backtop


Print 320 comment(s) - last by nct.. on Nov 10 at 2:25 PM


Should the government tax gas up to as much as $8/gallon? A growing number of auto executives think so and are urging government action.  (Source: The Energy Collective)
CEO at leading parts supplier: "Energy independence...ultimately means that fuel has to be more expensive"

It's no secret that when gas prices dropped early in the year and with the recession in full swing, hybrid sales saw their first drop in years.  Faced with tough new fuel economy restrictions, auto executives had come up with all sorts of unusual suggestions -- such as cutting crash testing -- but now had to puzzle over a new dilemma; what if consumers don't want the higher-priced electric vehicles that they plan to start flooding the market with in less that a year?

At a special Reuters summit in Detroit, numerous auto industry executives are cited as suggesting that the government raise taxes on gasoline substantially to spur the adoption of fuel efficient vehicles.  States Tim Leuliette, chief executive of privately held parts supplier Dura Automotive, "In the United States, we're afraid to touch the fuel price.  We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms."

He adds, "What you have to do is do it in a manner that is slow enough and predictable enough that vehicle selection and choices by people over the cycle can be made in a logical way."

Eight dollars-per-gallon gas?  The idea certainly sounds absurd.  However, the idea of the government pouring over $100B USD into the auto industry and partially nationalizing GM and Chrysler might have sounded ridiculous a decade ago too.

Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., offered similar sentiments, complaining, "The U.S. allows the price of gasoline to go back and forth across this line where the consumers don't care about fuel efficiency and where consumers do care about fuel efficiency."

He suggests a near term fix of taxing gas to around $4 or $5 a gallon to help vehicles like GM's 2011 Chevy Volt EV grab marketshare.  Jerry York, a former GM board member and an adviser to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian, concurred.  He states, "Unless gas is $3.50 or $4 a gallon, consumers are not going to want to buy those cars."

Hearing such pleas for government intervention and taxation certainly seems a strange one coming from the business sector, which normally argues and lobbies for minimal government involvement.  However, a growing number of industry executives feel that a $25B USD advanced technologies loan program and the expensive cash-for-clunkers program just aren't doing enough to boost the sales of clean autos.  The solution, they argue, is for the government to hit consumers where it hurts -- in the wallet.

Some are suggesting tax rebates at the end of the year for customers with hybrids and a food-stamp-like subsidy for poor citizens.  But at the end of the day the general message is the same; tax fuel.  Concludes Dura's Leuliette, "Energy independence in this country ultimately means that fuel has to be more expensive."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That makes sense
By Connoisseur on 11/6/2009 12:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
" However, the idea of the government pouring over $100B USD into the auto industry and partially nationalizing GM and Chrysler might have sounded ridiculous a decade ago too." so basically recover the money from the auto bailout by taxing consumers more on gas.

I know that's not the argument but I still think it's a bad idea. Maybe in a couple of years after the economy's recovered and most americans have stable income...




RE: That makes sense
By drwho9437 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By headbox on 11/6/2009 2:26:58 AM , Rating: 4
Taxation to shape the way we buy cars... you really want a bloated government that is so involved in your daily life, it will even pick out your next auto? Where are those taxes going to go? I highly doubt to balance the budget and pay off debt!

How about this... I don't buy a new Volt and just keep the car I have.

Enough families have crunched the numbers and figured out buying a new car to "save money" is pretty ridiculous. How about paying off the car you have so you actually own it?! Not making a stupid car payment and getting rid of a vehicle every 4-5 years... there's some serious savings in your wallet!

I've read that well over 90% of people are making payments on their auto. That means the BANK owns your car, you pay thousands in interest, and they usually require full coverage insurance.

Me? I own my jeep, car, and motorcycle. I saved, bought used for a great deal, and I have no monthy payment to worry about. My total insurance payment for all three is $70/month for liability and comprehensive.

It's called financial responsibility. It's something Americans needs to re-learn from the White House on down.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By therealnickdanger on 11/6/2009 10:25:59 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think of it as cap and trade. :)

Corrected:
quote:
Think of it as cap and trade. :(

Whether you call it "cap and trade", "green technology", or "getting off foreign oil", it's ultimately the same New World Order bullsh*t seeking to level our economy in favor of maximizing its power at our expense. Control the banks, control the industry, control the education, control the manufacturing, control the food, control the fuel...

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" becomes nothing more than multi-national slavery. This crap needs to stop before it's too late.


