Gas at $6 per gallon? Get ready ...

Classic Parker Boat Forum

Help Support Classic Parker Boat Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DaleH

FOUNDER of Classic Parker Forum
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
4,657
Reaction score
38
Location
Newbury, MA
Who votes for these a$$holes anyway ... ??

.

Gas at $6 per gallon? Get ready ...
By Jim Wooten | Thursday, June 21, 2007, 08:15 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Get ready for Congress to solve the energy problem just as it has previously solved the illegal immigration problem. A bill being debated in the Senate this week is described by some of its supporters as “far from perfect” but “a good start.”

A good start, yes, to higher gas and food prices, to new taxes and to forcing consumers to pay for high-cost “renewable” energy sources — solar and wind, for example — that are to energy independence what bicycle trails are to traffic-congestion relief.

The Senate bill, grandiosely and falsely dubbed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, should come with a section prohibiting price gouging — by Congress. The legislation “could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline consumers,” according to Heritage Foundation researchers. “A review of S. 1419, including the just-completed section on tax changes, reveals that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon (the early May national average) to $6.40 in 2016 — a 104 percent increase,” write Heritage Foundation researchers William W. Beach and Shanea Watkins.

“Gas consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 and $3.79 a gallon for gas in 2008 after adding in the estimated impact of the Senate energy bill. By 2016, all states can expect gas prices in excess of $6. As a result of S. 1419, consumers would spend an average of $1445 more per year on gasoline in 2016 than in 2008,” they write.

With the the concurrence of the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, and others (Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Pat Roberts of Kansas, all Republican), the committee is proposing $29 billion in new taxes on oil companies. The tax is to subsidize wind and solar power, hybrid vehicles and biofuel. The bill calls for a sharp increase in the use “renewables,” including heavily-subsidized ethanol, up from 8.5 billion gallons next year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. And it requires, too, that utilities would be required to buy at least 15 percent of their energy from wind, solar and other “renewable” sources.

Ethanol requires more energy to produce than it generates as fuel, to say nothing of the water required for irrigation in areas like drought-stricken South Georgia. It’s subsidized by taxpayers with a 51-cents per gallon tax credit, and it’s subsidized again at the pump with a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Go figure.

The provision, too, that would “protect” consumers from “price gouging” is an invitation to price controls. And that’s an invitation to economic disaster. This comes, incidentally, despite the fact that no reputable studies establish that price gouging has occurred.

Borders were made secure and the illegal immigration problem was solved in 1986. And now the energy problem is about to be solved, too.
 
DaleH said:
Who votes for these a$$holes anyway ... ??

We all do. Both parties are just as bad. I hate the partisan politics and loyalty to party above loyalty to the Nation and the Constitution. If a good 3rd party ever shows up on the scene, I know where my vote will be.

Dave
 
ParkerSal":2etj2htl said:
Bill just failed.

Thank goodness. But, you can bet your azz some form of energy tax is coming to fund every foolish windmill/ethenol/cow fart fuel idea Alger can think of.
:cry:

Not gonna let us rich people get away with rapeing the earth any longer. :roll:
 
We had some friends from Ireland spend the night last night. On the way to dinner they remarked how cheap our gas is. I said "cheap?" Although they pay for gas in liters, they said gas is already $6.50 a gallon in Ireland. Youch.

jim
 
Gasolins cost about the same worldwide. The difference you pay is dependent on how much tax is added or in a few cases how much the govt. supports (ie Iran where gasoline is $0.30-.40 per gallon)
 
Just saw on Fox News that Bush's rating is the lowest ever - 31%. Sure heck isn't any mystery to me - all the Dems hate his existence so what does he do - pi$$ off the only supporters he has by pushing this amnesty crap. Wish we could believe Fred Thompson is real, but I fear he too will ultimately be "just another politician"....I recall when he was the main backer of McCain Feingold political fundraisng fiasco......WOW, has that ever worked flawlessly :shock:
 
TOPFROG":3zlt32f7 said:
Just saw on Fox News that Bush's rating is the lowest ever - 31%. Sure heck isn't any mystery to me - all the Dems hate his existence so what does he do - pi$$ off the only supporters he has by pushing this amnesty crap. Wish we could believe Fred Thompson is real, but I fear he too will ultimately be "just another politician"....I recall when he was the main backer of McCain Feingold political fundraisng fiasco......WOW, has that ever worked flawlessly :shock:

IMO, Newt is the closest thing to a straight shooter available. If he should decide to jump in I don't think he has much chance of getting the nomination much less winning. I really don't like any of the choices so far on either side.
 
Same with heating oil here in the Northeast. I have a friend at a large local company. The rack price is .50 cents lower than the street price ... per gallon. That's a good profit even with overhead. No wonder the government does not want more efficient vehicles, loss of taxes. When the big 3 had the pow-wow with Bush a few months ago, I wonder if they were told not to release any more efficient technology ? I know, another conspiracy theorist ... 8)
 
TOPFROG":wjcgwalk said:
...McCain Feingold political fundraisng fiasco......WOW, has that ever worked flawlessly :shock:

That law went down in flames before the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago. Several of the more common-sense politicians stated openly when the bill was being debated that it was unconstitutional, but the pack of wolves voted for it anyway. Thus they could stand in front of the public and claim they did something to fix campaign reform, knowing in the back of their minds that it would be overturned in the courts. It is all about show and tell, sound-bites, and politics. They never intended to fix it...just make us voting sheep believe they were fixing it. We took the bait.

They are all corrupt...every last one of them.
 
Back
Top