This will surely help...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/04/30/iran.oil.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

4/30/2008 12:21:38 PM

So when its stated that the falling dollar contributes to the rising cost in crude is it because company x wants to receive the same net worth for their services so they charge more dollars to their customers in order to account for what the net worth of dollars received would have been a few months previous, and then their costumers follow suit and it falls in a progression of sorts?


I just want to make sure i understand precisely a falling dollar contributes. I'll gladly take additional information and examples regardless if my synopsis is right or wrong.

thanks.

4/30/2008 3:36:59 PM

No. It happens thusly:
As the dollar falls, items which are priced in dollars appear cheaper to non-dollar consumers such as Europeans with their Euros, Japanese with their Yen, etc. As the dollar falls, they see falling gas prices and thus consume more than they would have if the dollar had not fallen, bidding up the price of oil.

As such, while Americans are facing oil prices that are around 360% higher, Europeans see oil that has only risen 180%.

4/30/2008 11:12:08 PM

ty

5/1/2008 12:51:48 AM

i think i figured this shit out last night doing some of the numbers. but of course the worlds a strange place and you can't ever be too sure but check this out..

conclusion: all we need is the stock market to shoot up sharply somehow, then all the rich investors that have more money than they know what to do with will try and make their quick buck and BOOM all that money and profit from the oil will finally be invested and the economy is going to get back on track

all we need to do is wait for something to trigger the market, and oil will drop to $70-$80 a barrel again.

now i know why so many economists i talk too are really supporting the bust $600 per person tax rebates. if we invest it right, it'll really help the gas problem

gg bush administration for once if it works. i hope to god it works, b/c gas prices suck.




ps- everybody stop buying gas from shitsgo (citgo) b/c those venezuelen fucks are trying to ruin us. just do it.

5/1/2008 8:59:46 AM

^ you just gave a reason why you think gas prices will go down, then you go and jump on the "boycott _____ oil company because ____ reason" bandwagon? Has boycotting ever brought down the price of gas?

5/1/2008 9:11:59 AM

Also the bulk of those 600 dollar checks are going to go to things such as food and gas. hardly anyone is going to invest it. 600 isn't much to invest.

5/1/2008 9:22:29 AM

and to add to that list, DO buy from bp if you want to encourage more alaska / canadian drilling. b/c that will bring down the price too in the short and near longterm

^^hi, i encourage you to refrain from posting

^so the rich DO NEED a tax break? lol. just like i said let the rich make their spit worth of money and then reinvest and our economy is saved. ALSO, the little folk can do more damage than you predict.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2008 9:22:39 AM

I oppose the rich having a tax break when its only the rich receiving the tax break. In my personal opinion, everyone could use a tax break. The revenues lost from that could be made up by some actual fiscal management within government programs. The republicans are just as lacking as the democrats when it comes to this measure.

When tax breaks are given to only the rich it can fail to stimulate an economy, despite that purpose being the intentions for creating such a break. One thing tax breaks solely for the rich never fails to do is widen the monetary gap between the rich and lower classes and create animosity.

5/1/2008 11:22:40 AM

serious cat, are you referring to the bush tax cuts? They cut taxes across the board. Its just dems like to focus on how much MONEY it saves people. But if you got a tax break on 1000 bucks vs the 100,000 you put in.. yeah, they got MORE money back.

I favor a flat tax or a sales tax. I think our govt should treat everyone equally, regardless of income. Everyone would take home the same percentage, how anyone could call that unfair is beyond me.

5/1/2008 11:46:14 AM

I was speaking generally. To clarify I am in favor of the Bush era tax cuts. I never refer to them as the Bush tax cuts because i find it highly unlikely that they were his idea. Regardless of which, there are times where only a certain bracket is given a tax cut, usually the rich, and these i oppose.

A flat tax would help create more poverty so I don't entirely agree with you there and I don't feel a sales tax would work out well either because (and this is solely based on my assumption) the rich don't purchase enough to have the revenue brought in from their taxes replaced. If they don't, then the middle class do not and definitely not the lower class. You can say that with less taxes people would purchase more things. I disagree. People are either massive consumers or they are not. Those who would buy a lot already do and those who wouldn't would not, regardless of a sales tax replacement or not.

5/1/2008 11:58:40 AM

how many of you are in favor of screwing the auto industry even more and increasing taxes for those who drive SUVs/trucks/gas-guzzlers?

5/1/2008 12:27:08 PM

^the difference is I would rather people be in control of thier money and if the govt gets less money so be it.

