|
“Bush: The Missing Lunk”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
Currently: Arizona
|
Its good wrote: I think your numbers are quite a bit off.
In 2007, the U.S. consumed about 390 million gallons of gasoline each day. The federal gas tax is $.184 per gallon, making the daily federal gas tax about $72 million.
So in the 98 days from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the waived federal gas tax would be a bit over $7 billion. Might be higher because summer months usually have higher gas consumption than average but could be lower due to the high gas prices.
<quoted text> My numbers came from the Triple-A report on American Gasoline Consumption, March 2008, which estimates total national gasoline current consumption at 9.3 Million gallons per day. Your 390 million gallons figure includes federal and state government vehicular gas consumption. My figure is retail consumer total only. 9,300,000 x 98 x 0.184 = 167,697,600 So, you're correct that I was $4 million off on what McCain's proposal would "save" the country. I think I multiplied by 0.18 instead of 0.184. So we'll actually "save" 9.03 tenths of 1 percent of what will be spent in Iraq in those 98 days, instead of nine tenths of 1 percent. Wow, you're right ... McCain's plan is sheer genius.
|
|
Joined: Apr 19, 2007
|
I think it backfired on them. This money was suppose to go towards purchasing to help the economy. Instead we have to keep it to help pay for putting gas in our cars to get to work.
|
|
Its good
|
Gee, you'd think your assumption that the government uses 97% of all gasoline, consumers 3%, might tip you off that your numbers are wrong. Or the fact that the Highway Trust Fund, funded by the federal gas tax, collected over $40 billion in 2007. Gee, do you think there is a difference between a barrel and a gallon? Why yes, I'd say there are 42 gallons in a barrel. And surprise, that is the factor of your error. BTW, I do not support the McCain and Hillary plan either, regardless of the math. Philo Beddo wrote: <quoted text>
My numbers came from the Triple-A report on American Gasoline Consumption, March 2008, which estimates total national gasoline current consumption at 9.3 Million gallons per day.
Your 390 million gallons figure includes federal and state government vehicular gas consumption. My figure is retail consumer total only.
9,300,000 x 98 x 0.184 = 167,697,600
So, you're correct that I was $4 million off on what McCain's proposal would "save" the country. I think I multiplied by 0.18 instead of 0.184.
So we'll actually "save" 9.03 tenths of 1 percent of what will be spent in Iraq in those 98 days, instead of nine tenths of 1 percent.
Wow, you're right ... McCain's plan is sheer genius.
|
|
Star Shine
|
MJR wrote: I think it backfired on them. This money was suppose to go towards purchasing to help the economy. Instead we have to keep it to help pay for putting gas in our cars to get to work. That and maybe a pizza.
|
|
“Bush: The Missing Lunk”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
Currently: Arizona
|
Its good wrote: Gee, you'd think your assumption that the government uses 97% of all gasoline, consumers 3%, might tip you off that your numbers are wrong. Or the fact that the Highway Trust Fund, funded by the federal gas tax, collected over $40 billion in 2007.
Gee, do you think there is a difference between a barrel and a gallon? Why yes, I'd say there are 42 gallons in a barrel. And surprise, that is the factor of your error.
BTW, I do not support the McCain and Hillary plan either, regardless of the math.
<quoted text> Pardon me, but what in the name of George Bush's cocaine addiction are you babbling about? Are you so desperate to draw attention away from your original screw-up that you now bring the thoroughly irrelevant Highway Trust Fund and the equally inapplicable difference between a barrel and a gallon into the discussion to make it *appear* that you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about? This is flat, basic, simple math ... so given that you're a brain-dead Bushbot, it's no wonder you can't grasp the concept. McCain's gas tax suspension plan won't make a pissant's dent in the nearly EIGHTTEEN BILLION DOLLARS that Bushco-Cheneyburton will ass-pump into the Iraq debacle this summer. Now maybe you'd like to bring up Ronald Reagan's nasal polyps or the favorite treat Richard Nixon used to like to give to Checkers as some more "supporting facts" for your high-colonic argument.
|
|
Its good
|
Hey Philo, what basic, simple math am I wrong about? Care to point out where I screwed up? You can't. The summer gas tax waiver would equate to somewhere around $7-$10 billion. Your numbers and your math are flat wrong. Only a moron would keep insisting the numbers upon which you base your argument are anywhere near reality. But don't believe me, there are lots of independent articles you can read. Here's one, you can find lots more: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/... *A1206010800000*B1208672363000 *DgroupByDate*J2*M38301*N10112 52&javax.portlet.prp_7f2c2 05431856fc7d3dc93f72b8521fd_ne wsId=20080416006041&beanID =1319085269&viewID=news_vi ew&javax.portlet.begCacheT ok=com.vignette.cachetoken &javax.portlet.endCacheTok =com.vignette.cachetoken Last I counted,$8.5 billion was a fairly significant number. But no matter, as I said before I don't like the McCain/Clinton waiver idea, but not because of flawed numbers. In fact, I think they should raise the gas tax to encourage conservation and invest in new technology development. Philo Beddo wrote: <quoted text>
Pardon me, but what in the name of George Bush's cocaine addiction are you babbling about?
