On MSNBC, Brzezinski and Novotny falsely asserted McCain's gas tax plan would eliminate "20 percent of the cost"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Mika Brzezinski said that Sen. John McCain "wants to eliminate the federal gas tax -- that's about 20 percent of the cost." Later, Monica Novotny said McCain is "proposing suspending the federal gas tax for the summer, potentially cutting prices by nearly 20 percent." In fact, the federal gas tax -- 18.4 cents per gallon -- comprises only 5.4 percent of the current average cost of regular gasoline.
On the 9 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, host Mika Brzezinski said that Sen. John McCain "will lay out a new plan to help Americans deal with high gas prices. From Memorial Day to Labor Day, McCain wants to eliminate the federal gas tax -- that's about 20 percent of the cost." Similarly, on the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, host Monica Novotny said McCain is "proposing suspending the federal gas tax for the summer, potentially cutting prices by nearly 20 percent." In fact, the federal gas tax does not represent 20 percent of the cost of gasoline. The Department of Transportation's website notes that the federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on April 14 that the average price of regular gasoline nationwide was $3.389 per gallon, meaning that, on average, federal tax comprises 5.4 percent -- not 20 percent -- of the current total cost of regular gas.
According to a chart produced by EIA, federal and state taxes combined represented an average of (state gasoline taxes vary by state and fuel type) 13 percent of the cost of gasoline in February, when regular gasoline was $3.03 a gallon.
As Media Matters for America noted, on the April 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews wrongly suggested Sen. Barack Obama was exaggerating the price of gasoline when Obama reportedly noted a friend's complaint that it cost "$85 to fill up my tank."
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the April 15 edition of MSNBC Live:
BRZEZINSKI: Less than an hour from now, John McCain will lay out a new plan to help Americans deal with high gas prices. From Memorial Day to Labor Day, McCain wants to eliminate the federal gas tax -- that's about 20 percent of the cost. [Sen.] Hillary Clinton will take some time off from the campaign trail to hit Comedy Central's The Colbert Report this Thursday.
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the April 15 edition of MSNBC Live:
NOVOTNY: Meanwhile, a new poll out of Pennsylvania shows Hillary Clinton holding up on her lead. She's still up by six points, 50 percent to 44 percent, the same margin as a week ago. And John McCain says he's got a plan to help drivers. Today, he's proposing suspending the federal gas tax for the summer, potentially cutting prices by nearly 20 percent.
And we'll have much more on politics in a moment, but first to that government raid at a polygamist retreat in Texas.
McCain's gas tax idea is completely idiotic.
There's no guarantee that consumers will get the benefit. As soon as the tax is removed, the oil companies (and gas stations) will very quickly raise their prices to make up for the difference.
Are these people insane?
The Dems should jump on this speech of his as an example of his stupidity and recklessness.
Why do you think they will raise prices to compensate? Don't you think people will start an uproar since they expect it to come down a bit?
Always lean toward the tax, right?
Yeah, the prices will be reduced-- for about 3 weeks.
Then, they will slowly go right back up to where they were-- only this time, that 18 cents will be in the hands of the oil companies or gas stations.
Their defense? they'll say, "just think how much more expensive gas would be, if we hadn't had that cut!"
And they'll get away with it with this MSM!
The idea is moronic-- there's no guarantee the money will get into the hands of consumers.
Let's deregulate water, and find out just how much people are willing to pay to stay alive.
tommy,
It always happens with the "we're getting screwed crowd"...especially when it comes to oil companies. They always dredge up the failed policy of price regulation as the cure for high prices...on anything.
The argument generally runs out of intellectual steam when they are forced to make choices on what products should have their prices controlled. If their policy was sound...it should work as well in reverse...some poor unfortunate companies should deserve a price increase...for fairness...
But wait...isn't that...uh...one of goals of socialism...which could lead to that other nasty word commu....
