jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (70 posts)

$5.00's a gallon of gas?

  1. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Energy money RULES!
    Those who are dedicated to destroying the American economy KNOW that this is the way to bring us down...and they are doing it!
    The economy, being as it is today, if a barrel of "crude" rises to $180.00 - $190.00's, and gas rises to $5.00's a gallon, the cost of living will soar and America will suffer another catastrophic economic event!
    If our energy policy doesn't drastically change to the use of  energy sources other than "oil,"... well, you figure it out!!
    Qwark

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      this is utter nonsense.

      There is NO "ideal" price of gasoline or oil.

      A price is nothing more than what two people VOLUNTARILY AGREE to exchange for some good or service.

      Thus, if you're willing to pay $17.00 for a gallon of gas, that is the price.

      and the argument completely assumes that humans are brain-dead jackarses: as prices of fuel go up, we'll stop using fuel. It's that easy.

      And then, as we choose to use less oil, the demand drops, and so prices fall.

      Please learn a few economics lessons. A great book would be "Lessons for the Young Economist" by Robert Murphy.

      1. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Come on Evan, you know those rules don't apply so strictly to commodities. Your overall analysis is correct. However oil IS the basis of our economy and the rest of the developed worlds. Also like all commodities, the price of oil is speculative.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          CJ:
          I don't respond to him.
          I have developed a list of those who I consider not to be credible responders and won't respond to.

          Of course you are right.

          "If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere."

          Qwark

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Controlling the oil doesn't even work.

            There are COUNTLESS technologies out there that could EASILY side-step the entire "oil-monopoly" issue.

            IF there really WERE one man who owned ALL the oil in the world, he still couldn't charge $50.00/gallon. This is because, at those prices, I would just buy an electric car, or take a train to work, or ride a bicycle, etc etc.

            As an example, when gas prices shot up in the 80s, suddenly people began buying cars that got better gas mileage, car-pooled, and engaged in countless other behaviors to reduce their usage of gas.

            There is no such thing as a true monopoly.

            1. profile image61
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You would take a train with wooden seats? Plastic is made from OIL. Of course you could avoid plastic, increase the weight of the train and therefore loose effeciency. Oil is EVERYWHERE.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Before there was plastic, god said to the world: LET THERE BE STEEL!!!!!!

                Now there is silicone!!!

                And wood isn't so bad!!

                1. profile image61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Missing the point totally. Oil is not only a huge industry. It has created a huge underlying industry. It's everywhere. To re-tool and re-direct is NOT as easy as everyone seems to think. Can it be done? Of course it can. The idea that alternatives will be cheaper is an exageration at best.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Are you espousing that Supply and Demand don't apply to commodities?

          ... because that's nonsense.

          A price is nothing more than how much X is willing to give Y for Z: If you agree to give $5.00 for a gallon of gasoline, that's the price.

          As prices go up, alternatives become more economical. What would you rather do - pay $10.00 for gas in a car that gets 20 MPG, or pay the price of electricity for an electric car that completely side-steps the issue of gasoline altogether.

          This "oil is the backbone of our economy" argument is nonsense. As prices on oil go up, alternatives become better options. This creates a downward pressure on prices (decreased demand).

          Also a grossly overlooked mistake in this forum (even i missed it the first time i went through here) is that the dollar is worth less. Money is ALSO subjected to supply and demand - if you increase the amount of money in an economy, the prices HAVE to go up.

          1. profile image61
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I never spoke in absolutes. Oil is basicly the world currency. In that sense it's not a commodity at all, it's money. The price of oil is SPECULATIVE. That means when oil's listed price per barrel is $110.00. It DOES NOT mean that that's what barrels are being sold at today. The truth about this is not understood very well. Further corrections are NOT made. In other words if the price is speculated at $110.00. The price at the pump goes up(MOST TIMES), however cost in manufacturing do not, unless the speculated price is reached. Many times that does not happen. It leaves a market open to manipulation.

            All of this happens with all commodities. However with Oil, it has a greater effect. Everyone uses oil in the developed world.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Try going to the store to buy a candy bar and give the guy your used oil.

              That'll show you whether or not Oil is money.

              Yes, oil is important! But it is not the end-all to life on Earth. As prices go up, alternatives to it become more enticing.

              If it EVER costs me a day's paycheck to re-fuel my car, I'm definitely investing in a different means of transportation.

              1. profile image61
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "As prices go up, alternatives to it become more enticing."

                In regards to oil, history disagrees. Oil is not simply "GASOLINE". I think you have even made that assertion.

