Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

$100 Gas Rebate for Tax Payers


Recommended Posts

A $100 bribe to tax payers to allow oil drilling to commence in Alaska.

Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

So Republican Senators want to give us each $100 for gas in exchange for looking the other way while they drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. This is essentially a sweet candy coating wrapped around small pellets of rabbit feces.

Also, $100 isn't much, if I spent all of that on gas it would last me two weeks and leave me with enough money for a coke.

Link to comment

But I do love slurpies.

A true American!

Anyway, anyone who would be bribed like this is crazy. $100 is really not that much money. Hell, just the other day I spent like $30 to fill up my tank halfway. So, if that filling was any indication, $100 would be useless to me. I mean, sure, it would help... But it'd be gone so fast that it wouldn't even matter.

Throw in the fact that, well, drilling in the artic is something that's going to stay with us forever.

Link to comment

In 2003 we had 130,000,000 individual tax returns filed. So, let's see.

130,000,000 x $100 = $13,000,000,000

$13 billion to buy a few tanks of gas for every taxpayer in the country. What good does this do? How about putting $13B into research of alternative fuels?

morons.

Yeah, really. It's pretty retarded.

A slurpy certainly would sweeten the deal though...

Link to comment

To be honest, I'll look the other way because I coudn't give a damn about some wildlife. I need whatever money I can get at this time in my life, and if some species of wildlife that doesn't benefit my way of life in any way has to die, so be it.

I live in the city, so the only animals I see out here are stray dogs and gangsters, so it really doesn't phase me.

Link to comment

To be honest, I'll look the other way because I coudn't give a damn about some wildlife. I need whatever money I can get at this time in my life, and if some species of wildlife that doesn't benefit my way of life in any way has to die, so be it.

I live in the city, so the only animals I see out here are stray dogs and gangsters, so it really doesn't phase me.

:dry:

Link to comment

To be honest, I'll look the other way because I coudn't give a damn about some wildlife. I need whatever money I can get at this time in my life, and if some species of wildlife that doesn't benefit my way of life in any way has to die, so be it.

I live in the city, so the only animals I see out here are stray dogs and gangsters, so it really doesn't phase me.

I don't think you understand the problem. Drilling in the arctic-whatever-that-thing-is-called is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Basically, yes, if we run out of oil, I would support drilling there. But we haven't run out of oil. We have 40 years until current supplies run out, and if we get started sooner, so much the better.

But what are we getting started on, you ask? Alternative energy. We're going to need it. Drilling in the arctic may give us another twenty years, another century, and maybe we'll find other oil deposits -- but the fact is that someday we are going to run out of oil. And the fact is, oil does more important things for society than power your personal car. Like electricity? Like plastic? Both depend on oil (well, obviously electricity doesn't, but I believe about 40% of the U.S.'s electricity comes from oil).

So, I say, why not let the animals be? As you say, they don't affect your life at all, so why kill them if we don't have to? Because we really don't have to. We do have to get rid of our dependency on oil for renewable sources of energy anyway, so why not just leave the arctic alone and get our green energies on?

Link to comment

I don't think you understand the problem. Drilling in the arctic-whatever-that-thing-is-called is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Basically, yes, if we run out of oil, I would support drilling there. But we haven't run out of oil. We have 40 years until current supplies run out, and if we get started sooner, so much the better.

But what are we getting started on, you ask? Alternative energy. We're going to need it. Drilling in the arctic may give us another twenty years, another century, and maybe we'll find other oil deposits -- but the fact is that someday we are going to run out of oil. And the fact is, oil does more important things for society than power your personal car. Like electricity? Like plastic? Both depend on oil (well, obviously electricity doesn't, but I believe about 40% of the U.S.'s electricity comes from oil).

So, I say, why not let the animals be? As you say, they don't affect your life at all, so why kill them if we don't have to? Because we really don't have to. We do have to get rid of our dependency on oil for renewable sources of energy anyway, so why not just leave the arctic alone and get our green energies on?

If only we could get enough people out of thier delusional nuclearphobic mindset. We'd be well on our way to doing just that.

Link to comment

You know, think what you want about me, but there is no way I would put a souless animal ahead of my own livelihood, and I sure as hell wouldn't suffer for something that could possibly eat me alive.

Sure, the wildlife is great, but we need to focus on survival, on a mortal and fiscal level; I am a firm believer that animals were put on the earth to nourish mankind, not for them to stare at it and hug a tree and scream like a little girl when someone goes to hunt for it.

What it boils down to is who you care for more, an animal or your fellow man, and I for one care for my fellow man.

Link to comment

Chernobyl FTL.

Err... The Soviets fucked up Chernobyl. They didn't take proper safety precautions, so when they had a meltdown it fucked over the entire area. Nuclear plants everywhere else in the world are incredibly safe and far cleaner than burning coal. France relies almost 100% on nuclear power.

It's because the Soviets half assed their nuclear power attempt that the rest of the world is deathly afraid of using nuclear power when it is a far more efficient and plentiful power source than any other in the world right now.

Link to comment

Err... The Soviets fucked up Chernobyl. They didn't take proper safety precautions, so when they had a meltdown it fucked over the entire area. Nuclear plants everywhere else in the world are incredibly safe and far cleaner than burning coal. France relies almost 100% on nuclear power.

It's because the Soviets half assed their nuclear power attempt that the rest of the world is deathly afraid of using nuclear power when it is a far more efficient and plentiful power source than any other in the world right now.

As far as I know, the distaster happened while they were doing a maintenance check at around 2:15AM, and they weren't even doing anything major. I just don't want to be near any type of nuclear plant, so that if this mistake happens again (which it will eventually, no matter how "safe" anything is), I won't die like everyone else that was within 50 miles of the blast site.

If nuclear sites are kept in designated, isolated zones that have little to no chance of effecting the public, than I say full steam ahead for a full conversion for everyone, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Link to comment

nuclear power plants cause fewer deaths than coal mining. when they blow, its big, but CHernobyl is really the only example, and they weren't smart about how they ran it. On the ANWR thing, i say save it till we need it. if the Middle East gets really screwed up, or if demand keeps skyrocketing, there may come a time when we need that oil to keep us going until we can switch over to other sources. Until we really need it, we shouldn't use it. i would rather not use it, but if we have to, we have to.

Also, I support other sources besides nuclear power for electricity. Solar can help relieve some problems, as can hydroelectric (I live near Nigara Falls, that's our local power plant)

Link to comment

As far as I know, the distaster happened while they were doing a maintenance check at around 2:15AM, and they weren't even doing anything major. I just don't want to be near any type of nuclear plant, so that if this mistake happens again (which it will eventually, no matter how "safe" anything is), I won't die like everyone else that was within 50 miles of the blast site.

They also had no containment chamber, hence the reason there was a disaster at all. It would have been greatly minimized had the meltdown been contained, but apparently they oversaw that one little detail while building the plant.

Link to comment

nuclear power plants cause fewer deaths than coal mining. when they blow, its big, but CHernobyl is really the only example, and they weren't smart about how they ran it. On the ANWR thing, i say save it till we need it. if the Middle East gets really screwed up, or if demand keeps skyrocketing, there may come a time when we need that oil to keep us going until we can switch over to other sources. Until we really need it, we shouldn't use it. i would rather not use it, but if we have to, we have to.

Also, I support other sources besides nuclear power for electricity. Solar can help relieve some problems, as can hydroelectric (I live near Nigara Falls, that's our local power plant)

The thing is, it's easier for you to rely on a secondary source of energy than it is for someone like myself, living in a city where a majority of the buildings are over 100 years old and were built to rely on lower scale sources of energy like coal, oil and gasoline. The layout of Trenton allows for little to no expansion, furthermore, employing hydroelectricity into the Delaware is impossible thanks to the dumping that was done years ago; the pollution would corrode any type of machinery trying to process the water into energy.

I wish I still had that picture of the mutated fish that I found on the Pennsylvania side of the river when I was watching flood over with some friends years ago. That picture alone would scare anyone into jumping into that river for any type of work, as a matter of fact, the city actually made it illegal to even go down to the water level anymore if your not planning on using a boat.

Trying to get an area like this hyped up for solar energy is next to impossible, and without the publics backing on that issue, a polititian would never carry that bill to the state house. Thus, we need to get as much oil as possible from any alternative location since we are never going to realize the crisis until gas is 6$ a gallon and electricity is too expensive for the lower class to afford.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...