"We have a deal. It's a deal worse than even we imagined possible. It's a deal that gives the Iranian regime $140b in return for ... effectively nothing: no dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, no anytime/anywhere inspections, no curbs on Iran's ballistic missile program, no maintenance of the arms embargo, no halt to Iran's sponsorship of terror."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/very-good-deal-iran_990662.htmlSo which is it, you want lower oil prices and more oil usage or higher oil prices and less oil usage? We could have lower oil prices without giving Iran the clear path to a nuclear weapon, why do you support the latter?
I'm not inclined to give the Weekly Standard much in the way of credibility. At least not since their editor, Bill Kristol, cheered for the Iraq war and casually dismissed the idea that there was any ethnic tension between Sunni and Shiitte muslims.
Fixed!
Oil company makes 8 cents a gallon. (approx)
Fed makes 40 cents a gallon. (approx)
On every gallon of fuel sold in America.
A lot of people don't know that.
Fuel prices could be lower if the Fed and State Govts wanted them to.
..or were forced to account for the 85% of the revenue that's not infrastructure else drop the rate by 85%.
You do realize that the 8 cents number you cite is the profit the retailer makes, not the profit the oil producer makes.