                Oil and the candybar? Just wait, the FED's not done yet.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In the first fuel crisis in the 1970s, when the price o petrol went up towards £1 a gallon, everybody said they'd stop buying petrol when it reached £1 a gallon.
        It reached £1 a gallon and some people did stop buying it, but not so many as you'd really notice.
        Did the oil companies lower their prices? No, they spotted that they had the genuine petrol heads on board and just raised their prices to make up their "lost profits".

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So.... people didn't want to give up their cars...  and that's the oil companies' fault?

          Sounds more like there weren't any good alternatives; the higher prices, while not deterring people from driving altogether, encouraged people to be more frugal; and the higher prices likely (if the higher prices did NOT lead to profits) led people to either invest in alternatives to fuel, or (if the increased prices led to profits) invest in fuel production.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Did I say it was the fault of the oil companies?

            You've hit the spot though, people don't want to give up their cars therefore the normal rules of supply and demand do no apply. Witness the many people who run cars when every logical thought should tell them that food is more important.

            Increased prices may encourage some to be more frugal but not to eliminate the expense. Therefore, they leave themselves open to profiteering.

            How does those without surplus income invest in any thing?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You're telling me that if gasoline cost $10.00/gallon (what's that, like 2 pounds per liter?), then people wouldn't try to get smaller cars, use different modes of transportation, or begin investing in things like electric cars or whatever?

              I simply must disagree. Humans aren't slaves to oil. When it was first talked about, oil was nothing but a nuisance to people. "oh crap, oil's coming out of my lawn again! there goes my crops!"

              If oil does become expensive, other things will become better choices.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Evan petrol in the UK is already in excess of $10 n a gallon. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your predictions that people  would move to cheaper forms of transport.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Most of the cost of oil in the UK is due to taxes.

                  If you compare US car sizes and gas consumption to the UK, then my argument actually holds credence.

                  Europe's are about 1 ton
                  http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 645AAhOrQz

                  and the US's are 2 tons
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/busin … eight.html

                  Thus the US uses twice as much gas as you guys do, at least. (KE =1/2 m v ^2)

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But car sizes have always been smaller in the UK than in the US and fuel has always been dearer so I don't see that your argument does hold credence.

      3. tritrain profile image75
        tritrainposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm willing to pay 12 cents.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Gasoline is too cheap in the U.S. Cheap gas encourages waste--huge gas guzzling SUVs used by one person to drive to the grocery store. In 2008 gasoline was $11/gallon in the UK thanks to high taxes. If we want to encourage fuel efficient motor vehicles the gasoline tax should be raised gradually to European levels or a vehicle weight tax should be applied. This would encourage people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

      1. profile image61
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        WOW.  Land mass UK = 94,251 sq mi. US = 3,794,083 sq mi.    Population UK = 60,270,708  US = 293,027,570.
        Population Density UK = 646 people per sq mi US = 83 per sq mi.

        So we can see that your comparison not sound. It's comparing apples to oranges. Obviously the US relies on the automobile to a greater extent because of logistics and geography. Not simply waste as you would infer.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Most of it is waste. Our cars are too heavy and burn much more fuel than needed. Car use does differ a bit from Europe, however, we need to get used to the idea of small cars and smaller houses which are also big contributors to energy waste and greenhouse gases.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why is it assumed naturally that government can reduce waste?

        How is it at any level logic to clamor against "waste" by increasing costs, and thus wasting wealth in other areas?

        For example: "we waste too much gasoline! let's increase the price" -- all you're doing is forcing people to sacrifice spending in other domains. You're wasting that burrito the people WOULD have bought instead of the gas.

        What about water? Lord knows I waste a lot of that. Should we raise prices?

        Going further, why is it just naturally assumed that the GOVERNMENT should be the means to increase price?

        Obviously it's nonsense.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "For example: "we waste too much gasoline! let's increase the price" -- all you're doing is forcing people to sacrifice spending in other domains. "

          Wait, I thought you said that if the price got too high, people would stop buying the stuff?

          "as prices of fuel go up, we'll stop using fuel. It's that easy.

          And then, as we choose to use less oil, the demand drops, and so prices fall."

          Yeah, something like that. So, if the price goes high, people will stop using gas and buy electric cars, right?

          Oh, wait, the price of those new hybrids and electrics are high enough to price a lot of people out of the market, thus requiring them to hang on to the car they already have, or buy a used one (which still uses gas).

