Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senators to push for $100 gas rebate checks
CNN ^ | 04/27/2006 | From Dana Bash

Posted on 04/27/2006 6:37:31 AM PDT by HOTTIEBOY

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue.

The energy package, sponsored by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, will be offered as an amendment to an emergency spending measure now before the Senate funding the Iraq war and hurricane relief, according to a senior GOP leadership aide.

Under Senate rules, either the GOP amendment or the Democratic alternative would probably need 60 votes to pass, which is considered unlikely. However, the amendments would give senators a change to cast votes on measures designed to help constituents being hit by high gas prices.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; dollarsforvotes; gas; gasprices; votepandering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: HOTTIEBOY

Rebate checks? Why? The government's not selling me gas, why should they send me a rebate? What a joke. Is this what passes for fiscal responsibility among GOP Senators these days?


41 posted on 04/27/2006 7:17:20 AM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

ummm.... I'll take a rebate check

direct deposit please


42 posted on 04/27/2006 7:17:56 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

Why can't congress ever handle a problem properly? Why do they resort to this crap?


43 posted on 04/27/2006 7:18:34 AM PDT by Ptaz (Take Personal Responsibility--it's not fun, but it's the right thing to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rumierules

Do I get a coupon for a free car wash too?


44 posted on 04/27/2006 7:20:23 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

100 rebate check? Are you kidding me?

Oil company profit = ~$0.08 - 0.12/gallon
Station franchisee profit = ~$0.12 - 0.14/gal.
Tax to state/federal government = ~$0.50/gal.

• Cut the Tax, • Come up with ONE FORMULA for a clean gas rather than the multitudes of formulas now required, • Provide Tax breaks for new refineries, making it profitible to refine more gas.


45 posted on 04/27/2006 7:23:03 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

Thank you for pointing this out!

The only way to cut the price is to cut back demand. The only way to cut back demand is to change our consumption behavior. Of course, then gas would be cheap again. There's a point where a permanent incentive needs to be in place so that even when oil is $20 a barrel, we're not just setting ourselves up for skyrocketing prices by increasing consumption dramatically.

Tax it even more and return the extra money to all taxpayers evenly, I say. Then those who figure out how to conserve get rewarded.

At $3 per gallon, our demand is still increasing. If you cut out taxes and make it $2.50 per gallon, there's less of an incentive to conserve, and we'll be right back at $3 per gallon before you know it...


46 posted on 04/27/2006 7:23:27 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY
Lower gas prices means the money gets spread to the whole economy on a constant basis rather than a quick fix $100 bucks.

Demand for oil, as for everything in an expanding economy, is constantly growing.

Lowering the price means the entire system moves forward for the good of everyone and not just the government coffers.

47 posted on 04/27/2006 7:24:34 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Why not? If they're of driving age and choose to walk, bike, or ride the bus to work, they're the ones actually conserving gas and energy.

By this thinking $200 should go to the unemployed, shut-in, infirmed, hospitalilzed and anyone else who doesn't go anywhere because they conserve greater amounts of gas and energy.

48 posted on 04/27/2006 7:29:57 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

"The real dig is that they will want to give the checks to commuters in big cities where mass transit funded in large part by the rest of the "flyover" states makes driving a car rare."

Your point? They're doing their part to conserve gas. Are you?


49 posted on 04/27/2006 7:30:52 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY
So with the usual government efficieny, it will cost me $150 in taxes in order to receive a $100 transfer payment, er, rebate. Hey Congress! Quit dicking around with spending my tax dollars to offset the impact of the other nonsense you foist upon us. MTBE in, MTBE out, now we learn that ethanol cannot be mixed in at the refinery but requires a whole new distribution system. More supply, less red tape. Drill ANWR. You have had six years of majority to get that accomplished. What the h-e-double-hockey-sticks are you doing acting like democRATs??? </disgust>
50 posted on 04/27/2006 7:30:59 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Too soon to remember??? How about TOO SOON TO FORGET!" from Mr. Silverback)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Of course, why in the world should those mean, old, nasty, greedy, rich people get a 'rebate'? Aren't they the same ones that own those mean, old, nasty, greedy oil companies?(s/off)

An unbelievablely stupid idea like this could ONLY come from a mindless, pandering, shameless group like congress.

51 posted on 04/27/2006 7:33:55 AM PDT by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

They'll give us $100, and spend millions to administer the checks, then simply raise the taxes somewhere else. It's all just a shell game, as those of us who recently got stuck paying the AMT for the first time found out.


52 posted on 04/27/2006 7:35:46 AM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005

From what I read in the article, it said American taxpayers. Now I don't know if that means income taxes or gas taxes.

My point is that with Bush's tax cuts, even that 50% or more of the people who don't pay any income taxes still got a tax check for $300. That is wrong. If you don't pay taxes, then you shouldn't get a check.

It should be the same way for this proposal. If you don't pay taxes, then you shouldn't get a $100 rebate.


53 posted on 04/27/2006 7:35:55 AM PDT by caver (Yes, I did crawl out of a hole in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Rumierules; rellimpank; Eric in the Ozarks; sinkspur; Apercu
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS


54 posted on 04/27/2006 7:39:02 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are familiar bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
There will no doubt be a provision to deny it to people who make more than the poverty level wage.

No doubt. And it will also wind up going to those who don't own cars.

It almost seems like Congress is trying to be stupid and clueless, doesn't it?

55 posted on 04/27/2006 7:44:47 AM PDT by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005

That's an interesting idea. It goes against my libertarian principles but that's a far better idea than what most politicians have come up with so far.


56 posted on 04/27/2006 7:44:59 AM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

Retarded panderers - why not just lower the federal fuel taxes once and for all?


57 posted on 04/27/2006 7:45:38 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY

Are they just going to cut checks to the general populace every time there's a problem? And someone who drives a Honda Civic to work and back and fills his tank once a month will get the same amount as someone who drives a big tank all around town and fills his tank once a week. This is a harebrained scheme.


58 posted on 04/27/2006 7:47:19 AM PDT by grizzly84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caver

I respectfully disagree. :) Those that were working in my opinion were fully deserving of $300 rebates - after all, they still paid federal taxes via payroll taxes, etc. Its just semantics as to where the money comes from when you spend it all as if it doesn't matter.

This case I see as more of a national security case. We need to position ourselves such that we have dependable sources of energy. Importing from Canada or Mexico is fine, but we do need to cut consumption and increase domestic supply (it will take both). If you just give $100 to those who consume, all you do is eliminate a penalty for consumption. We need more penalties for consumption to improve the situation.

Frankly (and most here despise this opinion, I'm sure), I think we need HIGHER prices at the pump to force change. Then get the gov't to streamline approval of new refineries (we don't need tax breaks, but we do need to ease the situation), open ANWR once we see we can control our habit, reduce the reformulation blends, demand clean diesel (even the new stuff this fall will be 3x as polluting as that sold in Germany), and watch the consumption habits change. Heck, Germany has a growing economy and oil consumption is falling as people switch to high efficiency clean diesel and hybrids. Why can't we do the same?


59 posted on 04/27/2006 7:47:47 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: caver
"If you don't pay taxes, then you shouldn't get a $100 rebate."

It seems to me the effecient way to do that is simply to cut the tax in the first place.

Do you have to have an IQ no greater than 10 to be in the US Congress these days?

60 posted on 04/27/2006 7:48:05 AM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson