gas prices

[jamo]

FWIW, Buffet did donate some money earlier this year, when he told all Republican Congresspeople that he would match any donations they made to pay down the national debt. There is a Virginian Representative who annually donates about 15% of his salary, so Buffet matched two years worth, about $49,000. That's not much of a dent and it doesn't exactly make him a saint, but he did pay some additional money, even if he had to goad people into joining him.

[newtogolf]

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

When can I tell them to expect your check?

Originally Posted by k-troop

The govt would be prohibited by law from accepting those checks. And if even a single D in Congress voted for the bill to accept such a check, the "Democrats vote to increase taxes by 3000%" headlines would drown out the airwaves for months.

[newtogolf]

I just read that when I was looking up the address for k-troop to send his check.  Given his wealth, are we really going to commend Buffet for a $49,000 donation after he stated he and others would be willing to pay so much more?

Originally Posted by jamo

FWIW, Buffet did donate some money earlier this year, when he told all Republican Congresspeople that he would match any donations they made to pay down the national debt. There is a Virginian Representative who annually donates about 15% of his salary, so Buffet matched two years worth, about $49,000. That's not much of a dent and it doesn't exactly make him a saint, but he did pay some additional money, even if he had to goad people into joining him.

[k-troop]

Ah nice! Forgot--I was just thinking of it as "revenue" which can only be collected pursuant to an act of congress, but not thinking about the gift statute.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Ah nice! Forgot--I was just thinking of it as "revenue" which can only be collected pursuant to an act of congress, but not thinking about the gift statute.

[jamo]

I just read that when I was looking up the address for k-troop to send his check.  Given his wealth, are we really going to commend Buffet for a $49,000 donation after he stated he and others would be willing to pay so much more?

Not really, no. $49,000 is what Buffet finds in the multi-billionaire equivalent of penny loafers.

[x129]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The two items you listed is part of the reason, but are not the only ones.  Don't you find it interesting that Obama, Buffet and others that claim to be willing to pay higher taxes haven't written a check to back their statements up?  I don't want to pay higher taxes but if they do, they should write those checks today, so why aren't they?

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Two reasons.

One, because I injected a long rant about the healthcare argument as a point that debates on real policy issues are more about labels these days than facts.

Two, because they're all related.  The common denominator for any "worthy" public expenditure is whether the commodity is a public good or private good.  Public goods are those which are provided centrally and consumed by all (none can be excluded).  From a purely economic theory standpoint, they also have to be of a nature that consumption by one does not reduce the quantity of the good available.  Politically, we treat things as public goods that do not meet this characteristic (education).

(This argument is not about what is defined in economic theory as a pure public good.  It's more about how does our social and political structure treat things as "public" or "private".)

National (or global) defense is a pure public good, because the only successful implementation strategy is deterrence.  Law enforcement is more localized, but still very much towards the public end of the spectrum, at least in any one discrete area.

Energy and health care are viewed as private goods, but they have public good aspects.  (Education has nearly identical attributes as energy and health care, but is treated as a public good.)  One of the defining characteristics, as mentioned before, is that none can be excluded.  Certain aspects of our society can not be denied health care:  elderly, disabled, and very poor people all have specifically targeted programs.  This is not due to the nature of the good itself:  we could say "no one gets health care unless they can pay for it."  We don't, however--our system says that if you are young and physically able, then you're on your own.  Another attribute of health care that pushes it towards the "public" end of the spectrum is how we pay for it.  The vast majority of people who receive treatment don't pay for it directly--the insurance company pays and spreads the cost out among it's risk pool (kinda similar to the way the Gov't pays for schools and teachers and spreads the cost among the tax base).

Energy is the same way, kinda.  Everyone agrees that the Gov't has a role in ensuring access to energy.  If you disagree with this statement, then ask yourself what would happen if the country simply went black one day.  Or why aircraft carriers park in the Persian Gulf and near the Strait of Hormuz.  Or why generators and air conditioners are provided to the sick and elderly every summer in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Southern Cal, etc.  Or why the corrupt energy trading practices of Enron and its affiliates were so clearly wrong and warranted swift government response.

From another perspective, public goods are not optional:  everyone needs them, and no one can survive without them.  Energy and health care are both "public" in this regard.  From an energy perspective, oil specifically is "mandatory" because there is no viable alternative.

It's very hard to explain this argument and these principles in a short forum post.  However, consider this one thing.  If energy is truly a free market, then why does the government spend billions every year ensuring that the oil market continues to exist?  Why not just let Iran close Hormuz, and tell the Saudi Kings and Princes to go f@(# themselves (and bomb the Wahabbi bastards into oblivion)?  If energy is really a free market, then the free market should be able to figure out a solution and get us back on track, right?

The answer is because the "mandatory" nature of oil gives it public good qualities that can't be ignored, and must be paid for, by the Government.

Effectively managed, the gov't should be able to do both at least as well as the "market" can.  (Note:  I'll argue that from a Defense perspective, we don't do the best possible job at this.  We spend a lot of money that has no impact on our "bottom line.")  The "market" is exceptionally good at regulating price and consumption of optional goods; but, as I said, neither health care nor energy are "optional" for people who want to survive in the modern world.  Thus, the government expends billions every year protecting the "market's" access to oil.  Likewise, the government artificially (and ineffectively) tries to execute public health care programs through the "market."

Basically, our government, and social/political systems, recognize the public good aspects of energy and health care.  However, we are unable to actually treat them the way that you would normally treat a public good:  centrally funded, scoped, planned, and managed.  We approach them from a hybrid government/free market screwdangle that is inefficiently ineffective.

Note to people who use words like "Socialist" and still think gas is too expensive:  the surest and most efficient way to ensure (for the long term) low gas prices in the USA would be to nationalize the oil industry.  The Gov't can control production and refining, and we could get all of our oil at home.  The two factors that most directly affect prices at the pump are the market price of crude and refining capacity.  If we allow the "market" to increase domestic production, then all that oil goes onto the global market which is, and will continue to be, driven way up by the demand spike from India/China (and market speculators).  (Not to mention that most of the vast stores of unexploited American oil is only profitable--and therefore will only be drilled--at prices exceeding $80/bbl.)  We have enough oil at home to satisfy our oil needs for 100 years, if we just kept it all here--but the market specifically impedes this.  If domestic production costs (ie the increased cost of extracting shale) are above $50/bbl at the well head--the approx. price needed for $2/gal gasoline--then we can subsidize the cost by cutting CENTCOM's budget (which basically only exists to protect Middle East oil).  Likewise, the market impedes increasing refining capacity.  Basically, you're asking gasoline producers to expend billions upgrading and expanding refining capacity so that they can charge less for their products, all the while no one is sure how long gasoline will still be the energy of choice.  The Government could overcome such impediments and uncertainties.

Contrary to what some folks think, our government has little control over gas prices.  Its a free market, you have more and more countries who are buying oil as they become more industrialized and as population grows and OPEC can set production and prices at whatever they want.

I know that everyone wants to blame our government for gas prices and thinks they can tell OPEN that enough is enough but it doesnt work that way.  The U.S. is waking up to the reality that the rest of the world has had to deal with for many years.  Sorry, the days of $2 a gallon gas are gone.

[The Tin Man]

Everybody pays the same price for crude as everybody else. Then adds taxes.

When the commodities market went down during the bank burst, prices dipped below $2 a gallon in some states.

Want cheap gasoline?  Crash the markets.

PS: Were in an oil glut. California refinery's are full and ships are drifting off shore unable to discharge. What ever's going on an oil shortage is not the cause.

[mtsalmela80]

Obama is putting stops to every energy producing industry in this country. Coal, OUT. Pipeline, OUT. He is systematically shutting down the farming industry by slowly trickling in mandates that the farmers simply cannot continue to live by. First it was the FDA invading all small time fruit and vegetable farmers in 2008. Now they just passed a law restricting who can work on what farm at what age, at the federal level. He is slowly strangling all the middle states, that happened to be red....in effect shutting down the opposing class. Interesting to note, that was one of Hitlers main strategies, shutting down the opposing classes.

He doesn't understand that new technologies are not ready. He gave 500,000,000 to Solyndra only to watch them go out of business. I wonder how much of that went straight into the pockets of the fat cat execs there.

Then he has the "audacity" to go making a speech screaming that opposing politicians are anti-new technology. Then lying about it to, stating we only have 2% of the worlds oil reserves.

I'm not in oil, I don't own any oil. All I know is the president CAN talk the price of fuel up. He is totally against any proposal that would give the common man a little relief, including opening up our strategic reserves. There is a reason we call him the "leader of the free world". He has influence.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

First it was the FDA invading all small time fruit and vegetable farmers in 2008.

So, before Obama was President he got the FDA to do something? Wow. That's power!

P.S. I'm more of a Libertarian than anything, and I don't really care about politics, but in skimming to make sure people were still being mature (y'all are, no worries!), this stood out.

[jamo]

Obama is putting stops to every energy producing industry in this country. Coal, OUT. Pipeline, OUT.

