The Gas Tax Holiday in 7 Words
Created on: May 5th, 2008
Hillary and McCain's Gas Holiday is a f*cking joke in case you're brain dead.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | 4 | 0 | 19 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,113 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 47 | https://www.bing.com |
| 5 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 1 | http://www.google.com |
I'm also sorry my satire couldn't live up to the standards of VAN DAMME FORGOT POLEND! Nerve Jarring Discourse that one. BTW, I made the picture. Shove 4chan up your ass. I'll concede the sound being tired. But it's universal recognition conveys my point. So, oil companies should be charged $9 billion dollars for providing us with oil, eh? That seems fair. I wonder how working class stock holders in oil companies feel about your little tax on their investment. You want their money, invest in them.
Calm down, you almost sound like a Ron Paulian. The goal here is to give taxpayers a short break while a solution can be found. It's not letting the oil companies run around unbridled. There exists a voice of reason out there - listen to it. Also, use less exclamation marks; they make you sound like a moron.
F*cking bullsh*t. People in europe pay TWICE what we pay. Should we cover the difference for them too? our prices are adjusting for what the cost of gas really is. Cry harder, fight the market, or roll with it. It's kicking my ass, I pay your prices, but deferring the cost onto someone else is irresponsible. Want to lessen the cost of gas? Reduce demand by encouraging alternatives, not by threatening the highway fund with a zany tax shift scheme.
Yes, they pay twice what we pay, but their governments are nearly socialist (but that's another argument). The fact of the matter is that while it may be irresponsible, it's a temporary solution that will slightly ease the burden for the average driver. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a temporary solution. And your original point, as shown in the YTMND, is utterly false, because the bridges will be compensated for by the companies themselves. So: YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR.
give taxpayers a short break? 30 dollars? 18 cents a gallon? pulling it from the highways fund, costing jobs and allowing oil companies to boost costs and reap rewards from increased demand because of it? Barack's stand against it may seem nice, but the reason he's doing it is not because he's some ultimate non-panderer, its because his state ofIllinois already did this, and what happened was the exact same worst case scenario every economist (save Hillary's Shell Oil lobbyist) says will happen. Hillary and McCain are putting a gun to the country's head, and so many are so very willing to pull the trigger. Shame on you.
The shame card has been played, ladies and gentlemen. We all must realize this is a political game, but tell me - wouldn't you like to save some money at the pump? You will save 18 cents on the gallon no matter what the price might be. And 18 cents per gallon is good, for how often I drive. The immediate solution should be this: release barrels from the National Strategic Oil Supply, and start drilling in Alaska while we develop alternate technologies. It's a win win.
YOU WONT SAVE MONEY. PERIOD. This. game. has. already. been. done. in. other. states. It failed. Spectacularly. The only people who netted any money were oil companies who profited from increased demand. Find me an economist who thinks this is a good idea. Even Hillarys apologist in cheif Krugman is bashing this, its that absurd. I have no problem playing the shame card, the chocolate card, the ouija board card, any card, the fact is me jerking off to miley cyrus pics is a better economic plan than this.
I'm sure the people of Minneapolis are satisfied with current levels of funding. Let's f*ck with that and see what happens? Better yet, let's take $9 billion dollars out of that fund so that we can have $30 apiece on average. DO you see where this enters wreckless idiocy yet or do I need to do a pie chart YTMND?
The $9 billion will be paid for by the companies, as I have stated repeatedly: funding of the highways is not the issue! The state of the bridges will not change - your precious bridges will be okay. And concerning Minneapolis: 1 bridge collapsed. One of hundreds of thousands of bridges in America. How many other bridges have collapsed recently. I'd say 1/100,000 is pretty darn good.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link