Oh well...life's a bitch...particularly when looking for a government handout or falling into that old victimhood trap.
We have a finite amount of oil and water.
Worrier, You are telling me they are the same, traded on world markets? Both are a commodity in the same sense?
If you are for nationalizing our oil industry then say so. If you think it's the same as water.
Actually Tommy :Historically, water scarcity was a local issue. It was up to national governments to balance water supply and demand. Now this is changing as scarcity crosses national boundaries via the international grain trade. Since it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain, importing grain is the most efficient way to import water. Countries are, in effect, using grain to balance their water books. Similarly, trading in grain futures is in a sense trading in water futures.
Turns out water is already so scarce that it is traded via grain futures. Check out the tubes regarding Israel importing grain so they will have more water for other uses.
"Why not regulate the price of hair dryers then too? Or coffee, I mean, I need that as much as oil."-- tommy / Tuesday April 15, 2008 4:02:54 PM EDT
Funny. I thought you said mine was assinine . . .
-- for a product that is owned by everyone -- therick
Yikes...that's the business I want to be in...I get to sell something that belongs to you, me, and everyone else...and the real beauty is I get to charge as much as I want...
Wes,
I'll take the Pacific, you take the Atlantic......we can squabble over the smaller bodies of water in our yachts as we cruise around on our "land".
How is the crude oil owned by everyone? Its not. The natural resources are owned by those people who's land it resides on. The only resources that are not owned are international waters and space, that im aware of.
If all the sudden there was world shortage of water, and Lake Tahoe was the only fresh water available on earth, you really think that it should go to the whole world? No, its owned by the US, and the US citizens would get it. Plain and simple.
As with oil, its available almost everywhere, but the quantities and the quality of it differs. If oil was really this finite resource that is past its peak and close to an end, you really think the OPEC countries would be selling it? No.
Its all a corporate and political shell game. There is no shortage, there is no near end to oil. Some countries have easier access to it, and therefore they reap the benefits of it. Those countries could continue to jack the prices up even higher, but the real reason they dont is because they are afraid of military takeover. And they should be. A country like Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela cannot even fathom what it would be like if the US, China, Japan, or Europe decided to invade to steal the oil due to pricing getting out of control.
Hey fool, who owns the mineral right? [hint--It's not the owner of the land]
By the way, you still haven't apologized for your horrid implication that I would vote for BinLaden.
My mistake, I should have said "It's rarely the land owner."
This stuff is really just insane. "Global warming" is the biggest scam being perpetrated on us. Environmentalists are like watermelons -- green on the outside - red on the inside.
When the Soviet Union fell, the Communists did not go away. They reorganized and rebranded themselves as "environmentalists". They use polar beats and seals as ruses to achieve what they never otherwise could -- socialism. The answer to this "problem" is higher taxes and more government. Since it is a global issue, we need to let the United Nations handle it -- thereby they accompish their goal of undermining American sovereignty.
Americans will never agree to sacrificing our sovereignty to the UN and tripling our energy bills. The liberals use cute little seals and polar bears as a ruse to con people into believing the earth is warming in order to agree to socialism. The world was warmer in 1000 than it is today.
Folks, please just open your eyes. You are being conned. Driving an SUV is not causing polar ice caps to melt. Please don't fall for this scam. As for me, I'll keep burning up my incandescent light bulbs and using only plastic bags at the grocery store.
You really need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing wackos. They've filled your head with so much mush that you can no longer think straight.
Anyone who thinks that former communists from thh Soviet Union are heading up the environmental movement needs a check-up from the neck up, IMHO.
It it some kind of rite of passage to become a Dittohead?
You do know that the longer you leave your lights on and the more gas you use, the bigger the tax cut you'll need next time?
You people always like to squawk about how much the government takes from your earnings, yet you have no problem handing that money over to the gas, oil and electric companies.
I don't understand.
You do know that the longer you leave your lights on and the more gas you use, the bigger the tax cut you'll need next time?
