If you havent noticed even with the amount of money that they are raising from the gas taxes our infrastructure is still in really poor condition. I think that if they would cut old useless programs in other areas of the government and switch those funds to the roads, given that they actually spent it on the roads, they could really improve them.
I am all for lower gas prices but I dont think that the $.10 per gallon that eliminating the gas tax would do is actually going to solve the problem. What they could do is lift the ban on offshore drilling and let the oil company's do what they do best, and that is drill for more oil. With the threat of more oil in the market OPEC and all the other oil controlling entities would have no choice but to either step up production or lower their price so that it would be more attractive for us to buy from them than it is to produce our own oil. Simple supply and demand economics.

 

^^^with the stipulation that the only companies who can drill are U.S. owned and none of it gets exported

 

One reason for this is that the roads (and other projects) get bid to the lowest bidder. Why not do what Germany does with the autobahn---the road bed is deep, the concrete is thicker, and it is more expensive initially---but it is better and cheaper to maintian?

 

Therein lies the rub.
Once the oil companies drill it, it belongs to them and goes on the world market.
You may be patriotic but, the Oil companies are a business.
They will get evey last penny they can.
You aren't going to get cut some slack because the oil happened to come from off our coast or Anwar.

 

but we can at the very least only grant contracts to U.S. companies its easy just dont let foreign companies bid

 

I completely agree with you. As long as they keep giving the contracts to the lowest bidder we are going to continue to get what we are paying for.

 

Good, that's how capitalism is supposed to work.

I would prefer that a US oil company controls the oil, but if they don't, it still works out to our benefit. Other than US companies, the only other companies who could do it would be Total, BP, or Shell. I don't care where they ship the oil. Oil is a commodity. Any increase in supply relative to demand will lower the overall price. Because the oil is being produced on US soil (or US offshore), OUR government gets the tax revenue rather than sending it overseas. The jobs to do the drilling, support the infrastructure, etc. are also created here. Hopefully it is a US company, because the profits would be distributed among US shareholders.

Grim

 

There is a component of capitalism missing here. Competition.
We could suck oil out of Anwar and all three coasts all day long and still have high prices at the pump.
Why?
Our autos don't run on oil, they run on gasoline.
In 'supply and demand' supply gets bottlenecked when our refineries are running at 100%.

And I know Hannity sounds real convincing when he waves papers in the air and screams "no refineries built in US since the Seventies" and "democrats not allowing refineries to be built".

However, the Oil Companies have closed over two dozen refineries in the last thirty years. In 2004 Shell closed a California refinery which was it's highest profit producer.
Correction, they didn't close it....they demolished it.
I wonder why they didn't just sell it?

Could it be artificial manipulation of 'supply and demand'?
It can be done when there is no competition, only collusion.

 

Sitting on your hands does nothing. It's a true sign of weakness, and it's all because of the SIG that is lining the Dem's pockets.

 

Yes, like unions, who always support Democrats. I hate that about unions.

 

You should probably do a bit more research instead of recycling incorrect and/or outdated talking points.

Despite some refinery closings, US Refining capacity has increased over 10% since 1985 through the expansion of existing refineries.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mocleus2A.htm

There are several multi-million dollar refinery expansion projects going on right now. Expansions are much more popular than building new refineries because the environmental issues (and lawsuits) are much less problematic than a new refinery.

If you are talking about the Shell Bakersfield refinery, they originally planned to shut it down in 2004 but sold it to Flying J. As far as I know, it is still in operation.

Grim

 

You and I are in the same boat on this one---but ironically, two of the absolute largest SIG's are the NEA (National Education Association), and the military SIG's, as well---and you and I both, in a way, work for one or the other.

Tim C.

 

I'm voting Democrat because: I believe if you shoot your friend in the face, you should go to jail for it. - Og

 

You'll have to explain the math on this one.
Since 1985...
Capacity up 10%
Demand up 25%
So they choose to close 24 refineries?

 

Just remember, Raoul, it's all a conspiracy.