Coal production [URL=http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec6_3.pdf]is on par [/URL]with what it was under the Bush Administration (which is to say, very, very high). As are [URL=http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec4_3.pdf]natural gas[/URL], and [URL=http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf]petroleum[/URL]. We're importing less and less or all three of those as well, and exporting more. [URL=http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec8_3.pdf]Nuclear [/URL]is the same as under Bush, [URL=http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_3.pdf]hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind [/URL]are all up. And [URL=http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_3.pdf]consumption[/URL] is down in every sector. [quote name="mtsalmela80" url="/t/55957/gas-prices/108#post_689937"]He doesn't understand that new technologies are not ready. He gave 500,000,000 to Solyndra only to watch them go out of business. I wonder how much of that went straight into the pockets of the fat cat execs there.[/quote] You'll get no arguemement from me there, I think everyone admits he and him administration made a mistake. EDIT: [quote name="mtsalmela80" url="/t/55957/gas-prices/108#post_689937"]He is totally against any proposal that would give the common man a little relief, including opening up our strategic reserves. [/quote] He did open the strategic oil reserves last year, specifically to lower gas prices during the traditionally expensive summer season: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/obama-team-taps-strategic-oil-reserve/1#.T2X6kHjbzp4

[mtsalmela80]

Opps, well the food safety modernization act, which was born I think in 2010 is what I was referring to. Take for instance this poor Amish farmer who the FDA was at war with for 2 YEARS!!

http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/02/fda-shuts-down-farm-for-producing-fresh-milk/

Originally Posted by iacas

So, before Obama was President he got the FDA to do something? Wow. That's power!

P.S. I'm more of a Libertarian than anything, and I don't really care about politics, but in skimming to make sure people were still being mature (y'all are, no worries!), this stood out.

[mtsalmela80]

LOL where do you get your numbers? EPA regulations set in place in 2011 have shut down roughly 75% of the plants on the east coast. While they exist, they are not getting the permits to continue working.

Lets not forget Obamas epic quote back in 2008:

‘If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’ "

So there you have it, his promise to bankrupt any new attempts at the industry through regulatory fines.

http://epaabuse.com/3741/news/epa-rules-will-shut-down-dozens-of-coal-fired-power-plants/

Originally Posted by jamo

Coal production is on par with what it was under the Bush Administration (which is to say, very, very high). As are natural gas, and petroleum. We're importing less and less or all three of those as well, and exporting more. Nuclear is the same as under Bush, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind are all up. And consumption is down in every sector.

You'll get no arguemement from me there, I think everyone admits he and him administration made a mistake.

EDIT:

He did open the strategic oil reserves last year, specifically to lower gas prices during the traditionally expensive summer season: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/obama-team-taps-strategic-oil-reserve/1#.T2X6kHjbzp4

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

LOL where do you get your numbers? EPA regulations set in place in 2011 have shut down roughly 75% of the plants on the east coast. While they exist, they are not getting the permits to continue working.

Lets not forget Obamas epic quote back in 2008:

‘If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’ "

So there you have it, his promise to bankrupt any new attempts at the industry through regulatory fines.

http://epaabuse.com/3741/news/epa-rules-will-shut-down-dozens-of-coal-fired-power-plants/

So we should basically forsake the safety of the environment just for cheap fuel?  Im all for cheap fuel but Im not willing to sell out the environment at ANY cost.  Here in Ohio the local government is trying to sell fracking to the public with the promises of tax breaks.  Thankfully, people are seeing through it and arent interested.

[jamo]

LOL where do you get your numbers? EPA regulations set in place in 2011 have shut down roughly 75% of the plants on the east coast. While they exist, they are not getting the permits to continue working.

I don't know where you got the east coast only number, but nationwide the largest number I've seen in 20% (and most counts I've seen are lower). And that's the oldest, dirtiest, and most inefficient 20%.

[mtsalmela80]

LOL so up until Obama took office, all the coal plants that were ALREADY operating were "selling out the environment". Sorry I don't buy that for a minute.

Obama panders to radical environmentalists, but all he does is throw money down the toilet with companies like Solyndra. The environment has not been improved one iota under Obama, but a hell of a lot of jobs are sure gone, and fuel prices are up across the board.

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

So we should basically forsake the safety of the environment just for cheap fuel?  Im all for cheap fuel but Im not willing to sell out the environment at ANY cost.  Here in Ohio the local government is trying to sell fracking to the public with the promises of tax breaks.  Thankfully, people are seeing through it and arent interested.

[mtsalmela80]

hmm, it was only a couple posts ago that you stated that coal production was at the same levels as during the Bush administration, but now you are conceding that 20% have been shut down?

Originally Posted by jamo

I don't know where you got the east coast only number, but nationwide the largest number I've seen in 20% (and most counts I've seen are lower). And that's the oldest, dirtiest, and most inefficient 20%.