Sorry, but any energy crisis regarding electricity price increases are not because of coal shortage. Therefore, HOW much energy you use in terms of electricity is will not cause the prices to increase, however - what you require the electric & coal burning companies to change in terms of technology to produce the electricity can increase the price.
The point I was trying to make is that whoever leaves his or her lights on, will have to pay the electric bill for the extra electricity that person uses.
Unless they live with mom and dad, and then mom and dad will have to pay for the electricity that their junior conservative uses.
And if someone chooses to drive a big SUV just to waste gas, like many of the Dittoheads profess to do, they will be paying more for gasoline than they would pay if they were driving less wasteful SUVs.
Unless they drive mom and dad's SUV and mom and dad don't make them fill up the tank.
And you didn't explain why some don't mind giving their hard earned money (or mom and dad's hard earned money) to the oil companies, yet mind paying higher taxes ( or mom and dad paying higher taxes).
Hmmm, in a discussion of energy prices and policy that didn't mention global warming at all a crazed anti-environmentalist with a tinfoil hat theory is the first to mention the subject. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Wise use of energy, including conservation, is a good idea no matter what your beliefs on climate change are. Only a "conservative" could come up with the idea that spending money and using resources unnecessarily is some sort of brilliant plan to stick it to those "lefty libs" out there.
They charge as much as they can for gas.
If the gas tax is suspended, consumers will pay the same amount, and oil companies will get more.
I assume you can backup your claim?
Look at it this way, Tommy. Gas goes up when the price of a barrel of oil goes up. But it never goes back to its original price after the price of oil drops. The oil companies just keep charging the same price and adding the difference to their obscene profits,
It's called supply and demand, bud. Or whatever the market will bear.
If consumers have already shown that they will pay $3.79 for a gallon of gas, and the tax is cut 18 cents, the price will rise back up to that level.
The difference is, it will go into the hands of the oil companies and gas stations.
Republicans sure are stupid, aren't they?
Just shows how well the free market system works
FOR BIG BUSINESS
Republicans sure are stupid, aren't they?
Yup. Look at the idiots they keep electing....
Wiz,
Over the past few years the price of gas has gone up, come back down, gone up again.
Another words, the price does go down.
Jeter, Can you please backup, with hard statistics please, that the reason prices have gone down is verifiably due to the drop in the price of a barrel of oil? Otherwise some here believe that Exxon is just having a sale or something?
Please, I need backup for what you say, isn't that the rule around here?
Please!
I'd rather have your credit card than some worthless statement, if you're offering, I mean.
:)
"Please, I need backup for what you say, isn't that the rule around here?
Please!"-- Tommy / Tuesday April 15, 2008 2:35:02 PM EDT
"I assume you can backup your claim?"-- Tommy / Tuesday April 15, 2008 2:03:01 PM EDT
Wow, kinda like having my own MMFA blog. . .
In case you havent noticed, its difficult to go to a gas station and see the same price two days in a row. Gas prices fluctuate with the market, and yes, gas prices do decrease.
However, gasoline prices are several days, if not weeks, behind the actual commodities trading market. There is a period of time that occurs between when the traders purchase the oil, and when the oil is sold to the gasoline companies.
You do realize that the oil crisis of the late 70's/80's went away for 20 years and the price of a barrel of oil dropped 75-80% (IIRC). Then gasoline prices were down to the lows of 0.9x centers per gallon for many a years. That oil crisis is no different than todays....its not a shortage of oil or anything to do with peak oil. The fact is that they are keeping supply still on purpose to jack up the prices due to natural yearly occuring demand increases. Can they produce more oil, and more refineries to easily exceed today's demand to drop the price back to $20/30 a barrel? Yes, very easily. But there are political factors playing here - even if you dont agree with them.
Considering I can't immediately locate any point in history where the federal gas tax was lowered, this prediction simply hinges on the assumption that oil companies will immediately exercise their right to greed the moment we start paying less.
