Let's say instead of meddling politically in their affairs and invading, we chose to only engage in economic interaction with Middle Eastern countries. Most likely, we'd be paying more for gasoline. Would you be ok with that if it meant no war?
2007-01-26 10:59:05 · 20 answers · asked by trer 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Sick Puppy:
But the oil is under THEIR land! They can charge whatever they want. It's up to us not to buy it and find alternatives. Isn't that how capitalism works?
2007-01-26 11:13:41 · update #1
If it meant saving lives, yes.
HOWEVER, isn't it funny that the gas kings had the largest profit in their HISTORY over the summer when I was paying $30 to fill up my little Corolla?
2007-01-26 11:04:45 · answer #1 · answered by :-) 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. Because it doesn't work like this. Your example of only paying an additional 2 cents per gallon is laughable. You're talking about a tax on a tax. States often raise gas tax as a revenue source. You're also not saying anything about how raising the cost of gas affects every single price on every single other good and service. And maybe the gas tax only goes up 2 cents, but nothing else goes up at that rate along with it. You're also not talking about drilling here at the same time. You're also not talking about what reaction these foreign nations would take when they were running out of food and water. And since I think I know you, I'd say you're trying to make good on your water investments (wink).
2016-05-24 03:19:04 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would pay $10 but not willingly with or without war. And...if the issue is scarcity of oil...I would imagine that war won't fix that problem, but finding and alternative to oil would. (as if the incredibly advanced world of technology we have, hasn't already figured that one out. Can't wait to see who capitalizes on that one.) Anyway, if our gov. thinks spending billions on securing the access to what they claim to be a energy source that is dangerously in trouble of running out rather that figuring out what to do instead of using that energy source, then we will all unwillingly be paying $10/gallon for gas one day. This way, we are just prolonging the inevitable. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I would say I will start saving my money now, except that I work for a non-profit and make very little money because apparently the government doesn't find my job a priority either.
and by the way, no that can't charge whatever they want...its under their land, but the countries governement doesn't own it...
another thought...I would absolutly willingly pay $10 a gallon of gas if it meant that I wouldn't die in hopes of keeping it cheaper for all the rest of you. Call me selfish, but that is the question you just posed to some of those people out there...in the midst of this war...would you willingly die to keep oil prices lower for the rest of the country. I wouldn't, and I wouldn't want anyone I know and love to do it for me.
2007-01-26 12:17:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
View the question this way: If we spend $10/gal for the relief of the Middle Eastern blocs, then we are conversely destroying ourselves by paying that gas price. How many Americans can afford to buy gas at $10/gal? America has a large lower and middle-middle class which is constantly assaulted for money. We cannot afford the inflated gas price--so it's either us or them. War on!!
2007-01-26 11:09:00 · answer #4 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If it were as simple as that, I would be alright with a gallon costing $10. However, I wouldn't pay that price, because there is no way on Earth I could continue to fill up my car, pay my rent, and eat at the same time. Looks like I'll be walking....
2007-01-26 11:40:28 · answer #5 · answered by KS 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those extra 9 dollars profit would go into the hands of the Saudi's. I'd rather give up a day of driving each week.
This would be my solution:
Everyone in the country gets issued a new coloured licensed plate. You will get one of the seven coloured plates issued. Each colour plate represents a day of the week. Everyone will not be allowed to drive one day of the week based on their colour. If the police see that coloured plate on the road on that day of the week, you will get a ticket.
Not driving one day a week is a small price to pay for dependance on Saudi oil, especially if you could pick the day. It's sort of like lawn water restrictions, with odd and even house numbers
2007-01-26 11:08:24 · answer #6 · answered by Rockford 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes! Although even the $5-6 charged in other countries forces them to drive smaller cars with better gas mileage-not to mention we would be looking for alternatives. We are such oil hogs here in the US.
2007-01-26 11:34:03 · answer #7 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No I am not going to reduce my lifestyle to make lief easier on a bunch of blood thirsty terrorists.
I wish the war in Iraq was a war for oil.
Join my in the chant "blood for oil, blood for oil'.
The liberals have been accusing us of this for years lets make it a reality.
If we were to allow your childish little scenario to take place it would enrich them to the point that they could take over the USA and convert us to Islam which is their stated goal.
2007-01-26 12:08:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but I am afraid it isn't that simple. If it were, then I would think that the clever, inventive American people would begin to demand things like hydrogen fuel cells so we could get out from under these terrorists...Let's get oil-free! Who needs $10 gas?
2007-01-26 11:06:28 · answer #9 · answered by Ellie S 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is kinda hard. Yeah, I would say Yes I would be willing to pay the high price of gas if there was peace. I would think that that the government may give us a big tax break if that is the case!!!
2007-01-26 11:04:19 · answer #10 · answered by BOOTS! 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