Are you so desperate to draw attention away from your original screw-up that you now bring the thoroughly irrelevant Highway Trust Fund and the equally inapplicable difference between a barrel and a gallon into the discussion to make it *appear* that you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about?
This is flat, basic, simple math ... so given that you're a brain-dead Bushbot, it's no wonder you can't grasp the concept.
McCain's gas tax suspension plan won't make a pissant's dent in the nearly EIGHTTEEN BILLION DOLLARS that Bushco-Cheneyburton will ass-pump into the Iraq debacle this summer.
Now maybe you'd like to bring up Ronald Reagan's nasal polyps or the favorite treat Richard Nixon used to like to give to Checkers as some more "supporting facts" for your high-colonic argument.
|
|
Demos
|
Its good wrote: Last I counted,$8.5 billion was a fairly significant number.
<quoted text> Not really. If you guys can get beyond the math bickering the $8.5 billion is nothing compared to the monumental cost of Iraq. One good takeaway from this ... if a war this small can bankrupt a superpower then the massive wars we saw in the 20th century should be a thing of the past.
|
|
Its good
|
I agree with you there. My point was this thread was about economic stimulus in the near term, while the Iraq war is a different topic entirely. Even a decision to begin pulling out of Iraq soon wouldn't provide taxpayer relief this summer. Unless you advocate just dropping everything and moving out immediately, but most people seem to think that would get kind of bloody and don't think it's responsible or a good idea. Last I recall, Obama was suggesting an 18 month withdrawal period. Demos wrote: <quoted text>
Not really. If you guys can get beyond the math bickering the $8.5 billion is nothing compared to the monumental cost of Iraq. One good takeaway from this ... if a war this small can bankrupt a superpower then the massive wars we saw in the 20th century should be a thing of the past.
|
|
|
|
Demos
|
Its good wrote: I agree with you there. My point was this thread was about economic stimulus in the near term, while the Iraq war is a different topic entirely. Even a decision to begin pulling out of Iraq soon wouldn't provide taxpayer relief this summer. Unless you advocate just dropping everything and moving out immediately, but most people seem to think that would get kind of bloody and don't think it's responsible or a good idea. Last I recall, Obama was suggesting an 18 month withdrawal period.
<quoted text> This is the bitter pill. Unfortunately these panaceas won't do the trick. I'm offended that the government would borrow money from China to provide a stimulus package that essentially encourages people to go to Wal-mart and buy more Chinese crap thus putting the money right back into Chinese coffers. The US needs to get over its obsession with being a superpower. There's really nothing to gain from it.
|
|
EYES ROLLING
|
Well, just don't forget that any "rebate" you do get is taxable income that you will be required to report next year.
1. You can send it back to the government as a tax payment and get credit for it as prepaid tax when you file next year
2. You can invest it over the course of the year to hopefully make some money on it to cover the tax on it,
3. Simply rip it up (make sure to right down the check # because the gov will swear you cashed it)
4. Save it in a bank account
5. Go shopping
If you aren't getting one, consider yourself lucky you make that much money (unless you aren't getting one because you didn't file in 07). Otherwise, don't blame other taxpayers who will receive the money the government decided to give them.
|
|
Jeff
|
Heather wrote: OMG I'm so excited I got my $33.00 back!!! I will put 10 gallons of gas in my car and with all that money I can't even afford to leave town.
What a joke. Hey find ways to enjoy your home, take the dough and blow it in a good time,
|
|
Jeff
|
Its good wrote: I think your numbers are quite a bit off.
In 2007, the U.S. consumed about 390 million gallons of gasoline each day. The federal gas tax is $.184 per gallon, making the daily federal gas tax about $72 million.
So in the 98 days from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the waived federal gas tax would be a bit over $7 billion. Might be higher because summer months usually have higher gas consumption than average but could be lower due to the high gas prices.