I'll throw out that prices will remain somewhat stable until after election day, and I back this up by citing that the lowest average prices of 2006 occurred during the week of the midterms.
"Personally, I think we ought to just go in, take over, and steal the oil."
How's that strategy working out in Iraq?
"We're still there, arent we?"
WE??? Are you on the streets of Iraq getting blown up? Probably not, since you said "there" and not "here."
"So far so good. We're still there, arent we? Strategic pieces on a chessboard take a while to get in place." - Columbus1492
We interrupt this program for a reading break.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041408J.shtml
Chessboard pieces are inanimate objects you jacka$$!!
I don't think that more than a handful of deluded wargaming idiots like you would have been behind the war in Iraq if it had been sold as a war of conquest to guarantee American access to oil. This is not that kind of country and we should not be building an empire on piles of bodies.
I suggest that you offer your services.
I think you have your logic backwards. You do know the reason for tax breaks and subsidies, do you not? They are targeted to keep business in the US in order to make them competitive and keep american's working. By imposing larger taxes on them, just because they dont need help, isn't going to help with anything. The next years profit margin will need to stay the same and the net profit will need to increase for shareholders. To do so, prices will increase to the paying consumer.
So i'm not sure where your logic comes from, but makes no sense at all.
All I have to say about this notion of a fuel-tax holiday is "good concept, but no sense."
Especially considering the ensuing shortfall upon the Highway Trust Fund (whose proceeds are dedicated to highway and bridge construction and reconstruction costs), as derives its income from fuel-tax revenue. That, and want of ideas on how to make up the likely shortfall without raising other taxes, consistent with conservative articles of faith.
It's a small point but gas price watch says the federal tax on gas is 18.4 cpg
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Add in State taxes and it averages around 45.9 cpg.
So by your logic (and Novotny's), cutting 18.4 cpg would equal a 20% drop in the cost per gallon of gas? Where did you go to school - and what the hell kind of math is that? If 18.4 cpg is a 20% drop, that means gas is only 92 cents a gallon.
Where can I get my gas at 92 cpg (I just paid $4.09/gallon Sunday afternoon)? Get a grip. Even if the Federal tax was subtracted from the cost of a gallon of gas, it would still be high - and we'd still be hurting economically. The prices would more than likely rise to their previous (now: current) levels. Those oil companies won't let a cent loose. They'll have it right back into their pockets within DAYS. The greed of these coporate a$$clowns astounds me.
Right, that makes sense: with the multinational oil companies Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell all enjoying corporate profits (PROFITS I say) so obscenely large at the present time, that all of Wall Street is just green with as much envy as they've ever felt...
And we should gouge out our Federal Revenues for them, and suspend the gas tax so that they can pocket that money, and make a WINDFALL PROFIT this summer...
That makes sense.
It's brilliant actually, proposing an immediate WINDFALL PROFIT for Exxon-Mobil et al, under the guise of pretending to relieve consumers at the gas pump, by gouging into Federal Revenues...
Who thought that one up, I wonder.
Dem, there go with your crazy "numbers" and predictions that the profits will somehow RISE if the at-the-tank prices aren't taxed. Don't you think people with go crazy if they don't see a price difference when the Fed takes away the tax? Don't you know the per-gallon profit that the oil companies make on average?
10c-15c. Look up profit margins on other daily goods and get back to me. Yep, that 15c adds up if you're pumping millions of gallons a day. If you broke up big oil into a bunch of little oils, they'd still make a bunch of money as an industry.
-- And we'll have much more on politics in a moment, but first to that government raid at a polygamist retreat in Texas. -- Novotny
Newsreaders and dumbass pundits should spend more time reporting on polygamists in Texas...at least they have video to show without having to expose their true ignorance.
