Dems want to raise your gas prices

Yeah dems and their tax hikes. Show me a tax hike that made anything less expensive. I think they want to raise taxes on gas companies to get the prices higher for 2008. It will be because of Bush by then just watch.

Actually, I kind of like yours. What a putz. They want to address some of the ridiculous tax breaks that Repuglicans gave to Big Oil, (While gas companies were gouging hell out of us, at that) and give the breaks to the middle class. It goes with pay as you go, remember that concept from the contract with america this administration and successive congresses shredded?

Democrats will never change.

Ok Ron, Show me a tax that democrats gave to the middle class. Oh Its sounds so nice though. So Robin hood....

William:

So....there's an 8.5 trillion dollar national deficit, excuse me, 8.6 now and a 248 billion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2006, but Republicans hate America so much that they will let their buddies in big oil and business gouge Americans while making record profits AND get tax breaks at the same time.

It's no wonder the big 3 automakers visited the White House last week. They feel left out from all the handouts Republicans were giving to everyone else.

Gee, you think Republicans will ever learn that giving away billions has to be paid for by the VOTERS? Guess the midterms didn't tell them that, huh?

Jeff H.,
Coming to a Congress near you in January. Repugnants were OWNED by big oil, have you looked at some of the tax breaks they gave them? Actually they were owned by everybody except the voters, and that's why the voters released them, so they would have time to work full time for their favorite companies.

Jeff:

Given that Reagan helped increase the national debt from 1 to 4 trillion and King George and the Republicans have allowed it to go from 4.8 to 8.6 trillion, tell me how Republicans intend to pay for that with tax cuts to the middle class?

Cris - with further tax cuts. Truth is, Fed revenues are by far the highest they've ever been.

Try this: My name is Cris, and if the government spends LESS money it will not have to TAX us more.

Don Hall,
So your saying those crazy syphilitic monkeys in congress that spent on our dime like that credit card commercial spent less?

i think they should raise taxes for gasoline. we have an extremely low price compared to other countries. and i think we should fund more energy-friendly research at the university level, which will increase the income to the universities if they license the technology with a company.

and i think a per gallon tax is a fair distribution of the tax.

Until you can walk the walk, spare us the talk, Don

Over 600 earmarks in a Highway Bill that cost us over 21 billion dollars? That's spending less?

Excuse me, the earmarks, by themselves, cost us 21 bllion, the highway bill was much more than that.

Oh yeah, there will end up being higher taxes, and you all will try to blame the democrats, but you all, through your shortsighted clamor for tax cuts, elected those morons, and they transferred a bunch of your future wealth to the truly rich in our country, so remember that when you start screaming. You are just paying for all those sweetheart deals, ridiculous lopsided tax cuts,and rampant spending your elected representatives set upon our country, and consolidated in the deficit. I certainly will be there to remind you.

Cris you forget the part about how Reagan turned the economy around and made America the lone world superpower. Clinton praised him and yes Clinton ran on the running reagonomics economy. Bill gates (an admitted democrats) says he couldnt have created everything he did without reagans economic policies.

Ron did you ever wonder how all those tax loopholes sneek into the new tax laws enacted by democrats over the decades? Yes for years when coporate tax hikes were enacted loopholes followed we all know this. But why do democrats let it happen without the howls ?(of course until the next ellection cycle). They are there because if eveery tax democrats got through on coporations actually stuck America wouldnt be able to compete in the world economy. Democrats know this they screach out "tax corporations! tax corporations!" for politics because they are demogogues. They arent stupid they just want power and know there is a large segment in America that resents big business so they use it. I wouldnt get too hyper about anything getting done on a serious level unless you dont mind playing pretend. That goes for republicans too. Until we stop fighting the wars for shameless politicians nothing will ever get done on a serious level.

Jeff H.,
Or it could be because they make the effort, but businesses, for obvious reasons, employ some very good and very slimy lawyers and book keepers. Either way, this past congress will serve for many years to be an example of your failed ideology, I think. I'm pretty sure anyone that lived through this, and paid any attention, will not soon forget it. Congratulations, you have set up a textbook example of what happens when total power corrupts totally.