RE: That makes sense
By GUITARMAN62 on 11/6/2009 7:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT!! THEY(OUR GOVERNMENT) WANTS CONTROL OF "EVERYTHING" INCLUDING HEALTHCARE. IF THEY TAX GAS UP TO $4 OR $5 A GALLON. PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO STOP BUYING EXCEPT JUST WHAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE. AND LIKE THE ONE POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, THEY MAY LOOSE THEIR JOBS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE COST. LET ALONE THE COST OF A NEW CAR!!!


RE: That makes sense
By aj28 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By ronpaulfan on 11/7/2009 9:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
You got that right.


RE: That makes sense
By inperfectdarkness on 11/6/2009 8:58:04 AM , Rating: 4
bingo.

if we're really THAT worried about fuel economy--then we're NOT focused on cheap, plentiful fuels. say....ethanol derived from bacteria feeding on sewage.

i, for one, do not wish to be forced into towing a 5th-wheel motorhome around with a pickup truck that gets 40mpg. i shudder to think of attempting to merge, let alone drive uphill, in such an abomination.


RE: That makes sense
By omglol on 11/7/2009 2:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
derived from bacteria feeding on sewage


Many modern sewage treatment facilities already use bacteria to make a much easier fuel to create, collect, and use - methane gas - from an anaerobic process that is one step in several used to purify our sewage.

The amount of gas derived is not enough for the plants to be freed from their connection to the mains - they continue to draw some gas for their operations.

Thus, while there is energy to be had from sewage, generally it is, unfortunately, not enough to sell, let alone fuel the world.

If we're to produce enough ethanol from anything, it's going to have to be algae or cellulose. Those could truly revolutionize the energy/liquid fuels economy if they can make it cheap.


RE: That makes sense
By chrnochime on 11/6/2009 10:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
I've always purchased cars without using loans, if I can. If I really can't afford to buy a car without borrowing money from auto lender or bank, then the car is either something I can't really afford, or that I'm not getting my finances right.

Having said that, I understand there are a lot of people who don't have the luxury to have money just sitting there to buy cars. But unless you're getting 0% APR and the overall cost of the car is equal to buying it with cash, you're not saving any money by going the loan route.


RE: That makes sense
By Hiawa23 on 11/6/2009 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 5
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That wouldn't get more of us to buy electric cars, that would cause most of us to go bankrupt, lose our jobs, as most wouldn't be able to put gas in the vehicles they own. Gas prices, energy prices are already too high, & many are barely hanging on, or have already falling off the cliff with skyrocketing bills but pay cuts or job losses & these idiots are proposing this. I am college educated, but that would bury me if this went through, as this would surely affect our electric bills & anything energy related.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 11:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Right now you are paying the real price on energy, so if its to high be angry at the free market. Gas taxes that are currently leveled are designed to pay for the roads you drive on, the dmv, hwy patrol, meat wagons for when you screw up, etc. In other words your car driving experience is already subsidized by tax dollars.


RE: That makes sense
By callmeroy on 11/6/2009 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Gas taxes do not have anything to do with footing the bill for state police (which in most jurisdictions in the nation is what Highway patrol are)...state police is largely funded from state taxe sources like income and sales taxes.

If I'm remember correctly -- I also believe part of our county and township taxes wind up on state funded projects as well - so part of that money may also fund state police.

Then you have all the taxes like capital gains, death and inheritance taxes but I'm not sure exactly what they do with those monies.

Gas taxes are largely want fund road and highway maintenance though...that's why in some states 30 cents of every dollar you pay at the pump is pure taxes.


RE: That makes sense
By Ammohunt on 11/6/2009 2:29:40 PM , Rating: 5
Next will be taxing food to fight obesity; they have already successfully implemneted this approach with tobacco.


RE: That makes sense
By callmeroy on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/6/2009 3:20:51 PM , Rating: 5
How about just getting rid of the farm subsidies that make high fructose corn syrup the cheapest calorie on the planet??

The problem isn't that we don't tax fast food, the problem is that we subsidize it.


RE: That makes sense
By callmeroy on 11/6/2009 3:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
I may be setting myself up for looking like a goof but that's ok -- its not the first time (the price you pay for being honest these days).....

I didn't realize we make corn syrup so cheap...but further more and I'm honestly ASKING this not being smart about it --- Corn Syrup is used in burgers and fries?


RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/6/2009 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 5
Corn syrup is a corn product. Corn is subsidized.
Corn is used to feed cattle. So beef is indirectly subsidized. Fries are cooked in vegetable oil which again is a corn product. The potatoes in the fries also get farm subsidies (but not to the same extent as corn) as does the wheat in the buns.

The expensive parts of fast food are the lettuce, tomato, pickle and cheese. (The parts that could almost be considered healthy.)