They are empty vessels...like the golden voiced disc jockey booming over the radio. Only when you go to the studio you find a cowering little misfit that hasn't seen the light of day in years. Proof? Just look around any news conference and watch these morons in action.
The problem for those clamoringabout gas prices is that the left doesn't want us to use the cheapest fuel source most readily available, fossil fuels. They talk about energy independence from foreign oil or increasing alternative fuels but they really want us to not use oil at all.
If we really wanted to attack high oil prices and truely become independent of foreign oil we would be opening up the oil fields on our soil, whether in Alaska, Utah or offshore (imagine the numbers for employment in building all that infrastructure).
So give us the tax break, I don't care if it's only 5 or 20%. Remember, that the percentage of profit for gov't will still be more than the oil companies because they pay tax on their profits too.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/a8810966810d2cce51e0a32f17ad52cf.pdf
personally I want to see us off oil, but I don't want to do so until it's technically efficient. Oil and gas are a finite resource, so there will come a day when we will engage other nations in wars over the last drops of oil.
It has been reported that Russia is already at peak oil...
yes, Russia is in decline as reported today. Declined first three months of this year, first time ever.
You will not see in your lifetime oil replaced as the primary fuel. It is 9 buck a gallon in Europe, and still there is no alternative fuel. Oil is still the cheapest form of energy.
DB,
Oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is arenewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth.
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system , including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons.
Really? cuz the EIA's kid page begs to differ...
So tell me, if oil isn't made from the decayed remains of plants and animals from millions of years ago, where exactly does it come from?
Actually,
There aren't any"Scientists" that believe that, just wackos!
Hmm...Right. By your call, those whackos would be....
NASA: http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/fossil_fuel_theory_takes_hit_nasa_finding.htm
Okay, so if the abiotic oil argument is true, then you should be hop-flaming mad at the oil companies for screwing us over for so long to justify their exploration expenses and to bolster their bottom line.
You do realize that abiotic oil was Stalin's pet project, yes? What are you, a commie? ;)
DB,
I am no geologist so I could care less how oil came into being.
I didn't know it was Stalin's pet project so forget I ever mentioned it. ;-)
Guilt by association.
AA believes oil to be abiotic. So did Stalin.
Therefore, AA is a supporter of Stalin's belief in abiotic oil - and is therefore a Stalinist.
How do you like that Republican logic turned back on you?
CSL,
I like conservative logic, but your example ain't even close.
NicetryBetterlucknexttimeThanksforplaying. :-)
Next!
Its no big deal, but yeah, Stalin pushed that line for 50 years, employing hundreds of scientists to find out as much as they could about oil.
You should still be mad though, because if oil is abiotic, oil has no reason to be driven up to $112 a barrel like it just hit today. In other words, the oil companies are lying to you to make a profit.
DB,
I figure it is really a matter of supply and demand. I'm mad at the government for not providing enough tax incentive for the oil's to build more refineries. However I do believe the Chinese and Indian economies have a lot to do with increasing demand as well as OPEC limiting supply.
That is just funking bogus! We've been told forever that we can't build more refineries because liberals want to protect the land and here you come saying it's really because they aren't getting enough tax breaks?
I have an idea - how about admitting the reason we have refinery limitations is because oil companies like supplying multiple variations of gas because it allows them to artificially set prices because it takes time to change over the refineries to make all those different blends? The federal gov't won't set a standard blend, states don't try to match one another so we get stuck with 87 different blends when all we should have is 5.
Sometimes it makes great sense for the federal gov't to be more powerful than the state gov't, this is one of them times...
AA,
It is not about supply and demand. Demand does not outweigh supply nor is it even close. Oil is a futures commmodity. Prices are set by folks who want to make lots and lots of money. Big Oil falls in line with those forecasts and prices knowing full well that the price is way over inflated. We are in a time of war and they are making record profits on the backs of our troops and each and every one of the hard working Americans who need gas to work. The oil companies could step up, show some patriotism, and lower the price of a gallon of gas tommorow and only suffer non record profits. The supply and demand argument is a ruse and you fall for it.
