Hey, Let’s Raise Gas Taxes

Tom Brokaw with the line of the week … “Hey Barack … what do you say we raise gas taxes and teach the consumers a lesson.” I would say this Limo liberal is out of touch but … hey I got a great idea … let’s cut anchor pay and distribute it to folks down the line. Video below the fold.

10 replies
  1. Wayne SW
    Wayne SW says:

    Comrade Brokawski is becoming more and more irrelevant as he enters the twilight of his career. Pehaps his exhale can be taxed as noise and air pollution…what's good for cattle should be good media has beens.

    The elite media really believes that us common folk can truly afford to pay $4.00 per gallon for gas? Tom probably hasn't put gas in his car since the days that self serve became the norm.

  2. David in EH
    David in EH says:

    Depends on what you imagine the goal it, Wayne… if the goal is economic dependence on the government, then this is a brilliant idea…

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    It is really easy to promote changes that don't affect one directly. Brokaw has millions, and a European style gas tax increase won't affect him in the least.

    Why are these clods so eager to repeat Europe's mistakes? Has high taxation made any European nation great? What level of hubris makes a talking head like Brokaw think he knows anything about anything?

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Comerade Brokaw!

  4. Gary the socialist
    Gary the socialist says:

    It's weird but he Tom may not be off the mark as much as some are saying.There is a growing agreement from all sides . Business, greenees, oil companies,Oil producers,refiners that the price of oil is just too low and needs to be at 75.00 to 80.00 a barrel to allow oil companies a fair profit and for green techologies to be profitable and to allow the producers cash reserves to open and look for more production fields.I only say that maybe a floating tax to keep the price – level and to allow more money for researce and jobs to new techologies and to allow the oil producers money to loan us is something we need to consider. I also recall that domistic producers years ago said they needed a price of 60 per barrel to be competative and anything else is unprofitable and they will not invest in finding and or drilling. I can not guess how this would work but just wanted to try and defend Mr. Brokal a bit as not being so wrong and he was just saying that this is a fluke and prices are going up a lot again and soon.I do wonder if the countries with the most to lose by low oil prices and become unable to buy the peace of there citizins with jobs and kickbacks are now unable too where will all those hundres of millions go to find work and jobs?We know where a lot are going as being reported here in America-The Army.

  5. David in EH
    David in EH says:

    The market is a matter of supply and demand, Gary. If the demand isn't there to support what they fellows would like to receive for their product, then they won't receive it. It is not as if the market can't be manipulated — let's face it, the whole point of OPEC is to manipulate the price of a barrel of oil.

    Now, putting a tax to "fix" the price of oil isn't going to satisfy anyone but the government and whichever special interests are on the receiving end of the revenue. The rest of the populace would be out in the cold. Likewise, fixing the price through a price freeze / arbitrary regulation would do no good.

    Lastly, Brokaw isn't talking about the price of oil, he is talking about the price of gasoline– hardly the same thing, although one is derived from the other. The economic impact — gasoline is an expense component in just about everything we buy — would be tremendously negative. Higher production expenses result in higher cost of goods, meaning higher prices for all consumers.

    We live in a world where we have to dye diesel meant for home-heating to keep folks from using it in their trucks, due to the differing rates of taxation. Arbitrarily pegging a price, rather than through market forces, would have reverberations through the economy.

    The less government messes with the economy, the better off the rest of us are going to be.

  6. Gary the socialist
    Gary the socialist says:

    I agree but still have to wonder, when Saudi Arabia joins with Isreali to bomb Iran's Nuke power plants if those people who bombed America and that are Service people are fighting through out the word who reports say are now and have been hired as a blackwater sort of company in the Kingdom of Saud are going to be able to keep the people in line as they are now being paid to do.Yes Al gudie Bin Lindens group is now been reportely hired to keep the population in check in Saudi Arabia for when the bombs fall. Only one report so far but I am sure more of this story will come out.So when the bombs fall and the price sky rockets will we wish we had a price control system in affect to damping the price when these things happen.

  7. Wyndeward
    Wyndeward says:

    What does any of that have to do with the price of a barrel of oil on the spot market, Gary?

    Conspiracy theory and single-source reporting is the stuff of tin-foil hats and Martian invasions.

  8. scott
    scott says:

    Brokaw can't be that stupid is he? I mean it takes a complete ignorant arrogant social elite to make a statement like that . He and his ilk have no clue what something like that does to everyday people . Putting a tax on gas so it can go back to $4.00 a gallon.What happens when gas goes back up just as fast as it went down, do you or anybody believe that the Government will lower this tax when it equals $8 a gallon, doubt it.All in the name of conserving and greening give me a break , that will happen when the market is found for it not shoved down our throats, when will they learn that the market dictates a commodity not the Federal government.

  9. David in EH
    David in EH says:

    Well, it's not as if they make you take an IQ test for the job, if that's what you mean.

    Liberal economics relies on static modeling — the notion that, if you change "x," nothing else in the equation will change. By their logic, decreases in the tax rate will always (or at least *should* always) lead to a decrease in tax revenues.

    The part that always made me do a "head-desk" is the notion that you can take the money from the tax hike and use it for a specific, wonderful "movie-of-the-week" warm and fuzzy purpose. A good example is the "increased cigarette tax that will cause people to quit and fund child health care."

    The problem is that the idiots don't grasp that these are mutually exclusive goals in the long term, i.e. if people stop smoking, there will be insufficient funds for the entitlement program and, unfortunately for our wallets and pocketbooks, few politicians have the stomach to claw back an entitlement program. Thus, the entitlement joins the rest of the programs out of the general fund and we, the tax-payers, are hosed yet again.

Comments are closed.