RE: That makes sense
By JediJeb on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/7/2009 9:18:37 PM , Rating: 5
You make several flawed assumptions.
1. That a farmer should be paid to grow a crop that is not valuable (i.e. is not valued by society)
2. That a corporation, no matter how large, can dictate global commodity prices. (Commodities are, by definition, fungible.)
3. That it is a good thing that crop prices have been artificially held down.
4. That a corn farmer couldn't possibly grow any other crop on their land.
5. That farmers don't (or can't) share or rent equipment.
6. That inefficient farming methods should be rewarded with an above average salary.
7. That the majority of corn is used for human consumption.
8. That the number of bushels per acre for any crop have not increased at all since 1970.

Those factual errors aside, you have a valid point buried in there somewhere.

Farming is not easy, and it is subject to many variables out of the farmer's control. I have no issue with the government using tax payer money to save farmers in the event of a natural disaster (drought, flood, blight, etc.) What I do have a problem with is the Federal government choosing one crop to subsidize over all others and encouraging bad farming practices.


RE: That makes sense
By Solandri on 11/8/2009 6:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no issue with the government using tax payer money to save farmers in the event of a natural disaster (drought, flood, blight, etc.) What I do have a problem with is the Federal government choosing one crop to subsidize over all others and encouraging bad farming practices.

Agreed that corn is disproportionately favored. However, the subsidies aren't to save the farmers. They're to save us from famine. Unlike most goods, demand for food is highly inelastic. You can live without an HDTV, or an SUV, or a new pair of Nike sneakers. You cannot live without food. If there's a shortage, you still have to buy food, and the market price for it would skyrocket leaving many to go hungry.

The subsidies ensure that there will always be oversupply of food and excess farm capacity should a disaster hit part of the nation's agriculture. It does create a host of other problems though.


RE: That makes sense
By JonnyDough on 11/9/2009 10:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, lets see...famine. Are we talking about sustainability here? Do you know what else would help with that? Not feeding masses of people with relatively no income unhealthy diets and then trying to medically save them when they're dying. Heres a thought, if you want sustainability start with not having more babies. Then you won't have so many mouths to feed. Our society is so f'd...we can't keep feeding mouths that can't support themselves by giving farmers money to grow corn and then raising taxes on the population.


RE: That makes sense
By JediJeb on 11/9/2009 3:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
As stated below, corn is not the only crop to get subsidies, almost all crops get some kind of subsidy.

1. Farmers grow crops that are valued by society, the problem is society does not want to pay as much for the crop as it cost to grow.
2. If this is true, then OPEC can not control the price of Oil as it is a global commodity.
3. I do not think it is good that crop prices are artificially held down, I would like to see them rise to proper levels, but society does not want to pay for it to happen.
4. They can and do change crops, many times depending on weather and economic conditions. If planting season starts late they may change corn to soybeans. Also soil that is good for growing corn may not be good for other crops, climate and other conditions also weigh in on that decision. You won't see cotton grown in Iowa because the season is too short and cold, also corn produces more in the higher lattitudes than in the southern regions.
5. Farmers can share and rent equipment, but there are time constraints on when it is needed and it can not be in two places at once. Overall there is a minimum number of pieces of equipment needed to do the work and that number must be supported ( wheither rented or shared or purchased) by the farmers. If you have available half the number of combines needed to harvest the total crop in the proper timeframe then half of the crop can be lost. If corn stands too long the stalks will fall over and the corn can rot or mold. If soybeans are left too long in the field the pods will open and the seed will be lost on the ground.
6. The methods of farming are currently very efficient. To make them more efficient production wise would take much more financial input, to make them more efficient money wise would require returning to doing more by hand which would lower production.
7. The majority of corn is not used for human consumption directly. Most is used to feed animals or converted into corn syrup. I failed to make it clear that my discussion was not limited to corn growers, but farming in general. It was a little off topic but is a topic of much passion for myself. The average consumer does not understand what goes into the production of their food ( and most products in general). Mine was an attempt to show the tight margins most farmers operate under, and that blindly calling for removal of all subsidies is not a wise choice. I would like to see them removed but there needs to be a change in many things before it can happen.
8. The number of bushels per acre have increased slightly since 1970. Yes I was not totally clear on that, but on average it has increased about 10-15%, where the price of the consumables used by farmers has increased by much more. My father purchased a tractor in the early 1970s for about $10,000 now the same size tractor costs over $50,000. That tractor could produce corn at $2.50 per bushel in the 70s at 160 bushels per acre, now it would produce corn for $3.00 per bushel at 180 bushels per acre. The price to produce has grown much more than the price of the product.

