Trump's bad behavior has caused the problem. Now he wants to increase the deficit and diminish road maintenance and other things.
Example # 714285 of bad governance.
Example # 714285 of bad governance.
POLL: Trump Wants to Cut Federal Gasoline Taxes. Do You Agree?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Don’t agree. That doofus made the bed, so sleep in it.
So we are going to defer maintenance on infrastructure to ameleriorate for his pointless war?
Yeah, f.uck all that.
Yeah, f.uck all that.
No fiscally conservative voter should support this measure as it deepens the national debt to make his mistakes look less egregious.
I think, at this point, we should be aware that there is almost no such thing as a fiscally conservative voter. Or if there is, they vote for Democrats.
Also further draining the Strategic Oil Reserve I believe
The head of the Saudi Aramco oil company warned Monday the global oil market will lose around 100 million barrels every week if disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz continue at the current rate. Amin Nasser also warned that global supplies of gasoline and jet fuel could reach “critically low levels” by summer unless Iran allows shipping lanes to reopen.
Here in the United States, Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley said Monday he’s introducing legislation that would suspend federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. Gas is currently taxed at 18.4 cents per gallon, diesel at just over 24 cents. Hawley’s bill would suspend them entirely for 90 days, depriving the Treasury of billions of dollars of tax revenue. This comes after the Trump administration released a record 8.6 million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve last week in a bid to lower U.S. gas prices, which have soared to an average of more than $4.50 a gallon.
not necessarily either. The federal government takes about $30 or so $$billion a year from gas taxes...The infrastructure bill $1.2 trillion only about 378 billion has been obligated so far. So all the federal government has to do is shift some things around and it would be no problem. The government's accounting system is not strictly a debit/credit annual system.
Yeah I'm sure they'll totally shift things around in an efficient, helpful manner. This administration is well known for their competence.
So you're saying he could continue to support roads and bridges and stuff by taking money from other projects. You're probably right.
So those other projects will suffer. We'll get roads but not hospitals (or whatever).
Not much of a silver lining.
And still an unwise increase in the deficit.
@baltimorened is one of the 3 (or so) best 3 x Trump voters from before the great migration. But one thing he's nearly incapable of doing is simply saying that Trump or the GOP did something wrong; it's typically accomanied with one of:
- Unrelated information that obfuscates responsibility
- Painting the misdeed in a better light than it deserves
- Pointing out a vaguely related thing Democrats have done in the past
[per Gemini]
At the current level of ~393 million barrels, the reserve is near its lowest point since the mid-1980s, though it remains above the 2023 low of 347 million barrels.
[also per Gemini]
Unlike the permanent sales seen in 2022, the current 2026 releases are structured as loans (exchanges). Energy companies that borrow this oil are required to return it with a "premium" (extra oil)....
At the current level of ~393 million barrels, the reserve is near its lowest point since the mid-1980s, though it remains above the 2023 low of 347 million barrels.
[also per Gemini]
Unlike the permanent sales seen in 2022, the current 2026 releases are structured as loans (exchanges). Energy companies that borrow this oil are required to return it with a "premium" (extra oil)....
Sounds like Seminole97 from HROT.
In the sort of defense of our native conservatives, a non-negligible number will say "this particular thing is stupid and not what I voted for but he's infinite better than [Problematic Name for Kamala Harris]"
Ours are just to ashamed to vote when the results are public.
Oh wow, this is the first time I've ever noticed that. One of my "favorite" posters voted "Mostly Disagree" because, while they can acknowledge that the whole thing is asinine, they can't ever fully ignore that it helps their individual bottom line.
This wreaks of desperation for midterm votes. Drumpf can never admit he was wrong about anything. This is just another version of him doubling down on his stupid war of choice..
Like biden emptying the strategic reserves prior to mid terms level of desperation?
what I'm saying , in effect, is that the government can't spend all the money it has in a period where a $30 billion loss of revenue would either increase the deficit or eliminate or reduce support for roads and bridges.
so, what makes you think that what has been done, or would done by temporarily eliminating the gas tax is wrong?
