New taxes from OBummer

There has been a constant rumbling from the politicians, in particular the Libs, to raise taxes on gasoline.  Now we get this from the Obummer wallet robbers.  In typical Lib fashion they have neglected to really think very hard about the unintended consequences of this action.  If gas taxes increase by $.20+ per gallon who will  be hit hardest?  The very "poor" people the libs claim to be lifting out of poverty into the middle class.  Or is it unintended?  Keeping the poor poor is their stock in trade.  Keeping them poor means they can continue to whine about income equality and all the other trademark barf they spew on us.  They have no intention of actually "helping" anyone, just keeping them where they are beholden to lib pols for their daily bread, and phones, and meth, and well you name it................

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-obamas-oil-tax-would-mean-huge-tax-hike-for-gasoline/article/2593503

Clicker wrote:There has been a constant rumbling from the politicians, in particular the Libs, to raise taxes on gasoline.  Now we get this from the Obummer wallet robbers.  In typical Lib fashion they have neglected to really think very hard about the unintended consequences of this action.  If gas taxes increase by $.20+ per gallon who will  be hit hardest?  The very "poor" people the libs claim to be lifting out of poverty into the middle class.  Or is it unintended?  Keeping the poor poor is their stock in trade.  Keeping them poor means they can continue to whine about income equality and all the other trademark barf they spew on us.  They have no intention of actually "helping" anyone, just keeping them where they are beholden to lib pols for their daily bread, and phones, and meth, and well you name it................

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-obamas-oil-tax-would-mean-huge-tax-hike-for-gasoline/article/2593503

Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs". That's absurd. This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs".  That's absurd.  This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

When was gasoline assigned "publicly traded commodity" status?

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs".  That's absurd.  This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

When was gasoline assigned "publicly traded commodity" status?

http://commodityhq.com/commodity/energy/gasoline/#futures

But it's irrelevant.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs".  That's absurd.  This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

When was gasoline assigned "publicly traded commodity" status?

http://commodityhq.com/commodity/energy/gasoline/#futures

But it's irrelevant.

You're right it is irrelevant. The price at the pump would go up, a huge increase over what's paid without the tax increase. RBOB prices do not include taxes. I didn't realize that there was a commodities trading in gas. Are you trying to say that a tax increase would not affect pump prices or are you simply beating the drum against commodities trading by changing the subject, fogging the issue?

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs".  That's absurd.  This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

When was gasoline assigned "publicly traded commodity" status?

http://commodityhq.com/commodity/energy/gasoline/#futures

But it's irrelevant.

You're right it is irrelevant.  The price at the pump would go up, a huge increase over what's paid without the tax increase.  RBOB prices do not include taxes.  I didn't realize that there was a commodities trading in gas.  Are you trying to say that a tax increase would not affect pump prices or are you simply beating the drum against commodities trading by changing the subject, fogging the issue?

I wish you had a better handle on this, because I really don't have the time or energy to keep explaining it to you. This would be a tax on oil extraction. It has nothing to do with gas. Even if it did, the gas industry has no ability to pass on any expenses because they have no control over gas prices, except through supply manipulation which is a whole different conversation. The exact same can be said for the oil industry.

You could try to make the case that this tax would discourage oil production, thus depleting the supply and in turn effecting the gas supply, but you passed that fork in the road a long time ago and this is the path you have chosen.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs".  That's absurd.  This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

Sorry dumb ass...gasoline is taxed by the federal and state governments at the pump, has nothing to do with commodity prices. Of which by the way you wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground. You have spent a lifetime being guaranteed a living by the government at the expense of taxpayers. If I want any shite out of you I'll squeeze your head.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Have you ever heard of commodity futures?

Relevance?

When you're in the business of producing publicly traded commodities there's no "passing on costs".  That's absurd.  This is no more than a well placed bit of propaganda, generated the oil industry to be spread by their useful idiots.

Sorry dumb ass...gasoline is taxed by the federal and state governments at the pump, has nothing to do with commodity prices. Of which by the way you wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground. You have spent a lifetime being guaranteed a living by the government at the expense of taxpayers. If I want any shite out of you I'll squeeze your head.

Your post has nothing to do with the conversation. I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject, Sorry you fail again. Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

How do I fail?  How do you see them passing on those costs? This isn't like manufacturing a car or running a steak house. They can pass on costs. When you are at the mercy of the markets you don't have that luxury.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

How do I fail?  How do you see them passing on those costs?  This isn't like manufacturing a car or running a steak house.  They can pass on costs.  When you are at the mercy of the markets you don't have that luxury.

Please try and differentiate between market pricing and TAXES! I know that deflection is what you need to do to try and keep any criticizm from the libs running the country but it just isn't working and anyone with more that two brain cells rubbing together knows it.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

How do I fail?  How do you see them passing on those costs?  This isn't like manufacturing a car or running a steak house.  They can pass on costs.  When you are at the mercy of the markets you don't have that luxury.

Please try and differentiate between market pricing and TAXES!  I know that deflection is what you need to do to try and keep any criticizm from the libs running the country but it just isn't working and anyone with more that two brain cells rubbing together knows it.

While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.

Please differentiate between oil production and gasoline production, and explain how they will pass this on to consumers.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

The article states that economists, you know, those people that libs love to quote when trying to show how bad Business is, will simply add it to the price, simple.  Also the tax only applies to American produces product.  What a job kill that'll be.  All those oil patch jobs going away at the whim of Obummer and his tree huggers, while supporting all his Islamic kindred in the far east.  I wonder if Hildebeast is ready to say that she'll support that tax?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Jeebus. Essentially oil extraction taxes increase production costs. If production costs are higher or equal to market price, the oil companies will stop drilling new wells and shut down the lesser productive wells reducing supply, eventually pushing up the market prices. Some oil drillers will go out of business which will also drop supplies. Since demand for gasoline is somewhat inelastic (no/few substitutes for oil/gasoline) consumers will pay the increase in prices and in effect pay the extraction taxes imposed by government.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Jeebus. Essentially oil extraction taxes increase production costs. If production costs are higher or equal to market price, the oil companies will stop drilling new wells and shut down the lesser productive wells reducing supply, eventually pushing up the market prices. Some oil drillers will go out of business which will also drop supplies. Since demand for gasoline is somewhat inelastic (no/few substitutes for oil/gasoline) consumers will pay the increase in prices and in effect pay the extraction taxes imposed by government.  

You're welcome,  since I did all the heavy lifting on that theory.  So you agree that article is compete BS?

Dr. Jones wrote:You could try to make the case that this tax would discourage oil production, thus depleting the supply and in turn effecting the gas supply, but you passed that fork in the road a long time ago and this is the path you have chosen.

the article shows that cost of production in the US will increase thus raising the price at the pump. Of course there is the possibility that US refines will stop buying US product and simply put US oil producer out of business causing a recession in the oil patch. A win win for the looney libs and their save the whales coconspirators.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Jeebus. Essentially oil extraction taxes increase production costs. If production costs are higher or equal to market price, the oil companies will stop drilling new wells and shut down the lesser productive wells reducing supply, eventually pushing up the market prices. Some oil drillers will go out of business which will also drop supplies. Since demand for gasoline is somewhat inelastic (no/few substitutes for oil/gasoline) consumers will pay the increase in prices and in effect pay the extraction taxes imposed by government.  

You're welcome,  since I did all the heavy lifting on that theory.  So you agree that article is compete BS?

Dr. Jones wrote:You could try to make the case that this tax would discourage oil production, thus depleting the supply and in turn effecting the gas supply, but you passed that fork in the road a long time ago and this is the path you have chosen.

You didn't do jack, Jack-off, let alone do any analytical heavy lifting. You reject the basic economic principle (it's not a theory) elasticity/inelasticity in particular price elasticity of supply which can be calculated: (% change of quantity supplied ÷ % change in price) and price elasticity of demand (% change of quantity demanded ÷ % change in price). Your knowledge of economics could be balanced on a pin. Stoopid Fcuk.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Jeebus. Essentially oil extraction taxes increase production costs. If production costs are higher or equal to market price, the oil companies will stop drilling new wells and shut down the lesser productive wells reducing supply, eventually pushing up the market prices. Some oil drillers will go out of business which will also drop supplies. Since demand for gasoline is somewhat inelastic (no/few substitutes for oil/gasoline) consumers will pay the increase in prices and in effect pay the extraction taxes imposed by government.  

You're welcome,  since I did all the heavy lifting on that theory.  So you agree that article is compete BS?

Dr. Jones wrote:You could try to make the case that this tax would discourage oil production, thus depleting the supply and in turn effecting the gas supply, but you passed that fork in the road a long time ago and this is the path you have chosen.