The big reason these subsidies exist is that if the prices were not held low and farmers were allowed to charge what it cost to grow the crop along with a fair profit for their labor, then the price of food would fluctuate drastically from year to year. When that happens the consumers begin to complain to their congressman, then the congressman has to do something to keep them happy. The funny thing was last summer when gasoline prices spiked, so did milk prices. It was blamed on the cost of production, because corn and fuel prices for the farmers made it more expensive to produce milk. What the average consumer did not know was that the price paid to the farmer did not change. The independent farmers had to tough it out until prices for fuel and corn dropped back to levels where it was again profitable to sell their milk. When it was high they had to sell at a loss because you can't just stop milking the cows and the milk does not store long before going bad. They just bite the bullet and hope things change before they are forced out of business.

There are not that many bad farming practices being used. Most farmers will try to make the most product for the lowest amount of input possible, just as any business. They also try to track the demands and shift with them if possible. But just as the owner of an oil well can not switch it to a coal mine if the demand for oil drops and coal increases, farmers can not make certain changes in what they produce. And as for increasing production per acre, the easiest way for that now would be to use genetically modified crops, but many do not accept those, and they are banned in Europe so that removes an entire market if the farmer decided to grow them.

Overall I am in favor of dropping all subsidies across the board, for farmers, fuel, alternative energy, everything. But to do away with all of them now all at once would not work as I do not believe the economy could handle the drastic change it would cause. The results would be job losses, inflation, shifting of spending across the board to make up for changes in price for most basic commodities and much more that I do not think the public is ready to accept. They should never have been used in the first place, but now they are a house of cards that must be maintained in delicate balance. I hope someone finds a way to wean us off of them all, not just corn subsidies but all that have been thought up.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 6:08:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Calm down. This works in Europe (as explained by that Norwegian guy); people are still living there and driving their cars.
Because our society is based around things being affordable. Norwegians make more money than your average US citizen. They also have the highest population density (read the whole post next time). In the US, more than half of the population lives outside the city.


RE: That makes sense
By michael67 on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 2:50:15 PM , Rating: 1
The previous guy had good points. But you had no solid counterarguments, so all you could say is personal insults. Pathetic. Who's the real dumba$$?

If you can't contribute to the discussion, please mind your own business.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/6/2009 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 5
Keep in mind that by increasing taxes on petrol in your country you are in fact subsidizing petrol in all other countries.

Just because you aren't buying it doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia or Russia aren't still pumping it out of the ground. Reduced demand results in lower prices throughout the rest of the world.

If the US raises taxes on oil, it will only make it cheaper for China to burn it.

Conceivably, it might be possible to drive prices so low that the oil exporting countries stop producing it, but that doesn't seem very likely - mainly because you must somehow convince all countries (including China, India and Brazil) not to buy oil no matter how cheap it gets.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/6/2009 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Other than the fact that all manufacturing will move to China and India due to lower energy prices and everyone left in the US will be unemployed and will only be able to afford products that are imported from overseas.

Instead of our dollars going overseas to buy energy, they will go overseas to buy everything.


RE: That makes sense
By just4U on 11/6/2009 3:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
It needs to be noted here that America buy's more energy from Canada then it does from any other nation in the world. So it doesn't all come from overseas. America enjoys a very lucrative deal when it's all said and done but it's a two way street where both countries take part in the overall proccess.

The only thing I've never figured out is why Canadians pay so much more for energy (be it Natural gas, fuel or what have you) then their counterparts down south.


RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/6/2009 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
The first two things I would look at are:
1. Exchange rates, oil is always priced in US Dollars (although with the Canadian dollar near parity energy should be getting cheaper.)
2. The Canadian VAT (a 5% value added tax added to all products.)
3. Refining Capacity/Capability. The US tends to import crude and export refined products. It is possible that the fuels used in Canada are actually imported from the US despite the fact that it is made from oil exported from Canada.

Beyond that I could only guess. Although the US does have fairly low gas taxes on average (making up less than $0.40 per gallon) so it is quite likely that Canada also has higher fuel taxes.


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 4:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about the 5% GST Tax but you're still missing alot of taxes regardless. Depending on area, taxes can go as high as 40% of the final price on gas. We don't have tolls however. And your last point is probably valid. Crude refining capability in the Northeast is too low making refining prices way too high. The refining margins have more than tripled in the last 10 years (going from an average of 4 cents a liter to well over 12). That's not canadian specific however.

As for the propostion of the OP, I could see getting rid of all the tolls to increase by the same amount gas taxes. Would accomplish the intended result (higher gas prices so more impact on the wallet) while still keeping the overall tax burden the same.