Do you also realize that there are less and less people paying taxes, and those few are forced to pay more and more. I believe the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes... that isnt fair.

A flat tax or sales tax is the fairest. Everyone is treated the same and given the same opportunities. I dont see why people are opposed to this. Where does this desire to punish the "rich" come from, is it jealousy, or just passing the buck? Either way, the current form isnt fair and equal. SHould we let the rich peoples vote count more than our vote? WHy not? THey are paying for it. I dont see how you want equality for some things and not others. Why is that?

5/1/2008 12:30:51 PM

Flat Income tax for the wins.


^ liberals and poor people think successful folks are evil and deserve to pay for the squalid lifestyle of the masses.

If we did not have all the social programs we currently have, I may be more understanding of the progressive tax. As national defense and the raw maintenance of the infrastructure primarily benefits those with greater capital investments and have more to lose.

However, with our current budget spending >50% on entitlement programs welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security/etc then the flat tax is optimal. The rationale being that the gov't has had to step in and take care of people who can't manage to take care of themselves. Therefore the lower classes should be paying into the programs that primarily benefit them when say they get laid off yet instead of getting a new job; they choose to take a 3-year haitus living on welfare and sitting on the couch.

I will likely never see a penny from social security and would never even dream of living on welfare. Yet i'll be paying at the 28%-35% tax bracket for all those who do. Those benefiting from welfare on the other hand; when they are working only pay 10% if any federal income taxes.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : a]

5/1/2008 12:37:48 PM

No one is punishing rich people, or viewing them as evil. You claim the top 20 paying 80 isn't fair, but what do you think would happen under a flat tax? The same thing would occur. if you have 15% of 20k vs 15% of 20million, theres going to be a large difference. it'd take a thousand people to make up that difference, so your flat tax doesn't solve your concern.

How can you disregard the result of the government receiving less money as a whole? What would pay for the military, police, or other such things that you actually support. Please don't retort with stern fiscal policy because as i stated prior neither the republicans or the democrats have done a good job of that in a long time. Not to mention that a more intelligent system of fiscal management for current programs is unlikely to evolve at all, from either group.

The rich are still being allowed to make as much money as they want. No one is putting a cap on the amount of money people are allowed to make and thusly they're not being punished. If they feel the burden of being taxed is too strong for them and that everyone else is getting a break then they are free to join the lower echelons if they wish and take part in this "break" the remainder is getting of the sweat of their backs.

5/1/2008 12:53:44 PM

cat, I totally agree about either party not being fiscally resposnible. HOwever, is that a reason to not demand them to be?

The flat tax everyone will take home the same percentage and everyone will be paying into it. The problem with our govt now is that they can promise every program to the masses and simply charge the "rich". And they have the voting numbers. Sure Id be all for a free car, if you paid for it. And dont be surprised If I choose the aston martin over the civic as long as its free. When everyone pays and is equal, it will be harder to pass some of this BS and when it is passed everyone will pay the equal percentage.

I dont think anyone "rich" would claim its unfair that they are payign more money when they take home the same percentage as everyone else.

No one is punishing the rich? I thought the dems target the over 200k. So those families who make over that amount will now take home less money, while we reward people who arent working. correct?

5/1/2008 1:38:46 PM

Quote :

"^ you just gave a reason why you think gas prices will go down, then you go and jump on the "boycott _____ oil company because ____ reason" bandwagon? Has boycotting ever brought down the price of gas?"

No, he's saying don't buy gas at Citgo b/c its a state run company by the Venezualian (spell) gov't. A gov't who's leader pushes Anti-American agendas. I personally haven't filled up with Citgo in over 3 years.

5/1/2008 1:59:18 PM

i can't believe we have to explain these things. rickfuckingdiculous

5/1/2008 2:15:10 PM

Quote :

"You claim the top 20 paying 80 isn't fair, but what do you think would happen under a flat tax? The same thing would occur. if you have 15% of 20k vs 15% of 20million,"

I never claimed that it was unfair that the upper middle class and rich people pay more taxes as a net total. My problem is they pay greatly proportionally more with those in the lowest two quintiles paying 10% to 0% of their income in federal taxes. Yet these collected taxes for the most part benefit these LOWEST quintiles. I don't know many retired doctors that rely on a social security check week to week or get laid off and end up spending 2 years on welfare.

Everyone should be taxed at the same tax rate. When i go to Best Buy i do not get charged in the 12% sales tax bracket while buying a 52" Plasma TV; while Joe Dirt pays the 3% sales tax on his 20" old school TV.