Col.
Your comment about whether I go to church or not is not very cool in my book. But that is beside the point.
Thanks for pointing out the source for my posting on abiotic theory. I remembered reading quite some time back someone suggesting oil was not running out so did a google search. I learned it is called the abiotic theory and found it is either mentioned or described in a number of sites. I checked a few of them and liked this description I found at this website, so I pasted in the paragraph at the time thinking I would add to it.
I don't recall now if I did add anything (and I'm too lazy to go look). However at some point I hit the post button inadvertently leaving off the link. I honestly didn't think it a big deal since I was only trying to convey the theory, so let it go. Apparently I did not live up to your standards. My apologies.
As I mentioned in subsequent posts I am not a geologist, nor pretending to be one. I really could care less about it. I even told someone to forget I posted it. Does that look like am trying to plagarize? I do my best to link my sources. But I am not perfect, sometimes I slip up. This is one of those times. Oh well.
Feel free to spend your time googling my posts in order to catch me now and then on something as trivial as this. I appreciate your obsession. I know doing that brings you some satisfaction and allows you to make snarky comments. Since it gives you something to do, I'm all for it. :-)
Short version: you plagiarize, you get caught, you say "oops", it's no big deal.Plagiarizing is lying and stealing. If lying and stealing are no big deal to you, I won't try to change that.
You're free to lash out and call my pointing out your dishonesty an "obsession",I don't think that's going to help you with your little problem. I just try to help when I see somebody repeatedly making a fool of themselves.
You don't really think anybody believes you accidentally hit "post" on such a regular basis before crediting the source of your copy & paste. Do you?
If you come to this site for the sole purpose of insulting others, that makes you a troll, and I think you can do better. Give it a whirl.
Probably false RS. The equivilent of a barrel of oil in hydrogen was produced at mid 07 oil prices, in early 07. The price of that barrel of oil is a larger price than what you pay at the pump. That co2 footprint costs. Mediating oil polution costs. The companies take on as little of that cost as their lawyers can't eliminate. Which leaves it up to the U.S. citizen and working immigrants to pick up the tab.
Why this isn't considered rampant socialialism I'll never know. The pajama thief on my tv knows, but he ain't telling.
That co2 footprint costs.
Laughable.
I basically agree but the hoorah about oil independence is just that. Most of the fuel we import comes from Canada, so it's really independence from mideast oil that's important. We could achieve that, or at least ameliorate the problem, by relying on our own resources - which we don't because of misplaced environmental concerns.
In the meantime, with people rioting around the world because of the cost and lack of food, we are spending billions to turn corn into ethanol. This is not only wasteful, it is immoral.
As for the oil companies, I don't buy the obscene profits argument. That is just foolish. They invest their money to discover and recover the oil, why should they not be rewarded. Why not advance the obscene profits argument to farmers who raise and sell wheat, corn and soybeans, all at record prices. Or to Tiger Woods.
Because I'm paying $45 for a 12 gallon tank...
Remember when gas was 99 cents? and we thought that was high?
beineden,
I am thinking about the children, we may have more oil available in the future. As far as oil company profits, if you have a product with large demand, you can sell more of it and make more money. It doesn't mean you make any more per unit, just that you are selling more units. Profit margins remain the same or actually are lowered because of cash flow.
In the meantime, take heart...OILMAN is on the way......
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/heres-the-drill-new-oil-to-come-from-old-ground/2007/03/05/1172943356711.html
The children line was sarcastic...
but anyway, I'm really not all that worried about it. My car gets 41 mpg (and it's a '97!) so I only have to fill up about once every three weeks.
gardenofeden,
You selfish carbon footprinting earth hating gas guzzler! So you think we all can drive 97's that get good gas mileage, letting the market for smaller cars be created by 'evile' capitalism and thus giving the individual some choice within the natural fluctuations of a free market? You Milton Freidman loving Reganite! We should all have access to your 97 vehicle to save the children!