Trouble you are crazy. The fact gas is taxed so high already is why America is dependant on it. Do you have any idea how much money the government takes in so long as we keep using gas and lots of it? Why do you think Clinton never lifted a finger about it and why do you think the SUV boom began under his watch?

Like cigerrettes gas has become a necessary evil for politicians in terms of revenues. Would cigarettes be legal if the government werent making a killing(no pun intended) off the tax revenues? Get real people quit spreading the garbage these politician want the issue to be!

Ron pay attention, my ideology made America great, the republicans failed my ideology. Republicanism is a political party not an ideoilogy. And yes you have been drinlking some serious coolaid if you dont realise the political tricks you get played on for your support. Europe is an example of your ideolgy and they are becoming more and more irrelevant everyday. Want corporate welfare? Take a look at Europe!

I am a Reagan conservative. Democrats got power because they ran candidates from the Reagan mold. Missouri, Ohio, and the south didnt vote for Nanci Pelosi's ideology. Look back and youll see most of those who gained seats ran to the right of the republican. Failed ideology? please.

What's done is done. At this point, we just need to wait two years, vote the learned republicans back in, then lower taxes and spend less.

The funny thing here is the dems have been crying about stagnant wages. Fair enough, but the news out today is that this year wages are up 4%... ahead of inflation. Thus, the Bush economy has got good traction and it's getting better.

Don yeah wages were stagnant mostly after 9/11 and because most wage increases were offset by rising healthcare costs. This year I got an 8% raise and healthcare went down. Good news for America is bad news for democrats.

Jeff H.,
First of all, let me tell you your superior tone, like "pay attention" gets a little old after a while. I could definitely tell you the same. I pay attention every day, which is why I reject your ideology. Your ideology abandoned millions during the depression, and cared not a fig. Hoovervilles were named after Hoover for a reason. Reagan also ran up a whopper of a deficit, for the time. I know what you are saying, but the problem is, none of your politicians, and none of mine, ever do anything that doesn't end up disappointing us, but dems do it less, at the moment, and that's why they have my support. I am hoping, yes, that the bluedog Democrats can ride herd on the truly out there left. But then, your moderates sure couldn't control your neocon nutcases. We'll see, we will all see. I don't think you know my ideology, by the way. I sometimes egg things on on here, just to see where they go. Especially with some one from the lunatic right fringe, but I am probably considerably more moderate in my true beliefs than a neocon is ever going to hear, from me.

Don Hall,
What's done will never be done, when it comes to what this congress has done to us. I can certainly appreciate your wanting it to be. Rest assured others remember, and will remind whenever possible. Those that don't learn from history repeat it. A couple weeks ago, you were still clutching those miscreants to your bosom, and talking like they were the best we had ever had.

Ron I kind of figured you for a moderate. Most of the time you seem fair and I only said pay attention because you are speaking to me like I am a republican advocate and I am not. The thing is I dont hate your ideology. I was a democrat at one point in my life. I really dont fear a political shift in America and I dont think the republicans did anything to deserve keeping control of congress or the presidency for that matter.

Foir every neocon nutcase there is a liberal nutcase. The thing is I dont think either are nut cases they are just the true believers of their far wing. To me the true nut cases are the ones who wait for what thier politicians stand for before they know what they believe in.

I appologize if I came off as if I was talking down to you I respect your opinion. As far as I know though the left is much more extreme in here than conservatives. I get called nazi, war mongerer, idiot, bastard, neonut, reich wing, etc, etc.... There really is a looney left and the democrats did a very good job keeping them silent for th midterm elections. Well see how well they do in 2008.

Jeff H. ,
Thank you Jeff, I have had many conversations on here, that although I probably didn't say it at the time, have been thought provoking, with you, but it chafes a bit when you do that, and I felt it worth mentioning. I know that both sides want what is best for their country, but even you have to admit it all went far off course the last six years. I was not too outspoken, till this period all started. In fact, I probably would have voted for McCain, had he won the nomination, I used to be republican. I am an Independent now, but support anyone but this mess, so here I am. Once you get on here, and see the level of extremism that prevails, you kind of adopt an adversarial stance, and that probably means wing nut, right or left. It's an environmental hazard here, that's all.

Regan is always seen through rose-coulored glasses (hate to be cliche, but I couldn't resist). Regan's economic policies lead to the biggest deficits ever at the time because he cut taxes while actual increasing spending (mostly to a massive military buildup). This deficit was despite a great economic recovery. This is happening again--yes it's true that the tax revenues are the highest they've ever been, it's due to the buisness cycle, which is pressently in a prosperity swing, not due to tax cuts--there is no cause and effect. It's easy enough to support tax cuts, but few are willing to cut spending acordingly, even among republicans, who during the last 6 years greatly increased the size of government. Cutting taxes is popular, cutting spending is unpopular. As much as people pretend it doesn't, high deficits impact the economy about as much as high taxes due to the crowding-out effect for invesment, which instead is redirected to finance the deficit. As much as republicans want to say that they support reducing the size of government, both bush and regan showed that no matter what the retoric, few actualy go through with it. But back to oil prices........

The fact that we are subsidising oil companies when they are making record profits is sickening. I'm not saying that we should impose massive taxes on the oil companies, but this is rediculous. Anybody saying that we should impose price restrictions hasn't read history, we just have to look back to the gas lines in the 1970's. The tax breaks given to the oil industry should be shifted to the alternative energy industry. The ammout of money we spend subsidising oil companies is relatively insignificant to the oil industry, and would have little effect on oil company profits or oil profits, but would have a significant impact on the alternative energy industry. Many alternative energy industries have resisted growth and inovation because the governement hasn't been consistant in it's tax benifits, while the oil industry regularly receives them.

Oil is a product that is destined to become steadily more expensive as time goes on. As the "easy" oil is extracted, the cost of developing new fields becomes increasingly expensive. The new field in the gulf of mexico is note expected to be profitable under $40 per barrel. Alternative energy, however, becomes increasingly more cost-effective as the market increases and as time goes on. Not only does the increased spending make alternative energy grow, it also makes it more cost effective.

The problem we have with oil is our consumption, not in oil prices. Oil is relatively cheep in the U.S, and other countries don't seem to be so vocal about the prices. We would not be discussing the problem of oil consumption if the prices weren't so high. Nobody would be buying hybrid cars, considering plug-in hybrids, or reconsidering alternative energy if it wan't for the high oil prices. High oil prices hurt in the short term, but are good for both envrionment and the long term economic future of the country.

High oil prices are the result of economic, not political, forces. The high oil prices that we see now are the result of increased demand from developing countries, especialy china and india. The reduction in oil prices since this summer happened because the gulf of mexico wan't hit by a hurricane, a fear that lead to speculation, jacking up oil prices this summer. So anybody that says that the government can have great influence over oil prices simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

Another point I must make is that ethanol production should killed immediately. Ethanol is only being produced because of a slick marketing campaign by the corn and auto industry, as well as politicians trying to look like they're doing something. Few so called "flex-fuel" vehicles will ever use E85, and it's a veiled excues to make polluting cars seem envrinmentaly friendly and get a tax break. The country doesn't produce half the ethanol required to have a 10% ethanol mix in all gasoline, let alone the 85% found in E85. Even if production could be ramped up, ethanol isn't envrionmentaly friendly anyway. Ethanol takes as much oil to produce than you get out of it, plus it causes the corn industry to take up lands that could be used by forrests. It also increases the use of pesticides, fertalizers, and other eco-unfriendly chemicals. Ethanol is doesn't make economic sense either, as it costs more than gasoline, even with heavy government subsidies. I read an article that said that it costs the taxpayer $22 for every $1 profit made by the ethanol industry. We might be better off giving the oil industry the tax breaks from the ethanol industry. We're far better off giving "real" alternative energy forms the money given to ethanol.

Ron,

Yes I think it did go off course the past 6 years. I think the biggest reason why was the republican consolidation of power. Aside from the obvious arrogance shown by republicans democrats share some of the blame. The democrats left were totally opposed to anything republican and refused to cooperate with any republican on any initiative. If you look at all the great changes like welfare reform there was always a cosponsered bill one democrat and one republican. When was the last time we have sen that? Democrats are as much to blame as republicans because nobody would cross the isle on any issue. Now that there are blue dogs back we will probably see some cosponsered bills again and cooperation.

The truth is too many people look at what party stands for an issue rather than looking at the issue they are standing for. Democrat blue dogs might give some good ideas some credibility. I am optimistic about the change.

I too like arguing with you Ron you make some good points.

Daniel You like numbers so I want to ask you this. What was the national budget when Reagan took office and what was it when he left? What was the GDP when he took office and what was it when he left? How did America become so strong after 8 years of Reagan if he failed so bad? What was the rate of inflation during his 8 years? How does his numbers compare to every other 2 term president?

I am not looking at his legacy through rose colored glasses Reagan has already been hailed as genius by most historians and Bill Clinton himself. If you want to complain focus on Bush dont make an ass out of yourself by regurgitating a bitter Jimmy Carters world view. I dont like cliches either but try not to go through life with a glass half full.

Jeff:

The economy "turned around" because of the money the GOVERNMENT spent. Perhaps Republicans have a short memory of the fact that REAGAN expanded the government, it was CLINTON that shrank it!

BTW: What has that to do with the FACT that the deficit (which is money BORROWED instead of taxed) has to be paid back with increased TAXES, which is your beef?

Once again, you're giving Regan credit for something that is due to economic cycles, not political will. In regan's adminstration, he reduced taxes, increased spending, created a deficit, and the GDP went up. Clinton moderated spending, increased taxes, balanced the budget, and the GDP went up too. This was not, as you said, directly because of Regan of Clinton, but due to economic cycles and technological advances. Even with your logic, the prosperity during the Clinton adminstration was greater and took place over a longer period of time.

The economy shifts from periods of prosperity to periods of recession. Before Regan, the economy was in a recession, which was increased in intensity due to the oil crisis. When regan was elected, the economy began to bottom out, which lead to a period of prosperity, coupled with the ending of the oil crisis (which, I know is against what I said before, was made much worse due to the government's policies), leading to a period of great prosperity. Just as Regan was leaving office, the economy went into a downturn, which ended up really hurting George Bush. The economy started leaving the recession in the begining of the clinton adminstration, which continued to the end his adminstration, when the technology bubble burst. This, combined with the 9/11 attacks, hurt the economy in early in the new millenium, and we are now back into a period of prosperity. Tell me how any of these presidents greatly effected the economy? I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, so please, if you'd be so kind, enlighten me on something I don't know.

And by the way, did you bother to read the rest of my post?

GOP borrow and spend policies are unsustainable and will destroy us if they're allowed to continue. This isn't the words of some extremist, but rather, the view of virtually every economic mind in the country. Even the former Fed chairman has labeled this reckless, irresponsibile GOP economics "system" to be unsustainable.

With our debt at nearly $9 trillion right now (fully $8 trillion of it, a direct result of failed GOP economics policies of "borrow and spend"), it is set to skyrocket as soon as the little simian is tossed to the crap heap of history in 2008. From 2009 on, deficits will soar, as will this republican debt load.

Within 30 years, our national debt will be $46 trillion, and every single penny of revenue that the federal government takes in will go just towards just the interest alone. Unsustainable.

Most Americans much prefer the democrats "Pay as you go" approach, because it's an economic approach of fiscal responsibility, not disastrous recklessness.

no here's the hard facts: no one in government is responsible enough, or gutsy, to change fiscal policy to reduce the deficit, and no citizen is really willing enough to let some plushness go to reduce the deficit and help future generations. For all your talk about the war, I must say you'd be singing a different tune if you were unemployed and we cut transfer payments to help reduce it, or if you were sick and we cut healthcare.
Don't tell government to be responsible when we, the American public, run our own mirror-image private deficits as well.

-John Calvignome