And to all of the people clamoring it hurts your choices, that's a fallacy. You still have the choice to buy gas guzzlers, it's just going to have a bigger impact on your wallet. The choice is still yours whether you want to spend more on gas or have a smaller size car.

I've made my choice, I drive a 2008 Chrysler 300 (3,5L engine) which is much bigger than my old car (mazda). Definately not Hummer-like consumption but still. I decided the increase in gas prices was worth it for me. So I do have a choice.


RE: That makes sense
By michael67 on 11/6/2009 3:34:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Keep in mind that by increasing taxes on petrol in your country you are in fact subsidizing petrol in all other countries.

So whats the problem there ?
Its still means as a country we are cheaper of.
And whit predicted prize rise dos other countries also have to change to alternative's, and they are years behind us in development, partly because of our way of doing business, they are just caching up.
quote:
If the US raises taxes on oil, it will only make it cheaper for China to burn it.

So you are willing to use more oil so they cant have it ?
If China is doing better economical, it just mean we have to do so to, ore have accept that the good old days are over and we have to change how we live and live whit less.

And China also have committed them self on lowering use and look at more green energy

If you watch Adam Curtis, "The century of self" ore other docu's, I not always agreeing whit him but it for shour change the way you look at your own world, if your a little open for his ideas.
And you learn you can have a good live whit a lot less, if needed.
quote:
Conceivably, it might be possible to drive prices so low that the oil exporting countries stop producing it, but that doesn't seem very likely - mainly because you must somehow convince all countries (including China, India and Brazil) not to buy oil no matter how cheap it gets.

Not gone happen even if prizes would go down it would only mean its getting affordable for others that otherwise could only buy less.


RE: That makes sense
By callmeroy on 11/6/2009 3:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
some of what you state makes sense to me...but there is an enormous misconception by a lot of folks --- the amount of gas guzzling v8's on the road is HIGHLY over exaggerated.

I'd say the most popular engine on the road today in the US is a v-6.

That's what its the vast major of new sedans -- even your expensive "luxury" models like BMWs, Lexus and Mercedes are using v6's....sure they offer v-8s (and v-12s in some cases) but that's at the higher price ranges where the cost is going to limit how many people drive those models anyway.

Modern day v-6's are vastly superior in power and fuel efficiency than even v-8's were a decade or two ago on a cubic inch for cubic inch comparison.

Now I'm not oblivious to the fact that many folks drive SUV's and pickups and then never take them off-road, in tough terrain or really utilizing the original intended "purpose" of those types of vehicles....I'm just saying I think everyone exaggerates the numbers greatly.

Will fuel prices increase -- of course...is there ANYONE on the planet that actually thinks they won't?

But to hike them up massively in a condensed time frame would do nothing positive for the majority of the US population except make their financial situation more dire than ever.


RE: That makes sense
By michael67 on 11/6/2009 3:58:16 PM , Rating: 1
The main engine here in Norway is a 4 cylinder (95~98% of the cars) and I think the average engine volume is about 1.7~1.8L
Have a look at our used cars: http://www.finn.no/finn/car/used/result?sort=0&pag...

The main reason you see actual a lot of 4x4 is because people actual need them here, Norway is 1.250 miles long and have so many roads whit in the winter very often changing from freezing to above freezing, so we have tons of bad small roads, but still most of those cars are small 1.8~2L diesels like the Suzuki Vitara's and so on


RE: That makes sense
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2009 4:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
You know what Michael, you keep doing what works in Norway and we'll keep doing what works here. Ok ?

There is NO rational way to spin this in a positive light. And being happy and even defending how you were forced into certain vehicles because of government policy is assanine.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 10:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Could you answer these questions:
LOL! Is that you God?


RE: That makes sense
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/9/2009 1:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'll answer those questions for you

1) Yes, if the market dictates it.
2) Probably get a more fuel efficient car... DUH
3) Nope, that car is fugly imo, so I choose to drive a Chevy Tahoe, you know why? My government hasn't taxed such vehicles out of existence. Haha


RE: That makes sense
By michael67 on 11/7/2009 12:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
Are you so afraid of change that your willing to go the same ways as the Dodo's.

I all ready sad that the high prizes are a pain, but you also get used to it, only for me it was something that happened over time last 5 years prizes only raised by a bout 20~30% so for me the impact on my life was low, for the US it is something that is now suddenly coming really fast.