All you have to do is Google how much money the government has uncommitted to see that there is so much slack in the system that a $30 billion reduction in revenues over a period of years - in our government - is relatively insignificant
So the post I responded to said "more to the deficit and less for infrastructure". I posted neither is necessarily accurate. That's not painting a misdeed, or obfuscating anything. It' simply a fact. If you understood the federal system you'd know that to be accurate.
We will have less money than we would have at a time when we're running deficits. Something somewhere will suffer. Yeah, maybe they'll cut somewhere that's not infrastructure but your pointing that out isn't particularly helpful towards anything.
You miss my point completely. You obviously think that federal government budgets - revenues in and expenses out - are similar to a family budget or even normal budgets. I did too, until my time in the Pentagon building budgets. I can see that your mind is made up. Not a problem I'll just give up trying to explain something that you'll never accept.
This is the first comment that I've made on this, how do you know my mind is made? Help me understand how we can cut revenues without increasing the debt or cutting spending?
If you're arguing there's slush, there's still less slush than there would have been.
If you're arguing there's slush, there's still less slush than there would have been.
Folks you have to LISTEN to Trump here. Sure the Feds only have an 18 cents tax on gas, but according to Trump this tax holiday will cut gas prices in almost in half taking them down from about $4.50 a gallon to less than $2 a gallon. IN HALF!!! That's an almost 700% savings!! Don't let the libtards fool you and TRUST in Trump!
Remember that Trump counts statistics differently
Remember that Trump counts statistics differently
OKI, I'm dumb enough to try....first of all infrastructure money is appropriated for five years. That means it can be committed anytime during that five years and it doesn't actually get spent for 5-10 years (sometimes longer) There is still uncommitted money sitting in the treasury 4 years after the bill was passed - I believe it's in the 350 billion range. So that means there's that much money from a 2022 bill that is "unspoken for". That means that money has another couple of years to be committed and than likely another 5-10 years before it is actually spent. It's not a deficit or debt until it's spent. (kind of like a debit card...you can include the amount in your net worth until you actually spend it). In effect, the government has not only been unable to commit money (contract) much less spend all the money that was appropriated in 2022.
So now Trump ends the gas tax for a year. So yes the government is out that $30 billion. But it still has $$ left from 2022 that it hasn't committed anywhere. So there's not necessarily any addition to the debt because we still have tons of money sitting there uncommitted/unspent which is not counted in debt - we haven't spent it. And to top it off we have up to 10 years before it's likely spent.
Why it won't affect construction of bridges and roads? We can't spend the money on bridges and roads we have now.
Hope that makes sense.
It makes sense and I'm not saying you're wrong. It still sounds to me, though, like this is $30 billion (or whatever it is) that the government could have spent at some point and now cannot.
Perhaps the impacts aren't seen for a decade but they will still happen. Right?
could at some point, but with minimum impact. The government wastes more than $30 billion in a couple of months. Likely won't be $30 billion either unless it's eliminated for a year.
I'm not wild about it being ignorable just because it's a drop up the bucket. I think the Somali fraud stuff was a lot less than $30B and you were pretty upset about that.
Not saying you are referring to me, but I voted mostly because this was the first I had heard of the proposal and contemplated it for all of 5 seconds before I voted, and always have reducing the tax burden on the American people on my mind. Gas prices have a negligible effect on my individual bottom line and aren’t a big factor in my decisions, so that’s not it. Given the timing of it all and thinking on it more, I would strongly disagree. And as you know, I disagree with a lot of what Trump and the republicans do (mostly pointing that out for the new people).
Last edited:
I think I get what you are saying: shifting idle money to where it's needed now. Makes sense. But at the end of the day, that money is gone and because we voluntarily slashed revenues through the tax cut, that money won't be there when it's time to proceed on the original purpose for that money.
[I'm also not sure there's ever appreciable "idle money" sitting around (actual money, as opposed to numbers on a spread sheet), but that's a different question, and I'm willing to imagine there is for this thought experiment.]
Last edited: