can't wait till he destroys them on keystone and gas drops below $1.50
If he opposes keystone (which only a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) would oppose) the republicans win. If he supports it the republicans win.
so pathetic. small government conservatives want the governor of nebraska to use his eminent domain power to take land from farmers and give it to a foreign corporation to transport a foreign product to houston for export. ONLY A COMPLETE Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) WOULD OPPOSE. lol you rough ridin' idiots.
Because in your brain small government conservative means anarchist, and a two thousand mile pipeline with terminals all over the Midwest is nothing more than a McDonald's straw rammed into the ground in Canada and poking back out in the gulf, transporting oil our economy won't use and refined somewhere else in the world, I'll allow this. Basically, because you are a huge Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) who drinks copious amounts of libtard Kool aid.
"government, please take my land and give it to transcanada corp. " -fake sugar dick
Doesn't know what an easement is, unaware that 99% of said easements were acquired by contract, because Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Guys, you know what really irks me? When OneOk uses condemnation powers to bring gas to my house!
-
Dug, it's not really about gas prices.
-
Dug, it's not really about gas prices.
I know its you being mad about the narrative depending who is in office but that's what the vast majority or your bitchy posts are about, we get it already.
-
President Obama is whooping ass in pretty much every major debate talking point.
-
Dug, it's not really about gas prices.
I know its you being mad about the narrative depending who is in office but that's what the vast majority or your bitchy posts are about, we get it already.
Do you . . . get it?
-
Do you get it...
Hmm, Obama, gas... Obama stinks, gas, farts...
Do you get it = Die toot guy? :Wha: Someone alert the NSA.
-
Dugout should probably just quit this thread.
Why do low gas prices make you so mad?
-
This thread is sad . . . so much dumb from so many (excluding me, of course)
-
Dugout should probably just quit this thread.
Why do low gas prices make you so mad?
-
People can afford to drive around more now. This is adding to global warming. Pissing dax off. :whistle1:
-
Crop Yields up massively over the last 20 years . . . THANKS CO2!
-
Crop Yields up massively over the last 20 years . . . THANKS CO2!
I can dig this
-
Damn, Obama is like some kind of nation fixing warlock
-
Crop Yields up massively over the last 20 years . . . THANKS CO2!
Is CO2 a fancy acronym for corn subsidies?
-
$1.68/gl downtown. :driving:
-
I have mixed opinions about low gas prices that help my pocket book and the economy, but hurt the oil and gas industry. Western Kansas will be hurt. Butt Shine Obama has nothing to do with low oil prices. Arabs are trying to destroy over oil industry by flooding the market with crude. Obama wants to use this lull in prices to raise gas taxes and then when prices go up no one can afford to drive; happy greenies. I would like to run a branch of keystone up the Big Oliar's wazoo.
-
I have mixed opinions about low gas prices that help my pocket book and the economy, but hurt the oil and gas industry. Western Kansas will be hurt. Butt Shine Obama has nothing to do with low oil prices. Arabs are trying to destroy over oil industry by flooding the market with crude. Obama wants to use this lull in prices to raise gas taxes and then when prices go up no one can afford to drive; happy greenies. I would like to run a branch of keystone up the Big Oliar's wazoo.
When did he say he'd like to raise gas taxes?
-
$1.68/gl downtown. :driving:
jesus christ, i hate california. still like $2.50 or so in a lot of stations around town (cheapest is probably somewhere around $2.20). and fresno is usually cheap compared to the coast.
-
$1.68/gl downtown. :driving:
jesus christ, i hate california. still like $2.50 or so in a lot of stations around town (cheapest is probably somewhere around $2.20). and fresno is usually cheap compared to the coast.
we never drive on the coast
-
well i drive all the rough ridin' time, and it sucks.
-
well i drive all the rough ridin' time, and it sucks.
you should invest in a bicycle for transportation. It's a very healthy activity.
-
well i drive all the rough ridin' time, and it sucks.
you should invest in a bicycle for transportation. It's a very healthy activity.
i have to drive for work.
-
well i drive all the rough ridin' time, and it sucks.
you should invest in a bicycle for transportation. It's a very healthy activity.
i have to drive for work.
Bullet train!
-
$1.68/gl downtown. :driving:
This is the only guy who has followed the instructions in the title.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNuXnO1B.jpg%3F1&hash=8cbc9c009ee1aa73e9f39f414baeb692a1140c3b)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNuXnO1B.jpg%3F1&hash=8cbc9c009ee1aa73e9f39f414baeb692a1140c3b)
Omg
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNuXnO1B.jpg%3F1&hash=8cbc9c009ee1aa73e9f39f414baeb692a1140c3b)
lol
-
2.09 you guys :horrorsurprise:
-
yeah, it's been going up like a rocket.
-
yeah, it's been going up like a rocket.
WTF is wrong with Obama?