Archives

The US Senate is suggesting that all taxpayers get a $100 rebate to deal with rising gas prices. I'll wait on my opinion....

CNN Story (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html)

Heck yeah. Thats 3 months gas for me!

While I don't mind getting more money, I voted no because it encourages drivers to do what they are doing (nothing). This is just politics.

I agree that most people would squander the money. But I'll put it to good use.

I'd spend it on useless crap. I already get uber MPG :)

Rebates for buying hybrids, alt energy vehicles, putting a solar roof on your home seems like a better thing to do. In those instances, there is a chance the government is rewarding people for helping to solve the energy problem. An indiscriminate rebate does not demand behavior modification.

It could be a gas card instead of a check.

The $100 rebate is an idiotic idea in my opinion.

All the $100 would do is lessen the pain people feel because of the higher gas prices, and as far as I'm concerened there is no need to do that.

Feeling the pinch of higher prices can be a good motivator for encouraging people to reduce their fuel consumption.

I don't see what good it would do. Sure, of course I'd like $100. That's enough gas money to last me a month. But what price am I going to be paying for it down the road? Is it just going to drive our debt up even higher? Is that going to mean money taken out of a government program somewhere that might help someone who is in a worse state than I am? If so, then I don't want the money. Even if it were "free" I would rather see my $100 go toward real alt fuel development.

Now that I think about it more, it dawns on me that $100 for gas money would just end up as another subsidy for the oil companies. Conservation efforts would slow for a month while that money is used up, the price of gasoline goes up due to slightly higher demand, more record profits for Exxon-Mobil.

Again, I would much rather see the money used to develop alt fuels. $100 times, what, 200 million people is...$20 Billion. How much ethanol and biodiesel production capacity would that buy me?

That is really stupid. I voted NO!!! All politics :(

Some people that I know know that have not had a raise in the past 4-yrs. and looks like they are not going to get one in the yrs. to come.

So I am going with "Yes" on this. It will help/assist some Americans that do-not have alot of money left after paying their bills.

However, as most of you have pointed out already in your Post here. It is not going to change anything at all in the Bigger Scheme of things (IMO).

The $100 rebate is an idiotic idea in my opinion.

All the $100 would do is lessen the pain people feel because of the higher gas prices, and as far as I'm concerened there is no need to do that.

Feeling the pinch of higher prices can be a good motivator for encouraging people to reduce their fuel consumption.

DITTO!!!

Hi All:

___I voted no. Gasoline is already subsidized by the US government in multiple forms already. No sense adding to the pile imho.

US National Debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/):

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

The estimated population of the United States is 298,601,910
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,013.71.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.06 billion per day since September 30, 2005 …

___Not only is this one of the best threads to date; there are so many good responses! In my case, the total debt posted above drives me absolutely nuts!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

aren't you guys in enough debt already? like us ;O

Good article on why this is a dumb idea.

MSNBC OP-ED (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12521259/)

Some have suggested that this idea will be a serious candidate for "Bonehead of the Year - 2006"

Many politicans take bribes as a way of life. They think they can bribe the american public with our own tax money to vote them back into office because they gave us a $100. The bill most likely would be tied with other conditions to allow big oil to make even more money.

They need to fix the problem, not add to it.

GaryG

My first thought when I first heard it was, YES. Then, after thinking about it, I decided it would be bad. It would be an enablement for others' bad habbits.