And history has learned us the people have a hard time getting used to quick negative change and will go to the same 4 stages as all people do when hearing really bad news


RE: That makes sense
By itzmec on 11/6/2009 4:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
pretty general statement, considering that 60 million americans can barely make ends meet. ahh, but what is my definition of "making ends meet?" dude makes it sound like the whole damn country is driving around in frickin' suburbans. give me a break man. you read the paper, watch the tv and think you can generalize the U.S., population into one stinking category. its rediculous.. I drive a honda civic to work one day a week. the other 4 days i ride with the guys i carpool with.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 4:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I know a few who barely make ends meet, and some that just can't. This is the unfortunate result of the US-style free market; money floats from bottom up, and doesn't come down. This is also a reason why I think a socialist system is more fair.

Considering how many in the US are in that barely-making-ends-meet situation, it really surprises me how strong the anti-socialism reaction is. Socialism would really help a ton of people here; it's the top that would get hurt.

The gas tax wouldn't much impact you personally, though; you're already doing the right thing.


RE: That makes sense
By stilltrying on 11/6/2009 8:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
Which Collectivist system are you talking about? Pol Pot (Cambodia), Stalin(Russia), Hitler(Germany), Mao Tse Tung(China), Castro(Cuba), I mean which one do you want to go with. And I am even going to say America. Which one of Marxs ten planks does America not currently correlate with. You see collectivist systems only benefit the upper echelon of society. Only a fool would think otherwise. History has proven it time and time again. I recommend you read about how the AVERAGE citizen lived in all of the above collectivist systems that you so are happy to get into.

Here maybe this will wake you up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYLmzQewJKM&feature...


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 8:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to European-style socialism, particularly Northern European.

Your problem is that you equate "socialism" with extremes such as Soviet Union and China. That's why you freak out whenever someone mentions the S-word, unions, universal health care etc.

Visit Europe, ask if people are happy. Visit downtown Los Angeles, ask if people are happy.


RE: That makes sense
By stilltrying on 11/6/2009 9:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about the european socialism in which the lisbon treaty was voted on no by the irish but must be revoted on until they get it right. Or the socialism that allowed other countries to vote but then quit asking for their vote because they knew that they wouldnt pass the lisbon treaty.


RE: That makes sense
By stilltrying on 11/6/2009 8:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why dont we just keep giving the banks more and more money too. It is such a great thing to do.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 8:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't we rein in the banks five years ago, before everything went to h*ll. Oh, right, because regulation is bad... only communists regulate.


RE: That makes sense
By stilltrying on 11/6/2009 9:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly the govt regulated that low income people should be able to get a house (big house) whether they could afford it or not. It all starts funny money printed by one private company that whom through the force of law is allowed to create money that all have to use by force. The original counterfeiters The FED Reserve. A COMMMON money made for all to use. No competing currencies but a common money through force must be used at interest to the private institution.
As ive stated go start with the 10 planks and tell me which one that is not currently being met in the united states and has been for quite some time and I will be happy to give evidence that every collectivist plank has been met which is why we are in the shape we are in today.


RE: That makes sense
By 0ldman on 11/9/2009 11:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But hey if you want you country to sink even deeper, because your not willing to give up your big V8 go ahead.


And just what about the rest of us that are driving a financially responsible vehicle and can barely make bills? I'm suppose to spend nearly 3x as much for fuel or forced to buy an electric, which, btw, where do you think electricity comes from? Every power plant within 500 miles of here is coal based, the prices have increased since the gas prices went up and will certainly increase much more if everyone is forced to switch to electric.

Hybrids are a good thing, however, they don't have the bugs worked out yet and forcing the masses into a lose/lose situation is going to do absolutely nothing to help anyone, even the automakers. Once the customers of these brand new hybrids can't afford to pay for their cars (typical result of an economic change forced, particularly in a time like this), the automakers will then have built and sold a $30k car that has been repossessed, the bank is stuck with a loan, the car needs to be sold again, etc...

This will easily account for about 1/3 of the cars sold, probably accounts for 1/3 of the cars sold *now*, but now the hole isn't being dug deeper by force, just by over reaching, financial irresponsibility and poor economy.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 9:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
I so love getting rated down without a response as to why someone would disagree.

Great way to have a productive conversation, guys


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 10:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I so love getting rated down without a response as to why someone would disagree.
Waaa!

quote:
Taxing gasoline is an effective way to reduce gasoline consumption in the long run, and reduces the constant cash flow going out from this country to middle east.
It reduces use artificially by force, not by choice. I suppose one could just pay the extra money but that only leaves people with money with choice (freedom) and people without as "slaves". One of the greatest things about the US is the average person can live very well. No need for loads of money to have a comfortable life (the whole point). You say get off foreign oil. That would be great but not at the expense of choice/freedom or the castration of the middle class.