You didn't do jack, Jack-off, let alone do any analytical heavy lifting. You reject the basic economic principle (it's not a theory) elasticity/inelasticity in particular price elasticity of supply which can be calculated: (% change of quantity supplied ÷ % change in price) and price elasticity of demand (% change of quantity demanded ÷ % change in price). Your knowledge of economics could be balanced on a pin. Stoopid Fcuk.

Is this possible, or not?

While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.

As I've said before your meaningless, petty insults would mean more if you had the ability to back them up.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Jeebus. Essentially oil extraction taxes increase production costs. If production costs are higher or equal to market price, the oil companies will stop drilling new wells and shut down the lesser productive wells reducing supply, eventually pushing up the market prices. Some oil drillers will go out of business which will also drop supplies. Since demand for gasoline is somewhat inelastic (no/few substitutes for oil/gasoline) consumers will pay the increase in prices and in effect pay the extraction taxes imposed by government.  

You're welcome,  since I did all the heavy lifting on that theory.  So you agree that article is compete BS?

Dr. Jones wrote:You could try to make the case that this tax would discourage oil production, thus depleting the supply and in turn effecting the gas supply, but you passed that fork in the road a long time ago and this is the path you have chosen.

You didn't do jack, Jack-off, let alone do any analytical heavy lifting. You reject the basic economic principle (it's not a theory) elasticity/inelasticity in particular price elasticity of supply which can be calculated: (% change of quantity supplied ÷ % change in price) and price elasticity of demand (% change of quantity demanded ÷ % change in price). Your knowledge of economics could be balanced on a pin. Stoopid Fcuk.

Is this possible, or not?

While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.

As I've said before your meaningless, petty insults would mean more if you had the ability to back them up.

Fcuk! Really? I've answered your question. Clicker answered your question. Economists agree that extraction or severance taxes are passed on to consumers. States have had these taxes for years and they are politically popular because most of the tax is paid by energy consumers in other states. Yes, a Federal extraction tax will boost pump prices and the American consumer will be paying higher prices because of it.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your post has nothing to do with the conversation.  I think you need to re-read the article.  Take your time.  Sound your way through the big words.

Your post is simple deflection from the subject,  Sorry you fail again.  Tax increases always have a greater effect on the lower income groups, period.

It is impossible to communicate with a repressive liberal.  When the discussion turns to either a conservative success story or a liberal sin, they DEFLECT and change the subject.  That is the only way they know how to deal with either of those two issues.

Maybe you can explain how this tax placed on oil extraction could be passed on to consumers?

Jeebus. Essentially oil extraction taxes increase production costs. If production costs are higher or equal to market price, the oil companies will stop drilling new wells and shut down the lesser productive wells reducing supply, eventually pushing up the market prices. Some oil drillers will go out of business which will also drop supplies. Since demand for gasoline is somewhat inelastic (no/few substitutes for oil/gasoline) consumers will pay the increase in prices and in effect pay the extraction taxes imposed by government.  

You're welcome,  since I did all the heavy lifting on that theory.  So you agree that article is compete BS?

Dr. Jones wrote:You could try to make the case that this tax would discourage oil production, thus depleting the supply and in turn effecting the gas supply, but you passed that fork in the road a long time ago and this is the path you have chosen.

You didn't do jack, Jack-off, let alone do any analytical heavy lifting. You reject the basic economic principle (it's not a theory) elasticity/inelasticity in particular price elasticity of supply which can be calculated: (% change of quantity supplied ÷ % change in price) and price elasticity of demand (% change of quantity demanded ÷ % change in price). Your knowledge of economics could be balanced on a pin. Stoopid Fcuk.

Is this possible, or not?

While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.

As I've said before your meaningless, petty insults would mean more if you had the ability to back them up.

Fcuk! Really? I've answered your question. Clicker answered your question. Economists agree that extraction or severance taxes are passed on to consumers. States have had these taxes for years and they are politically popular because most of the tax is paid by energy consumers in other states. Yes, a Federal extraction tax will boost pump prices and the American consumer will be paying higher prices because of it.

How are those costs going to be passed on, as the article very clearly states, in a free market?  Don't you think that if it were possible to simply "demand more" for their oil they would have done so instead of filing  for bankruptcy as a few did when oil hit it's lows earlier this year?