It makes working hard to get a better job follow the laws of diminishing returns. The net benefit of gaining X income decreases.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : a]

5/1/2008 2:26:45 PM

it's income redistribution and it's what made the middle class last century.

5/1/2008 2:29:32 PM

Quote :

"the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes... that isnt fair."

HUR get a grip. I never suggested that you did say it was unfair. I was making a continuing conversation in line with the response I received. Try to follow the thread a little better if you're going to continue to make comments. Otherwise it appears you're looking for reasons to spout your preordained beliefs and want to use whatever you see as a segue.

eyedrb (to make it clear to whom i'm addressing.) I agree that we should demand that our civil servants, being those in washington, be fiscally responsible. I both applaud and condone that effort. The issue in that regard is that no one from either party is pushing their side to be and spends more time nitpicking the opposite sides failures in the arena rather than working on it themselves. unfortunately, I see no end in site of this and feel that reducing funds substantially will only make things worse. I concur that a flat tax or sales tax is fundamentally and logistically correct, however, not pragmatic. Once the government realized it wasn't receiving the revenues needed they rather increase the revenues via higher tax for either one of those methods than fix the economic tar baby (oh dear no, call WRAL) that currently exists. While the top x% may have enough money to adhere to a 25% flat/sales tax there are those who do not make enough to be able to do that and continue to survive. More squalor could then arrive and with that comes an increase in crime. The best solution would be to first work out the kinks we have in our current social programs and gradually phase them out, which in turn would provide us with the money we would need to then move to a reasonable and practical sales/flat tax.

Still, i feel that no one punishes the rich. targets is probably a better term, but they are not being punished. It is not as if every dollar made over a certain amount they make is taxed double, triple, etc.. or that they are capped on a dollar amount made and the rest goes to government. In fact, quite the opposite is true when it comes to taxes. Only x% of the first 120k or so is what goes to SS and the rest gets no SS withdrawn from it. This hardly sounds like a punishment. They aren't penalized, but rather sought after. I'll admit, it does sound as if i'm bordering the line of semantics, but a clear difference does exist even if i have not made the differences in the two clear.

5/1/2008 2:53:51 PM

cat, I see your point about the current govt. And I agree, both parties are spending fools. However, my point about a flat tax is that it helps buffer against this uncontrolled spending, since they cant promise everythign for free then charge a small minority for the bill. That cant happen in a flat tax or fair tax. The majority will all have to pitch in, which will help people set some level of importance and responsbility in thier politicians.

I strongly disagree with your views on taxing the rich. To simply take a larger percentage of your money bc you make more is unjust in my view. Like HUR said, would you consider it unfair at bestbuy if they charged you 30% in tax and the guy behind you paid no tax for hte same item. I think that is not right to charge people differently. However, our tax system is set up to charge you 40% at checkout, when you bought nothing, while the next 8 people behind you get thier tvs for free and dont pay any tax on them. Thats just not unfair, its bullshit. imo

5/1/2008 4:36:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQKYga6uMY

Obama thinks the oil companies are gouging prices.
Someone ask him why he doesn't talk to commodities traders instead of oil companies, since oil companies don't set the prices of gas.

5/1/2008 6:13:57 PM

the speculators are fucking everything up and taking money at the same time.

somebody find them and hunt them down 1 by 1.

5/1/2008 7:29:25 PM

The speculators work hand in hand with the oil companies and opec. Without nationalizing the oil industry, it would be impossible to have an oil market without speculators.

5/1/2008 7:32:42 PM

^Goddamn you just love to post some bullshit, don't you? You post out of your ass more than anybody else on this board.

Just to clarify, what you posted is absolutely not true.

5/1/2008 7:39:10 PM

for the record nutsmacker, it still costs the same amount to get a barrel of oil out of the ground as it did years ago. enter the speculators and boom, price increases.

it's those damned speculators as much as it is the big wigs up at opec fucking the world up
...all b/c we don't have balls to drill in america and give those saudis/russians/venzuelans the finger up their ass.

plz somebody in north america start drilling and bring the price down. i mean this is aweful.

5/1/2008 7:44:26 PM

This is why I love you. People post irrefutable facts and you claim they are bullshit. If you took the time to realize what the speculators are you might not come off being a complete idiot.

