Everyone should boycott from the top 2 or so gas companies?
You can not force everyone into a boycott.
Until what point??? In other words, when are prices low enough?
You have to accept the following reality: even though prices are higher than before (which is a debatable point, mind you) a great many people are willfully buying it nevertheless. Therefore, your implicit assumption that the prices are too high is highly subjective. You will never get a consensus.
no, they should elect republicans so we can drill for more oil, build more refineries and build more nuclear plants.
-Imp
The Democrats pander to the environmentalists, and the Republicans are scared of them and the press, so we’ll continue to talk conservation but do nothing effective.
This is all assuming we should end high gas prices. I say tax the life out of gas.
Just buy conversions. There are engines out there that can run on darn near anything, they are a bit expensive but in the long run it will save you money. I personally like the old military engines like that. Poor mileage on most but some can be fixed and if you rebuild one, make it like new, it will last longer than any engine today.
IOW, tax ourselves back to the Stone Age, where life was simple, short, and we wiped our asses with dry leaves as God and/or nature intended. After all, we are a pox on the Earth, not fit to justify exhaling. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Whooo hoo city people finding leaves to wipe their butts, There just is not enough salve to fix all the rashes after that. A rash of poison oak rashes on asses…
i think there are only 2…
TPT, I think you’re running into that wall because you’re blinded by all the shit you’re trying to shovel onto my words. I didn’t say anything of the reasons for taxing gas, so I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m a Luddite. But since you seem to need correcting, my perspective is this:
If you’re going to sully skies that I have an equal stake is, you should pay me back. If you’re going to dirty oceans that I have an equal stake is, you should pay me back. If you’re going to do all the harm to me that gasoline does, you should pay back into the common trust that you’re taking from. Thus taxes. If you find those taxes burdensome, you should invest in some less impactful technology.
Basically, I think gas should be taxed because currently, the costs are overly externalized. You’re getting more than you pay for, and at the expense of everyone. I think you should pay your fair share for what you’re taking. No stone age, my friend, just practical considerations taken.
Kris, I’ll wipe my ass with the pixels of your post and spare myself the rash. 
In the immortal words of Mad TV, “Don’t talk to me like you know me! You don’t know me!” 
It would be great if we didn’t already live in a world raped by coorporations and are now basically forced into slavery…
The raising of gas prices is right for the wrong reasons…
ROFL 
A specter of swollen sphincters.
What you wrote is exactly what I thought. Luddites did what they did to preserve their jobs. The results of taxing the life out of gas is to tax the life out of the economy so that we loose jobs by the millions with the further specter (there’s that word again) of unintended consequences. Just like the people starving now so the environmentalists can feel good about implementing biofuel. Intentions justify anything, including the unintentions. We’re handling dirty air here in the US. If you wanna lash out at someone, go to China where we need antibiotics when we breath the city air.
Strange how the environmentalists and their useful idiots in the media keep China pretty much hands off. Like why it and India were excused from Kyoto, aka the Kyoto Protocols for the Economic Comeuppance of the United States of America.
What? I really doesn’t seem that all this ranting could be directed at me, since, again, you attack every straw man you can find that I might agree with, but only skirt what I’ve actually said. China and India? Kyoto? The media? Where did all of that come from? Certainly not from me.
Your one comment about gas tax, the claim that the health of the oil industry is equivalent to the health of the economy, is unfounded at best. If oil were more costly, i.e. if the costs of the use of fossil fuels were internalized, that economic incentive would spurn innovation. The more money that can be saved by clean energy, the more incentive people have to invest in its development.
Regardless, though, if oil is only cheap, and the US economy is only afloat, because we are not paying the true cost of the use of gas, a bubble develops. Its collapse would be the screeching halt of the economy, instead of manageable slowdown while we correct.
of course high gas taxes and the high cost of moving things by gasoline powered vehicles (trucks) has no impact on the prices of anything…
no! a box of liberal government cheeze will cost you $5… you will have to pay delivery tax of $20 but that’s just the cost of doing business and the evil businessman can pay that tax out of his obscene profit margin…
I see dead people.
-Imp
i see an amazing sheep circus…
First you say you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you reiterate what I said–except for understanding the impact of the conclusion. Substitution of biofuels for petroleum based fuels on a moderate level is resulting in starvation in the World right now. Bringing the economy to a “screeching halt” would result in chaos I can’t even imagine. Think N. Korea, Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe combined to the power of 10.
Of all the bad things the government has done in the last 70 years, the worst is the outright misleading government education about economics, especially at the collegiate level. All they’re doing is throwing fuel on the wealthy envy fire. We’ve had it shown to us several times over the past decades that lowering taxes increases government revenues AND stimulates the economy–as demonstrated by Truman, Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush. But all you hear when it happens is “tax cuts for the wealthy”, and the dumbed down populace buys it.
Cheeze? There won’t be any cheese. People in N. Korea are eating grass, ergo sheep circus. 
Imp, the fact of the matter is that right now we’re accumulating costs we aren’t paying for. Yes, prices will rise, but only because our current prices hide what we’re getting on credit. Taxing gas (or taxing carbon, which is more to the point) would internalize costs that are currently externalized, so we don’t keep building up our tab. We’re paying for our use of fossil fuels already, in the form of reduced health, greater birth defects and mental illness, contaminated food stocks, and reduced beauty (before I am labeled a hippy, I’d like to point out that beauty is clearly valuable: people pay through the nose for trips to pristine natural locales). Consumers do not pay to offset those costs, and they should.
TPT, let me clarify again: I haven’t advocate for fucking biofuels. Why don’t you address the point I am making, that gas has externalized costs that are not being paid?
Are you honestly going to assert that the economy has improved under Bush’s tax cuts? I think that is making a lot of assumptions, considering the economy is in the toilet under Bush.
“Externalized costs” is just a term for using the environment as an instrument of manipulation and the redistribution of wealth. Biofuel was brought about by fear of monolithic environmentalists such as yourself.
Until the slight downturn recently, the economy has been very up. The GDP has been phenomenal, particularly given the war, unemployment has been low, and tax revenues increased dramatically after the tax cut. I know its against the code to admit that Bush might have done something right, but cutting taxes was his best, and one of the few good things he’s done. I can’t stand Clinton, but when he did something right, like doing a thumbs down on Kyoto and signing NAFTA, I said so.
Externality is an accepted concept in economics, and doesn’t have anything to do with the environment. In this case, the environmental impact of our oil-based economy is externalized, but that is not an inherent part of externalized costs generally.
The economy under Bush hasn’t been especially strong. It tanked due to 9/11, but it was tanking before that as well. It’s increased nearly to pre-9/11 values, but overall there’s been a decline, and the gains are dubiously due to Bush’s policies. What’s certain is that debt has increased under Bush after falling during the Clinton presidency. Why is that a good thing?