<quoted text> but shumar says if the plebs get a tax holiday, we can't build more roads and bridges, we won't need em will we if gas gets to high. Try to talk your leaders into open drilling in Alaska, that's what we bought the dam place for anyway. For it's resources not it's caribooooooooooooooo
|
|
Raptor in Michigan
|
GTMIT wrote: <quoted text>I for one, have no insight into Bush's reasoning behind this war, nor do I suspect do you. However, consider the possibility that had the great pacifists, Jimmy Carter's response early on in Iran been more decisive, or Bill Clinton's to the attack on the USS Cole anywhere near adequate, then we just might not be in the conflicts we are saddled with today. There are only so many sins that can be lain at the feet of George Bush, those that he actually bears responsibility for, and those that you dream up to satisfy your own ideology. Seems to me those people started blowing our planes out of the sky and blowing up our embassies about 35 years ago. We have finally realized we've been attacked and are now dealing with the problem. It should have been dealt with after the first plane. BTW, My $600 rebate check will not be put back in the economy.
|
|
Stack
|
EYES ROLLING wrote: Well, just don't forget that any "rebate" you do get is taxable income that you will be required to report next year.
1. You can send it back to the government as a tax payment and get credit for it as prepaid tax when you file next year
2. You can invest it over the course of the year to hopefully make some money on it to cover the tax on it,
3. Simply rip it up (make sure to right down the check # because the gov will swear you cashed it)
4. Save it in a bank account
5. Go shopping
If you aren't getting one, consider yourself lucky you make that much money (unless you aren't getting one because you didn't file in 07). Otherwise, don't blame other taxpayers who will receive the money the government decided to give them. It's not luck that generally dictates income. In most cases in relates to effort. It's just another case of government punishing success. If they do this often enough they can have their dream of everyone making the same amount regardless of how much work they actually do.
|
|
Raptor in Michigan
|
Jeff wrote: <quoted text>but shumar says if the plebs get a tax holiday, we can't build more roads and bridges, we won't need em will we if gas gets to high. Try to talk your leaders into open drilling in Alaska, that's what we bought the dam place for anyway. For it's resources not it's caribooooooooooooooo I did a report in college on ANWR. Carter designated it as a place to drill for oil. We already drill at Prudhoe Bay and the animals thrive there. We drill in Texas and animals do fine there as well. I know because I go there every year to watch birds and photograph nature. I consider myself an environmentalist and I say drill in ANWR. Real environmentalists have common sense.
|
|
EYES ROLLING
|
OK, what you are complaining about is our progressive tax system which says that the more you make, the higher percentage of tax you pay on your income and the fewer the avail exemptions and deductions.
send your congressman a letter and tell him that you don't like the tax structure. I know it's not "luck" persay- hell, my household income is over 150K, and it didn't get that way by working minimum wage jobs. So we are paying a lot of taxes, including the alternative minimum tax addition and reduction in or outright ineligibility for many exemptions and credits we would be eligible for at a lower income. It's the American tax system to blame, not other tax payers. that is the point I'm trying to make.
|
|
Stack
|
EYES ROLLING wrote: OK, what you are complaining about is our progressive tax system which says that the more you make, the higher percentage of tax you pay on your income and the fewer the avail exemptions and deductions.
send your congressman a letter and tell him that you don't like the tax structure. I know it's not "luck" persay- hell, my household income is over 150K, and it didn't get that way by working minimum wage jobs. So we are paying a lot of taxes, including the alternative minimum tax addition and reduction in or outright ineligibility for many exemptions and credits we would be eligible for at a lower income. It's the American tax system to blame, not other tax payers. that is the point I'm trying to make. I certainly don't blame anyone receiving the money. I'm just stunned that Bush is able to be so shockingly stupid with a move like this. I can't wait to see what he does with my money next.
|
|
EYES ROLLING
|
Stack wrote: <quoted text>
I certainly don't blame anyone receiving the money. I'm just stunned that Bush is able to be so shockingly stupid with a move like this. I can't wait to see what he does with my money next. LOL! Well, I certainly can't speak to that. I think this rebate thing is a bad idea, but all of congress passed it, so....Bush has a lot of company on this decision. Shit is a mess everywhere!
|
|
Its good
|
Yes, both parties were in on this and arguing about whether the package was big enough. This is definitely not just a Bush thing. EYES ROLLING wrote: <quoted text>
LOL! Well, I certainly can't speak to that. I think this rebate thing is a bad idea, but all of congress passed it, so....Bush has a lot of company on this decision.
Shit is a mess everywhere!
|
|
Jim
|
Mike wrote: <quoted text>
Maybe, but it is something hard to judge since the 16 years, it was only during Republican adminsitrations where the economy dipped so low that adding to the national debt has been considered necessary to simulate the economy.
Maybe if the Federal government wasn't spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary war and trying to restimulate the Iraqi economy after we bombed its infrastructure to unuseablity, the US economy wouldn't need to be stimulated.
Think about all the tax dollars which could be spent in the US if they weren't having to be spent in Iraq to clean up the mess the current administration created. Please DEFINE unnecessary! And then explain to the rest of the dummies what a proper solution and course of action would be to deal with International World Wide Terrorism...something that grew exponentially under Clinton. Enlighten us all.
|
Judge it!
Virgo
Most Popular