Quote :

"efor the record nutsmacker, it still costs the same amount to get a barrel of oil out of the ground as it did years ago. enter the speculators and boom, price increases. it's those damned speculators as much as it is the big wigs up at opec fucking the world up ...all b/c we don't have balls to drill in america and give those saudis/russians/venzuelans the finger up their ass. plz somebody in north america start drilling and bring the price down. i mean this is aweful. "

Who the fuck do you think the speculators are? Likewise, Canada, and Mexico, along with the United States are drilling for oil in North America. Unless you are advocating that the oil pumped out of the ground become nationalized, it will be sold on the world market. Therefore not one bit of fucking change has happened.

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/1/2008 7:45:31 PM

I think if the top 20% have 80% of the wealth, then they should pay 80% of the taxes.

5/1/2008 8:46:25 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP_1wrIyt1Nc

Obama wants a $15-billion tax on oil companies.
That won't drive the price of gas up at all.

5/1/2008 10:50:49 PM

^^I do too; too bad they pay a hell of a lot more than that.

5/1/2008 10:55:34 PM

Quote :

"it still costs the same amount to get a barrel of oil out of the ground as it did years ago"

you don't really believe that do you? we aren't getting oil out of our backyards anymore. the easy stuff has already been produced/matured. i hardly doubt oil/nautral gas/lng that we are producing out of nigeria, angola, and russia cost the same as producing the stuff in texas.

5/1/2008 11:18:42 PM

gas is 12c/gallon in venezuela. whats keeping me/other people from driving a tanker down there and bringing gas back here selling it for like $2?

5/2/2008 12:13:49 AM

^absolutely nothing. go ahead and try.

5/2/2008 12:18:15 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

^^ thats who's stopping you

that and Citgo is Venezuela's U.S.-based subsidiary

[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2008 12:31:14 AM

Quote :

"I think if the top 20% have 80% of the wealth, then they should pay 80% of the taxes."

income isn't equal to wealth, there are good reasons why we, for the most part, don't tax wealth.......

5/2/2008 2:34:29 AM

not to mention the top 5 percent pay like 95 percent of taxes

5/2/2008 2:47:56 AM

Quote :

"I think if the top 20% have 80% of the wealth, then they should pay 80% of the taxes. "

Holy

Fucking

Christ


[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 3:00 AM. Reason : asdfads]

5/2/2008 2:59:40 AM

there's so much stupid in this thread country that we deserve to be paying so much for gas

i wouldn't worry about just the price of gas soon. i'd start worrying about the price of food soon too, for those that are dead-set against drilling to raise the supply

5/2/2008 2:44:10 PM

drilling won't accomplish anything. It would be at least 10 years (conservative estimates) for drilling in this country to have an affect on oil prices. Likewise, just drilling in America won't really do anything since oil is sold in a global market.

Food prices are already rising. The answer is not oil. We need to find something else.

5/2/2008 3:35:37 PM

Quote :

"not to mention the top 5 percent pay like 95 percent of taxes"

not sure i buy this figure

5/2/2008 3:46:42 PM

^^ by "something else" you mean alternative energy? or driving less?

5/2/2008 3:51:15 PM

conserve energy is one aspect, the other is finding alternative means for getting energy.

5/2/2008 4:33:35 PM

A good start would be to stop producing ethanol from corn. Its easy to argue that its causing more bad than good. I'm all for stopping the mixing of ethanol into our gas (it hurts my car's gas mileage) but at the very least lets use switch grass or something else that doesn't hurt food prices.

5/2/2008 4:47:00 PM

Corn + Magic = Gasoline

5/2/2008 5:09:21 PM

Quote :

"but at the very least lets use switch grass or something else that doesn't hurt food prices."

If they planted that instead of corn it will still hurt food prices because it is still being grown on farmland. The real problem is that the planet is overpopulated.

5/2/2008 5:12:57 PM

NEWS FLASH:

Quote :

"The combination of falling reserves and $100-plus oil is sparking a frenzy of oil and gas activity in Alaska the likes of which hasn't been seen since the state's initial oil boom more than three decades ago, fortune.com reports."

currently the front headline on

cnn.com

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/companies/hunt_for_oil.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes


I told ya they'd do it!!! now step back and watch the economy fire up when it starts hittin the market!

5/3/2008 1:45:17 PM

5/3/2008 1:45:42 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gvBvdDNoM_w&feature=related

5/3/2008 2:49:09 PM

^^ What is with your giddy zealotry towards the pillaging of natural habitat all in the name of exhausting the supply of dead dinosaurs quicker?

5/3/2008 4:18:57 PM