          As the price of oil (and gas) goes up (for whatever reason) it's the poor that will suffer, as more and more of their income will have to go toward getting back and forth to work, and less and less of it will be able to go toward food, clothing, shelter, or saving up for an alternative fuel vehicle.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Wait, I thought you said that if the price got too high, people would stop buying the stuff?"

            Indeed, but in order to get there, it takes time. The economy has to restructure. They will initially lose wealth (stop buying other things), and then begin to get rid of their oil-crutch.

            "Oh, wait, the price of those new hybrids and electrics are high enough to price a lot of people out of the market, thus equiring them to hang on to the car they already have, or buy a used one (which still uses gas)."

            Busses still exist. And public transportation would very likely increase in profits.

            "As the price of oil (and gas) goes up (for whatever reason) it's the poor that will suffer"

            actually, everyone will suffer. Mr. Burns won't be able to buy that Ivory Back Scratcher.

            I'm sorry we don't live in the Garden of Eden anymore, but Scarcity exists. And prices help ration out the scarce resources to their best uses.

    3. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Obama administration is doing everything it can to increase energy prices. Obama in his own words said this would be necessary in order to develop alternate sources of energy like Ethanol (which even green groups have said is a bad idea) and wind and solar, as well as implementing his cap and trade agenda to stop global climate change (Ha!).

      My question is with gas averaging 3.07 a gallon nationwide, why isn't the press attacking Obama on this? The went after Bush with a vengeance when gas rose over 3 dollars on his watch, and now they are suddenly silent and accepting. Hmmmm

  2. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 6 years ago

    And why would Big Oil want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?  If they destroy our economy, who will buy their black sludge in the ground?  The Chinese?

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Quill:
      I'll play the devils advocate.
      What concerns me is that islamic nations have their thumbs on the oil industry.
      "Oil" controls the worlds economy.
      It is the "vocalized" intent of "islam" to rule the human population and convert ALL to islam.
      That can only be done in one way i.e. make America a 3rd world nation and convert it, FORCEFULLY, to islam.
      What say you?
      Qwark

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I say thank you, Quark, for your opinions and thank you again for asking for mine.
        In your original post, you spoke about the price of gas and its affect on the American economy but, it seems, you are also concerned about Islamic domination.
        You will find my reply in a new hub entitled Allah vs. The Price Of Gas.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Quill:
          I'll read it and comment.
          t
          Thanks
          Qwark

        2. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Quill:
          I dug deeper into this subject.
          I spent a couple hours on "Google" looking at this oil problem from every angle.
          The most inmpressive information I found was written by Norman D. Livergood. Here's the site:  http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm It is an eye opener!
          I could go on about the islamic threat by offering verses from the Qur'an which tout world domination of Islams belief in "allah," but that would be redundant.
          Oil is King!
          ""If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere."
          There is a universal oil cabal that understands, far better than we, how to gain power and control over the human populace.
          I read your "hub." It was well written but only scratched the surface of "truth."
          Qwark  smile:

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        qwark, most of our oil comes form Canada and the UK, doesn't it?

  3. I am DB Cooper profile image72
    I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago

    They don't want to push prices too far, because every time American's get scared of gas prices they start thinking about hybrid and electric cars, and for the first time there will actually be a decent number of fully electric cars on the market by the time they're predicting $5/gallon gas.

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      DB:
      Hybrid cars are much too expensive for the "average" American to buy.
      Qwark

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ... and yet we want to make gasoline more expensive....

  4. melpor profile image88
    melporposted 6 years ago

    I am not really surprise about this $5.00 a gallon news. I read about this in the paper recently that we will be paying that amount in the United States by 2012. We are simply catching up with the rest of world with this gas price thing and it is going to get worse since it is getting harder to extract oil from the ground since oil reservoirs are getting dry and harder to found over dry land. This is why more of the world oil is being extracted from reservoirs located under the oceans. This process is much more expensive than drilling for oil over dry land.

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Melpor:
      Americas energy policies have to change.
      We've been talking about this for 20 - 30 yrs, yet haven't done it because the "oil" industry controls world politics.
      Money talks BS walks.
      I'm sure there is a worldly, Rothschilds generated cabal that is determined to gain total dominion over world economics and people.
      Qwark

      1. melpor profile image88
        melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Qwark, everyone policies would have to change eventually. There is a limited supply of oil in this world and one day it will run out. We will be forced to find other ways to supply energy to our transportation system and that is something the oil company cannot control. It is not about oil monopoly.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Melpor:
          Oh I disagree 100%!
          There IS an oil monopoly that is, at this moment, controlling the economy along with the world banks and the private federal reserve system.
          Of course there is a limit to the amount of "crude" that can be produced, but there is NO limit to the #'s of potential, less costly energy rich possibilites we could be drawing from if it weren't for the vast amounts of $ available to the oil barons to squelch any such attempts.
          Lets give it a few more yrs and see what is produced.
          My view is extreme pessimism.
          I hope I'm wrong.
          Qwark

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There is NO monopoly.

