Scot Gives Us “Solutions”

Wow.  Want to read some unhinged leftiness?  Here’s a comment from Scot at One Wisconsin Now about gas prices on Daily Takes:

Possible solutions —

Punish the oil companies for the gouging. Don’t reward them with $5 billion in tax breaks, as the Republicans did, and then rewards them with another $3.8 billion in tax breaks alone for the five biggest oil companies.

Don’t have two oil whores running the country. (Hint who they are: one’s a miserable failure who relied on daddy, one ultra-successful at extracting government funds for the benefit of his private corporation)

If you’re going to try and grab middle east oil by invading a country, like, have a plan to win. Because the failure of Bush and company to use the greatest military personnel in the world effectively is tragic and only encourages enemies who wish to do us harm. And it’s given the oil companies over five years to claim they have to jack prices in response. Well played.

So there’s a couple. I await your breathless clarification that the Bush years have been okely dokely, as Myron Cope would say.

Sound like solutions to you?

1. Scot’s been sipping the Kool-aid a little to long
   Delusional hallucinations

   Posted by on July 17, 2008 at 2158 hrs




2. How does raising taxes reduce the price of gas?  How does raising the price of something reduce its price?

   Price gouging?  Apparently Scot Ross knows something that the 40+ investigations going back to the 1970’s into Big Oil never turned up.  If so, he should come clean so we can all see this damning evidence of impropriety by those scoundrels.

   And wouldn’t Scot - as a former capitol staffer - have a pension that is benefitting from Big Oil?  He should lead by example and any benefit his portfolio receives from said investment should be immediately returned to the taxpayers to help us pay for gas.

   We don’t have two oil whores running the country - we’ve got Pelosi, Obey, et al whoring to Greenpeace.  I don’t know how that reduces prices at the pump…

   Posted by on July 17, 2008 at 2222 hrs




3. The left is in a real quandary about this. They want higher gas prices, clearly they do, nearly every suggestion they come up with to fix gas prices really does put the fix in.

   However, their competing interest of making everyone a ward of the state is not served very well with high gas prices as private entities earn more money and become wealthier.

   Right now, unleaded gas futures sells at about $3.22/gallon. This means with WI’s 6% markup we are looking about $3.45/gallon. So government confiscates about 50 cents a gallon and now that is not enough, because someone else is making some coin?

   The last point is breath taking in its arrogance. This idea that if the Administration only used MS Project it would all be over is idiocy.

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on July 18, 2008 at 0706 hrs




4. What does any of his comments have to do with the price of gas?  Nothing.

   If you want to reduce the price - increase supply. I seem to remember some sort of class in high school where they talked about supply and demand.

   Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0723 hrs




5. Owen,

   Thanks for continuing to get this message out. Folks, remember it’s not too late to call Governor Doyle’s office at 608-266-1212 and ask him to call a Special Legislative Session to end the minimum mark up!

   Posted by Fraley on July 18, 2008 at 0748 hrs




6. Actually, we shouldn’t have been giving them tax breaks during the 80’s.  All corporate welfare is really anti capitalistic, and should be stopped.  Nobody should have a problem with that one.  Pretending like you can punish a company for “gouging” is just downright foolish though.

   Posted by Nick on July 18, 2008 at 0841 hrs




7. Well, the third one sounds like a solution.  Grab Middle East oil by invading a country.  Maybe more than one.  But by actually invading, you know, Roman-style.  Invading and taking over.  He’s got a point that we have the best military in the world, and thus ought to be able to do that.

   I’m not saying I agree.  That’s never been U.S. policy.  But at least it’s a solution.

   Posted by Lance Burri on July 18, 2008 at 0843 hrs




8. And you wonder why Mr. Ross and his band of juvenille dickheads are 0-3 on statewide elections.

   Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0849 hrs




9. Lance I like that Idea. We can start colonizing the world one country at time. Become the next Roman empire! Then make everyone talk in newspeak after the left takes over.

   Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0855 hrs




10. Juvenile dickheads? who’s junvenile? dickhead.

    Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1028 hrs




11. Was that directed at me?  Hey...I think it was! 

    Oh dear, what have I done to elicit such a retort of that nature?  And more importantly, how might I ever reply to such a quick wit and stinging repartee?  I am simply beside myself now, and can not find the words to react effectively to such a clever rejoinder. 

    Bravo, my good man; you have bested me.

    Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1259 hrs




12. thanks! victory is mine.

    Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1316 hrs




13. Mr PP, finds himself coming up… aahhmm… short?

    A sorry day indeed.

    Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1320 hrs




14. Nick, well said

    “Actually, we shouldn’t have been giving them tax breaks during the 80’s.  All corporate welfare is really anti capitalistic, and should be stopped.  Nobody should have a problem with that one.  Pretending like you can punish a company for “gouging” is just downright foolish though.”

    The tax breaks were a mistake, but withdrawing the incentive to drill, is certainly not going to make oil less expensive. The tax incentives should be withdrawn but there needs to be some foresight.

    Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1906 hrs




15. Commenter #3 raises a point that interests me - the whole “the left wants to raise the price of gas” thing. (I suppose we should just assume I am THE LEFT for the purposes of this comment - ha.)

    The US has subsidized the price of gas for a long time, and in so doing undermined to a great degree the market forces that would have encouraged development of alternative energy sources as well as more efficient vehicles. It seems pretty clear that we did not do enough in turn on the other side of the equation (putting money into alternatives, requiring more fuel efficiency). So now the real price of oil is creeping up on us and if it continues (which I think everyone agrees it will), we are collectively going to be SOL vis-a-vis our cultural and economic patterns/habits.

    Perhaps Scot’s rant about oil company tax breaks does qualify as a solution: you might take some of the money we use for oil and gas subsidies and use it for a progressive/sliding scale tax credit (or straight out payment, like the “stimulus checks” that recently went out) to defray some of the cost at the pump.

    Let me be clear - I am not advocating for this idea, haven’t thought about it enough. But it does qualify as a solution. Just sticking up for THE LEFT, doncha know.

    Posted by hope on July 18, 2008 at 2149 hrs




16. Forgot to add—I personally don’t enjoy paying such high prices for gas, but I do understand that scarce resources are costly (that whole supply and demand thing). I also understand that high prices discourage demand, and to the extent that we are (1) not sitting on an endless supply of oil and (2) damaging the environment by burning fossil fuels, reducing demand is a good thing. However, the shift from a cheap-oil culture to a costly-oil culture is not going to be quick or easy—you don’t make an addict go cold turkey or you risk serious injury or death, so government should be involved in a well-planned effort (stop laughing, Owen) to step us down from our addiction. I could throw out some general steps but smarter people than me can/probably already have come up with better ideas.

    Posted by hope on July 18, 2008 at 2156 hrs




17. Hope,

    You mean its been subsidized by not taxing it? You need to expand your thoughts on this. I hear this idea tossed about a lot and want to know what its about.

    What Scott is proposing is to increase the price of oil/gas and then passing the buck.

    Your last comment is much more reasonable and FWIW I am at odds with myself on how much the government can &/or must do to dig society out from the situation we are in. However, people who P&M;about high gas prices in one breath and then complain about the damage gasoline does, IMO are monumental idiots or being deceitful about what they want.

    There are some people of the left who are fairly open about their happiness with respect to the rise in oil/gas costs, at least they are honest. I think they overestimate by a lot our ability to come up with real solutions. When the farmers of South Dakota are back to 1 person farming 100 acres or less (right now I hear one person can farm 1000 acres) their artisanal breads & cheeses even though locally made will be a lot more expensive.

    You know at the President’s speech last week some reporter asked the President about why he doesn’t tell us to conserve. The President’s answer was spot on, people know when and how to conserve, I would rather have $1.50 gas but....

    Some years ago there was some PSA on the radio, it was Energy Squirrel telling us to conserve. How low of opinion does the governmental agency that put that PSA together have of us? in the end the Energy Squirrel PSA probably wasted a lot more resources and energy than it spurred people to save.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on July 19, 2008 at 2015 hrs