As messed up as it may be, people have CHOSEN to use foreign oil and we have to live with its consequences (is Canadian oil considered foreign?). If we choose not too live with them, then change is in order. If only some of us choose not to live with them then it's YOUR choice to not do so. It is NOT your right to remove anyone's choice. Live your life and let others live theirs.


RE: That makes sense
By michael67 on 11/8/2009 8:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Tax on cigarettes here in Norway is also very high $12 for a 20 pack and $30 for 50g role tabaco, the high prizes stopped lots of people smoking.

Its same whit gasoline we like it, and would love to get it for free, but 1. cars are sorta bad for environment, and 2. It cost the country a lot, whit all the money flowing out of the country.

Like i sad i love big cars two, but the prize of keep on driving big cars is high.

And really driving a smaller car is not as bad as it sound as long as you don't have to drive long distances, I only use the Lexus on long trips, at home we use almost only the Yaris of the misses, and its pretty comfy in town.


RE: That makes sense
By muIIet on 11/7/2009 7:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
AMEN brother, I hate payments of any kind. Now that my 05 Toyota truck is payed off I will drive it till the tires fall off. Hopefully I can get 8 to 10 more years out of it and by then maybe there will be a good electric vehicle out. I think it would be nice to not have to change oil, spark plugs, transmission service, radiator flush, water pump, starter, power steering pump, Injection cleaner, rack and pinion, air filters, alternator, lead acid battery. Not to mention the weight gone from the engine, transmission, rear end, drive shaft or CV axles, gas tank. That's just assuming that the EV is direct drive and that I could use it as backup power for the house if needed. Then again I may just get a Honda CBR600RR and burn rubber and put a huge smile on my face!!!!! :o]

my 2 cents, yeah I know I made a D+ in English.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By zombiexl on 11/6/2009 9:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
How exactly is someone who needs a vehicle that can climb hills or fit their family doing the wrong thing?


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 2:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Most cars can climb hills (including Toyota Yaris/Honda Insight etc.). Maybe not as quickly as you'd WANT them to, but still.

Also, having an $8/gal tax on gasoline doesn't exclude you from having a large family or wanting to climb hills really quickly - you'll just have to pay for it.


RE: That makes sense
By callmeroy on 11/6/2009 3:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Try enjoying something like RVing / Camping without a large vehicle.

Let me know how your Toyota Yaris fairs when its trying to pull a 8500 pound trailer. :)


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think that I NEED to pull a 8500-pound trailer? :)

I think it's just that you WANT to pull a 8500-pound trailer... but you don't really NEED that. You could pull a small caravan, or even better: just pack a tent. Or rent a cabin.

You'll certainly consider those options when gasoline costs $8/gal.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 4:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, farmers and ranchers really have no choice.

We don't WANT to pull around heavy equipment, but we need to.


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 4:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
But then most farm equipment use diesel don't they ?


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 4:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Farm equipment uses diesel mostly, farmers drive both diesel and gas trucks. But, it's inevitable that if you jack the price of gas up, people will start using more diesel vehicles, which will just drive the price of diesel up with it since it is a alternative to gas.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 4:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, absolutely - I don't deny that (and I already mentioned that in a direct reply to your other posts).

But this guy was whining about not being able to use his RV or pull a mobile home anymore. He doesn't need to do that.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 10:48:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But this guy was whining about not being able to use his RV or pull a mobile home anymore. He doesn't need to do that.
You don't NEED to drive your Yaris! LOL! Driving is not a right (not in the US), it's a privilege. No one needs a Yaris, Civic, none of that. Needs: food, shelter, love. Everything else is a want.


RE: That makes sense
By Zoomer on 11/6/2009 9:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Or at least raise it to the level where we can build/fix roads with these funds, and not have to raid general funds every year for it.


RE: That makes sense
By borismkv on 11/6/2009 10:32:35 AM , Rating: 4
*headdesk* God I love it when people understand where tax money goes. You do realize that the bulk of road maintenance and improvement projects are paid by state, city, and vehicle licensing taxes, right?


RE: That makes sense
By Gyres01 on 11/6/2009 11:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
So why do the roads here in Cali suck so much ass??? They should be paved with gold for all the money we have to pay in registration fees and BS.


RE: That makes sense
By Redwin on 11/6/2009 12:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I can't speak for all of california, but I live in san diego and frankly, the freeway system is awesome compared to the alternatives, and the incidence of potholes on the surface streets is virtually nil compared to anywhere else I've driven.