By the way, I have a good deal on some carbon offsets I could sell ya.
God, i read that first line and almost crapped myself.
Screw the carbon footprint, toyota pruis, smartcar, biodiesel, CO2 as a pollutant, etc.
I have a 2007 Honda Accord V6 Coupe that gets 29 MPG as a daily driver, and a 2004 Hummer H2 to pull my dual 150 hp engine boat. I love OIL! haha
"Is this true?"
"Yes, your honor. This man has no dick."
Yep, it's called a weak dollar and high world demand on a controlled resource. It's not called "oh the oil company."
My favorite part about the liberals in gov is that they're not talking about capping profits per-gallon on gas, they're talking about taxing the companies more. YOU'LL NEVER SEE THE MONEY EITHER WAY.
Most of the fuel we import comes from Canada ...
That's not true. We import more fuel from Canada than anywhere else, but it makes up only about 20% of the fuel (crude and gas) we import, but not "most".
I misspoke. We import more from Canada than any other country, but not all other countries combined.http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
And that's only the "top 15" ... http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm is a complete list.
What we get from Canada is less than 20% of our imports.
As to drilling it at home. ANWR is always used as the 'we need it to get off of OPEC card'. Well, ANWR would do little to take care of even that modest goal. We get most of our imports from OPEC countries (about 50%). If we were to start drilling in ANWR today, we'd reach peak production of about 1 million barrels per day in about 10 years. That would only replace about 15% of our OPEC imports ... hardly 'getting us off OPEC'. That doesn't even take into account that at our current rate of consumption increases.
Let's face it, the only way to get off of oil importing is to not use it. Not try to find more oil here in the US. We couldn't even keep up with increases in demand, let alone put a dent into what we're getting from OPEC.
Having 2 'oil men' in the WH has been 8 wasted years. Rather than spend that time trying to find out how to get more and more and more, we should have been spending it trying to figure out how to use less.
destroyerofnativepopulacein 1492,
Get oil from Canada? Not after we have to renegotiate NAFTA!!!!
Renogiate Nafta? LOL.
Canada is in no position to do anything. We have more foreign oil dependence, but they have foreing military dependence. If they played that game, we could just roll over in our sleep one night, steal the oil, and name them the 51st state, and appoint Tim Horton as governor.
Lets bring back 44 40 or fight!
it depends on what farmer's you are talking about. in south texas they can't afford the cost of fuel to run irrigation equipment.
but that's not the point. when a movie makes record profits, no one balks. when law firms make record profits, no one cares. etc., etc. it's only the oil companies that get knocked.
Did your school teach starting sentences and questions with capital letters?
I guess not.
Proudconservative is another example of the uninformed who thinks this is about supply and demand. Such reasoning as simply a ruse to convince people that we need to drill for more oil. Where does this policy proposal come from? Surely not big oil? The reality is that the oil companines could lower the cost of a gallon gas tomorrow and only suffer the second or third best year of profits. Prices are set based on forecasts on the futures market. Thee is no shortage of oil, only greed from the futures traders and the oil companies. I for one am appalled that any American would defend this greed while we are at war. Are our soldiers dying and the middle class struggling just so record profits can be realized? Shame on you!!!!
Some things I learned:
the new energy law passed in December mandating that Americans increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels at the pump to 36 billion gallons by 2022, up from 7 billion gallons required now. And witness the new farm bill that gives corn growers $10.5 billion in subsidies over the next five years, no matter how fast the price of corn rises—which, incidentally, has gone from $3.50 a bushel to a record $5.50 over the past three months.
The new energy law’s requirement that Americans use 15 billion gallons of corn for fuel by 2015 – that doesn’t include the other 21 billion gallons to come from non-food sources like switchgrass and corn husks – will consume an astounding 30 million acres of cropland. That means unless the mandates are repealed, more than a third of our corn crops will be diverted from food to fuel in just seven years.
