TougeHorseman

Do you have a clue what you're saying?
[/quote]

Negative. How? does? gasoline? Since you run a refinery and control the global oil market maybe you can clue us in?
[/quote]

Your CA spike from 4.xx to 5.xx is a blip. Our national trend to higher fuel prices is a direct result of our devaluation of the dollar.

Our national average pump price is still half that of 'market' compared to the G20. The only nations that trend less than ours are countries that divert tax dollars into buying down the price of fuel. One could already say we do this by supplying the military protection required to move crude around the world safely.

Additionally, you could say that we made Iraq a safer place to source crude. Which interestingly not one US company won a bid for. How many billions spent to secure more crude safely?

I think your comment on fuel is without understanding. If anything the price of fuel has been largely regulated by massive federal spending. The state side market enjoys the perception that our fuel floats on an 'open market' yet we spend billions a year to keep it less than half of others.

What have the so thoughtful people like yourself done with this great savings? Built a car fleet that wastes more fuel than is required.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong...

So what you are saying is that the military spent tons of tax dollars securing crude in Iraq and then didn't get one bid for the oil there. That sounds like we just wasted a a huge amount of money for no crude-price protection (in that country). And where does the government make that money back? By continuing to tax (and not controlling) the ever-increasing gas prices. The governement tax profit would increase as the gas price increases? Is this correct?

rob-2

That's basic supply and demand. Forgive me, I thought you understood the basics.

rob-2

Do you have a clue what you're saying?
[/quote]

Negative. How? does? gasoline? Since you run a refinery and control the global oil market maybe you can clue us in?
[/quote]

Your CA spike from 4.xx to 5.xx is a blip. Our national trend to higher fuel prices is a direct result of our devaluation of the dollar.

Our national average pump price is still half that of 'market' compared to the G20. The only nations that trend less than ours are countries that divert tax dollars into buying down the price of fuel. One could already say we do this by supplying the military protection required to move crude around the world safely.

Additionally, you could say that we made Iraq a safer place to source crude. Which interestingly not one US company won a bid for. How many billions spent to secure more crude safely?

I think your comment on fuel is without understanding. If anything the price of fuel has been largely regulated by massive federal spending. The state side market enjoys the perception that our fuel floats on an 'open market' yet we spend billions a year to keep it less than half of others.

What have the so thoughtful people like yourself done with this great savings? Built a car fleet that wastes more fuel than is required.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong...

So what you are saying is that the military spent tons of tax dollars securing crude in Iraq and then didn't get one bid for the oil there. That sounds like we just wasted a a huge amount of money for no crude-price protection (in that country). And where does the government make that money back? By continuing to tax (and not controlling) the ever-increasing gas prices. The governement tax profit would increase as the gas price increases? Is this correct?
[/quote]

Casey you raise an interesting foreign policy debate. Are we better off as a country spending tax dollars to secure the safe flow of crude from suppliers to refiners? Is a safer middle east and asia better for more than those regions?

To answer your questions the best I can:
And where does the government make that money back?
The current working theory is that safer flow of crude results in lower conflicts. Wars are typically fought over natural resources and so we are spending to prevent wars and build a global economy that functions better. The idea is with peace there will be more markets open to US goods. Expanding of US economy in theory drive Fed rev.

By continuing to tax (and not controlling) the ever-increasing gas prices. The government tax profit would increase as the gas price increases? Is this correct?
My understanding is that tax rev related to oil/fuel production state side has not kept pace with spending. This might be due largely to our tax structure which has companies moving profits from US based business to foreign headquarters to pay a lower rate.

This sort of spills over into this film. "The world without US" netflix streaming here - https://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/T...2?trkid=438403

This film explores one view about our military spending and the benefits to society.

TougeHorseman

I think if you weren't so condescending and conceited in every one of your replies the world would take you more seriously. Is that fair to suggest, gently? You do want people to take you seriously right? Or did you mistake s2ki with a silly game involving monkeys throwing their own shit at a wall.

Just kidding, I love you rob.

rob-2

I think if you weren't so condescending and conceited in every one of your replies the world would take you more seriously. Is that fair to suggest, gently? You do want people to take you seriously right? Or did you mistake s2ki with a silly game involving monkeys throwing their own shit at a wall.

Just kidding, I love you rob.
[/quote]
andrew's pretty much an ass in his comments so I don't give him much slack.

TougeHorseman

I think if you weren't so condescending and conceited in every one of your replies the world would take you more seriously. Is that fair to suggest, gently? You do want people to take you seriously right? Or did you mistake s2ki with a silly game involving monkeys throwing their own shit at a wall.

Just kidding, I love you rob.
[/quote]
andrew's pretty much an ass in his comments so I don't give him much slack.
[/quote]
There are lots of different kinds of asses...not sure what you are implying.

andrewhake

You must just be a blast to be around.. You don't give me much slack? Am I on your leash?

andrewhake

I don't undersand how your comment to my initial rant (that you likely didn't even read) had anything to do with my rant, or anything to do with this thread at all. It seems you just enjoy reading back the things that you post to a forum. Please use your superior debate skills to prove me wrong.

yamez

I think if you weren't so condescending and conceited in every one of your replies the world would take you more seriously. Is that fair to suggest, gently? You do want people to take you seriously right? Or did you mistake s2ki with a silly game involving monkeys throwing their own shit at a wall.

Just kidding, I love you rob.
[/quote]
andrew's pretty much an ass in his comments so I don't give him much slack.
[/quote]
There are lots of different kinds of asses...not sure what you are implying.


[/quote]

tkeyyy