Contact your Congress critters to let them know that you are tired of high gas prices.
Posted on 08/09/2008 8:20:46 PM PDT by Syncro
A new national poll shows broad public support for government action in the face of $4-a-gallon gas and other energy concerns, giving Republicans a rare opening to go on the offensive against congressional Democrats and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Nearly two-thirds of Americans now put a priority on "finding new sources of energy" over improving conservation -- a significant shift since 2001 -- and majorities support all of the five potential federal initiatives tested in a new ABC News poll.
There is overwhelming backing for stricter fuel efficiency standards, as large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike line up behind the idea. There is also widespread support across party lines for a more controversial proposal in the battle over energy policy: offshore oil drilling.
Overall, 63 percent want the federal government to lift its embargo on new drilling in U.S. coastal waters. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans and seven in 10 independents back the idea, as do just over half of Democrats in the poll conducted in partnership with Stanford University and Planet Green.
The findings come after weeks of pressure from Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have demanded straight up or down votes on more domestic drilling. Faced with opposition from Democratic leaders, House Republicans on Friday completed the first week of what they hope to be an almost month-long protest on the chamber floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Interesting doublespeak.
The rest can be read at The Wash Po
Sad that a majority is too stupid to realize that increased taxes on oil profits = increased prices at the pump.
That's right on the money. Don't ya just wish the morons who want higher taxes on "oil profits" were smart enough to figure this stuff out? They are so dumb that they just drive me crazy.
Which is why we're in a lot of trouble because people really don't get it. I'll bet the support for increased drilling has more to do with those same people thinking the oil companies are intentionally not drilling so the price of oil stays high to keep their profits high rather than because the libs in Congress are blocking drilling. And so by supporting more drilling, these people probably think they're going to stick it to the oil companies.
Interesting doublespeak.
Just what is doublespeak about wanting both? Drill but have a comprehensive program for energy?
I don't get your comment at all.
Don’t tax on the profits. That’s what the oil companies re-invest!
Who wrote this anyway?
The first part is correct.
Contact your Congress critters to let them know that you are tired of high gas prices.
The two positions are not mutually inconsistent. Literally speaking, you can only have one priority, but colloquially speaking, you can favor different methods towards the same goal of developing new energy technologies.
I favor new domestic drilling, and I favor developing new energy technologies (though I don’t think it should be heavily subsidized by the feds).
It’s not doublespeak at all. It makes perfect sense to do both. I don’t get the climate at FR, now and then.
You're absolutely correct. What's puzzling is why people think a windfall profits tax would be beneficial to anyone other than the government.
I would love the major oil companies do an ad campaign tell people their profits versus the taxes they are already paying. Show people their profit margins versus that of the likes of Google, IBM or Apple. The American public needs to have their eyes opened with a bit of reality.
Not to mention literally hundreds of thousands of Americans are employed by “Big Oil”.
Let's ask the obvious question: why? If new sources of energy were actually economically competitive, they would already be on-line. Since they are not, they are not competitive, and there is no reason to assume they would actually save energy. Energy alternatives which are not economically competitive must borrow dollars from somewhere more productive within the economy to finance them; as such, they are also draining lower entropy money (and energy) from other sectors of the economy. I doubt that a serious examination of, say, wind power, would show that it actually produces any net energy at all. In effect, like ethanol, it hides what is a larger dependence on oil because its additional net requirements are ultimately hidden inside energy demand growth.
If people want to tax windfall profits on higher oil prices, they should look at Government. Government already makes more profit on oil than the oil companies do. They should share their windfall with the people by reducing taxes which must become embedded in retail prices.
Brazil is almost completely switched to running vehicles on Ethanol, but they have a good system that is not counterproductive like ours is.
The hybrid and electric cars are subsidized also, and are touted as being pollution free.
In reality they are coal burning cars. Not that that is a bad thing, clean coal is a good way to produce electricity.
The thing is that the alternatives are set up by those in power to slow down production of oil based fuels.
Most of those that support alternative and oil, coal etc don't want more oil production IMO.
Plus the scare tactics that are used to push the alternatives (we are running out of oil etc) are bogus and politically driven.
The best alternative at this time is to produce more of our OWN oil and as fast as possible.
And start adding Nuclear plants.
Leave the other alternatives to the private sector, like T-Bone Pickins (yea I know what his name is, I like T-Bone better) and other private investors. Not our tax dollars. Put windmills off the east coast where Ted Kennedy can see them. Oh that's right, he doesn't want them in his ocean view.
When the private sector realized it wasn't viable or profitable to use infant stem cells, the government jumped in and threw money at it.
billva, I hope you get my comment now.
Thanks to both of you for the comments.
False. Ethanol is less than 20% of their fuel consumption.
I think you are closer than I was.
I was recalling something I read a few months ago.
Being as Henry Ford’s first car was made to run on ethanol, why do you suppose we are using all this gasoline now?
And I'l just be willing to bet that the Oil Companies spend more money complying with the 'Environmental Restrictions' of their craft than they paid out to their Employees.
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.