The New York Times, a longtime supporter of biofuels, now reports, “The world’s food situation is bleak, and shortsighted policies in the United States and other wealthy countries – which are diverting crops to environmentally dubious biofuels – bear much of the blame.”
Ethanol and other biofuels contribute far more greenhouse gas emissions than regular gasoline, worsening rather than alleviating any possible threat of climate change.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DanaJoelGattuso/2008/04/15/congress_picks_a_loser?page=2but but but....
Anotherhaterofindigenouscultures,
Quit making sense, showing discernment and sharing facts in your posts. Keep it up and the flagging big brothers will make your fate sure.
Prouddespiserofsensitivitytothosewhoareunwillingtodoforthemseleves.
Quit making sense, showing discernment and sharing facts in your posts.
How can he quit something he's never done?
Ethanol is a disaster on all fronts. If Bush should be hated for anything, it's supporting that.
I agree about ethanol being a disaster, but common their are way better reasons to hate President Numbnuts than that.
Been seeing flashes on cheveron commercials. They're getting into geothermal.
There was a massive strike of oil off S America last year. Our companies own none of it. On the other side of the Atlantic there maybe another.
There are currently sufficient supplies, no problems, in transport, refineries, or storage. Oil use has slightly decreased in the US&A. Prices continue to rise. The companies are somehow helpless in the face of record profits (again) to ease the consumer's pain. Agreed it takes time for the price to come down. Call me a bad old liberal, but I don't expect to get any relief worth much from any oil company.
Ok. I'll bite. You're a bad old liberal. :-)
Geothermal heat=electrical energy, electrical energy can convert water into hydrogen. There are processes which make this production today, cheaper than a comparable amount of oil.
I can and will show that we have many options. Somehow dispite the attractions of of these options, they hold no charm for you. Is giving the oil companies more and more for less and less an addiction for you? It gives so much that a future without it is no future? The threat that a progressive element in society might make some money and gain influence from this is somehow the major concern.
hey, I'm all in favor of it. But seeing is believing.
A shortage of hydrogen is not our problem. We have in California lots of vehicles, taxis, buses, etc. that run on natural gas. Their range, I am told, is about 100 miles. that's a real impediment. I don't know about performance.
so get off your high horse. If you want to put the oil companies out of business, be prepared for the consequences. A world without power is brutal and short, buddy.
No where do I say to put them out of business, nice straw work there.
Chevron as I noted earlier is getting into geothermal. There is a lot (a few trillion) industry dollars working towards alternative energy. G.E. has been selling windmills for a while now. There is a DARPA project trying to produce a very efficient alcohol powered fuel cell. As an interm power source for transportation I think it has some merit and utility.
One little problem with the Graphic in the article above. Where's the line showing "obscene profits"? That should be about 20% of the cost, right?
you know, government, federal and state, make more off each gallon of gas than the industry does. and they don't do a damn thing to earn it, except have the weights and measures people check the pumps for accuracy.
these bureaucrats are such ciphers.
Do conservatives have no idea what taxes do? You don't want to pay taxes on gas, fine - buy all the tax free gas you want. But you can't buy it at the local gas station, because it got there on tax supported roads. And once you've bought it I don't know what you'll do with it, since you won't be allowed on those roads either.
Somewhere on this long thread the figures are given.They do not support you. I don't think you have a lot of real infomation on this subject. Yet you seem very willing to weigh in on it.
Been a lot of like minded political appiontes in the last few years. Quite a few are doing their best to pervert the functions of their offices. I'd say they've been very sucessful at this.
FYI
Average State & Federal Gasoline Tax = 47.0 Cents/Gallon (as of 1/9/08)
Average State & Federal Diesel Tax = 53.6 Cents/Gallon (as of 1/9/08)
Graphic in the above article needs updating.