            BP lost billions of dollars, and other companies exist that reaped the benefits.

            MONO poly.

            MONO.

            Your "extreme pessimism" is entirely misplaced, and any economic textbook will show you the correct answer.

  5. Bill Manning profile image72
    Bill Manningposted 6 years ago

    I can go a month with one tankful of gas since I work at home. So it does not scare me much, but I can understand about the average joe. smile

  6. Kangaroo_Jase profile image80
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 6 years ago

    I know that the economies are different between the US and Australia, but we have been paying near US$5.00 a gallon in Australia for about 3 years now.

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jase:
      To me that is a criminal rip-0ff!
      If it goes up that hi here, everything else will follow and we can't afford the absurdity of that level of greed by the oil barons!
      Qwark  sad:

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        most of that cost in Australia and Europe are taxes by government.

        Please acknowledge that you called a government intervention in the market "a criminal rip-off". I agree with that 100%. But you place the blame on "oil barons", which is inaccurate.

        Please begin to embrace anarchy.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And those folks get more from their governments in terms of services than we do in the US.

  7. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

    where i am  in Canada i've been paying over $1.00 a litre for some time and paid $1.20 this week (approx. $4.80 a gal)...we're already paying outrageous prices and the gas and oil is produced in Canada and goes south for a cheaper price....hmmmmmmm.........my 2 cents....doesn't make sense does it?

  8. profile image66
    logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago

    There is plenty of oil!
    What is driving the price is speculators.  The see the economy improving and they want to get ahead of the curve. This drives more interest and more speculation.  It's all a money game on paper not tied to real supply and demand.  That's why it went to more than $100 a barrel a couple of years ago and that's were we are headed now.  Don't blame the oil companies except for the extent they are putting money in the market.  Blame the people in the financial sector.

  9. imatellmuva profile image83
    imatellmuvaposted 6 years ago

    An increase in gas prices equals an increase in the cost of all commodities.

    Anyone remember the 1973 sci-fi movie "Soylent Green" with Charlton Heston? This movie depicts life in the year 2022, and the continued decline of the economy, and how people must now survive on processed food rations, one of which is soylent green.

    If you're familiar with the movie, then you know, and as Charlton Heston said, "Soylent Green is people!!!".

    However, far-fetched this may seem, we aren't terribly far from the year 2022. If gas prices continue to climb, and other commodities because of it, then we are headed for failure, and more than a breakdown. I'm concerned...I don't want to eat people!! :0

  10. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 6 years ago

    What they need to do is threaten to ban all oil products from being traded on the stock market, and you will see oil prices drop like a rock. This is something that has been going on for far too long, and people who trade in these stocks should be ashamed of themselves, as they are partly to blame for the constant screwing that oil companies are pushing on the world.

    If it were me, and I were president of the United States, I would put a price freeze on all oil coming in or out of the U.S. at around $1.50 a gallon. How our government seems to think, that the current price of gas is reasonable, have never had a part time job.

    I remember when gas was up near $4.00 a gallon, people had to quit their jobs, because it cost them more to drive back and forth to work then they earned in a week. That was before they raised the minimum wage from $4.95 to $7.00.

    I remember having to work 8 hours at $13.00 an hour in a week just to pay for the gas to get to work. People who run the oil companies, and the government that kisses their asses needs to wake up, before it's too late.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Fortunately for America, neither the US stock market nor the Presidency functions the way you think it does.  As stated in my hub Allah vs. The Price of Gas, “Although oil plays a major role in the short-term view of future world economies, analysts generally agree oil will hit its peak at some point between 2015 and 2030.”

      But those living in fear higher gasoline prices may find more comfort in another recent study of the USA and seven other industrialized countries. It reveals that the past trends of more people in more automobiles driving greater distances actually ended soon after the start of the current millennium.  Some researchers now suggest that demand for new cars in these countries may be reaching the saturation point.

      Most of the eight nations in the study had declines in per capita miles traveled by car.  The US seems to have peaked around 8,100 miles per year and Japan has been pretty steady at 2,500 miles per year.  Another data source for 2001 reveals that each household in the USA had 1.06 vehicles for each licensed driver. http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org/files … ll_Doc.pdf

  11. frogdropping profile image84
    frogdroppingposted 6 years ago

    That sounds a tough hike on the price. Currently, in the UK the price for a gallon is around $8.30 - and we pay it. And we're not getting the worth either. Most of what we pay at the tank goes in taxes. Less than half of it is for the gas itself.

    1. Misha profile image73
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Surely those are evil oil companies that set such high taxes wink

      1. frogdropping profile image84
        frogdroppingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I don't know they're evil Misha. Reckon they're just profit hunting. Businesses do that. They roll in it, we roll it out our wallets. I'm just waiting for someone to jump in with blaming it on the socialists or whatever smile

        Right - I am going to collect my long awaited office desk that will go with my equally long awaited office chair that I got yesterday.

        Look - I'm excited about office furniture big_smile

  12. Wayne Orvisburg profile image80
    Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago

    All I know is, I have a really far drive to work and haven't been able to find anything closer yet. And since my house has dropped in value I can't sell it right now. SO, What to do?

    I'm glad I didn't sell my motorcycle! However, it is WAY too cold to use it right now. SO hopefully prices can stay close to where they are for a while. Although it did jump .13 this morning.

  13. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    highest USD 3.25 (Shell) and lowest 2.78 here at Dallas, TX

    Average 2.9 in TX

  14. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    Dear gov't - mass transit

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately the motoring lobby is too strong, they object to mass transit schemes saying the money would be better spent on more roads,that mass transit takes up valuable road space.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sure, the lobby is "too strong"...

        but why does the lobby exist in the first place? It costs LOTS of money for a company to hire 3-4 people to just sit in DC trying to get funding from the State.

        Why does lobbying exist? Because the government is stupid enough to dish the money out!!

        And why shouldn't they? The state gets its money through theft, then it has little to no incentive to spend the money properly!

        I demand competition of government.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lobbying is not restricted to governments, anybody who puts pressure on another to change behavior could be said to be lobbying. Even when the government is the target of lobbying it isn't always done by professionals, a private group of people petitioning the government could be said to be lobbying. It would still exist without government.

          The state gets its money though theft! [Yawn]

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're exactly right. I agree with this completely.

            The problem, once again, is that our government (The US) breaks it's own law.

            The Tenth Amendment:
            "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

            in conjunction with article 1 section 8 clearly makes just about everything our government pays for illegal.

            1. profile image61
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Except for? Come on Evan I want to hear it from you. For what does the Fed have authority to tax?

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The Fed = the federal reserve.

                They have the power to create money, which is a tax.

                If the supply of money increases, it's value decreases.

                But if you're talking about the FEDeral government, then here's the first part of Article 1 Section 8.

                "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

                This is what the taxes are allowed to pay for. That's. that's the entirety of what our money can be paid for.

                "General Welfare" is actually limit on the government (Read the federalist papers #41), and the term is defined by the rest of Section 8.

                And then Section 9 shows how money is NOT allowed to be collected.

                "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (this was amended by the 16th amendment)

                "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

                and... there you have it.

                The government is not allowed to lay direct taxes, except an income tax (because of the 16th amendment).

                1. Doug Hughes profile image61
                  Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

                  Do you think the physical health of people could be considered ''General Welfare'?

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No, of course not. "general welfare" is outlined later in section 8, and no where is physical health of the masses mentioned.

                    Part of "The Federalist #41", By James Madison, the Father of the Constitution:

                    "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

                    Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

                    But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.


                    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

                    Translation:

                    "People don't want to agree to the Constitution because they're afraid that 'general welfare' will come to mean 'anything the government wants'... But they're wrong. We expressly limit this 'general welfare' clause by the rest of section 8. And thus 'general welfare' is actually a FURTHER limit on government power: when the government pays for something it can NOT be for the benefit of only a small portion of the governed."

                    James Madison is ACTUALLY saying that it is LUDICROUS, absolutely POINTLESS and HOPELESS, and IDIOTIC to even THINK that "the general welfare" could POSSIBLY mean "anything under the sun".

                    If you think my terms are harsh, I apologize. But he's actually insulting the literacy of the people arguing that "general welfare" means "anything that can benefit the population":

                    "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

        2. profile image66
          logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Part of the problem is we have government lobbying government.
          City government will lobby state and federal government and state government will lobby federal government.
          Why do they need lobbyists?  Aren't we supposed to have elected officials to represent us at each level?

 
working