Best example: I lived in new orleans for several years, and trust me, THOSE roads suck ass. With absolutely zero exaggeration I can say the incidence of potholes or crumbling patches there was in the neighborhood of 20 per block, at least. The way to get one fixed near your house was to "adopt-a-pothole" and pay for its repair to the city YOURSELF (no, not joking, they even had a website to make payment easy).

In california, I feel like i pretty much never see one.


RE: That makes sense
By bobsmith1492 on 11/6/2009 1:34:37 PM , Rating: 4
You guys have never been to Michigan...


RE: That makes sense
By callmeroy on 11/6/2009 3:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
I've never been to California (well technically I have if you count only ever seeing the inside of LAX)...but my guesstimation to your quantry of why the roads suck despite all you pay in taxes would be --- um...look at your states track record of spending spending spending and its energy problems, its history of governators, etc.

Don't worry it could be worse --- I live in NJ and supposedly NJ ranks in the top 5 of all states for the amount of money it pours into maintaining roadways....so drive past my development on a road called College Dr. and tell me then why are there like 5 pot holes in a 4 mile section that are never seamingly fixed? lol...its one of those things I have to laugh about or else I just go too frustrated.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 4:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've driven in both California and NJ, and to me it seemed like California's roads are far worse...

That being said, most roads in the US are worse than those in Europe.


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 4:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
you guys should come down to montreal then.

3rd world countries must have better roads than we do!

damn winter.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 9:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
Wants? Really? So if I have business that needs to haul heavy trailers around all day and need an F350 to do so, then that's a business want?

Are you really so dim that you cannot figure this stuff out for yourself?


RE: That makes sense
By foolsgambit11 on 11/6/2009 2:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
Those vehicles will still be available, thought they may cost more since there won't be as big of a market for them. And gas will cost more. But you can pass all of those costs on to your consumers, at no loss of market share, because everyone else in the market will have to do the same thing. From a business perspective, it will all work out the same for you. "Are you really so dim that you cannot figure this stuff out for yourself?"

Of course, there will be other knock-on effects from that. The higher prices will ripple through the economy, requiring higher wages or a reduction in the standard of living for all Americans, along with (potentially) a devaluation of the dollar, assuming there isn't a corresponding substantial increase in GDP. Those are the real issues that need to be discussed in greater depth when weighing the costs and benefits of higher fuel taxes.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 3:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
For many of the small business owners it will not be as easy to pass that cost along to the customer because they deal primarily with smaller entities. So, when you start having to raise prices, the bigger guys who have greater utilization of economies of scale will have a greater advantage against the small guys when costs like these start rising. "Are you really so dim that you cannot figure this stuff out for yourself?" ;)


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 4:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
if prices rise due to taxes, they go up the same for everyone.

the economies of scale of big vs small are already existing now and will remain the same. taxes aren't cheaper because its a big account and you're not going to be willing to eat up your margins anymore than you do now (or rather, any further than you do now).

Shell won't give a further discount to FedEx becaue some new tax rolled in.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 5:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but I think you are making false assumptions.

When the gas prices rose last summer the exact opposite of what you claim will happened actually happened.

The larger companies that might be more efficient at producing a specific product or providing a service were the ones that were able to survive the best, and they were able to cut margins in order to keep clients in the substantially more competitive environment.

Clients were much more willing to jump ship for a small amount in savings, and the larger companies were able to stretch themselves out more and decrease margins easier. Obviously that wasn't the case for all larger companies, but it was the case for a large number of them. Then, you have the smaller guys, like last summer, who could not longer afford to buy the fuel they needed to do the work that they were locked into a contract to do at a certain price, so they shut down. The big players didn't have this problem as much, and they were the ones locking the smaller guys into a fixed contract.

When fuel costs go up, people start looking for better bargains based almost solely on price, and the larger companies are most often able to provide the deepest discounts in the short term, which runs out small business.


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 5:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing a market driven increase to a governement tax driven increase.

The difference being exactly what I was trying to portray.

When a market driven increase happens, the suppliers at the base increase the cost of the base good because they can and they can make a better profit selling less at a higher price. Since the margins increase, your negociation leeway with your big customers also increase so better customers absoutely can get better deals.

When a governemtn tax comes in (lets say 1,00# a gallon for the sake of the example) the profit margins of the supplier remains the same. As such, they don't have any wiggle room for further discounts. The governement doesn't care who you are, a gallon sold is a gallon sold and he wants his 1,00$. FedEx or Joe Delievery Service will still have to absorb that same tax so your supplier won't magically be able to absorb 20 cents of that tax.

If he's able to, then you badly negociated your previous deal and should have been buying elsewhere tax or no tax as that means his profit margins with you were higher than how low he was willing to go!


RE: That makes sense
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2009 3:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
Larger corporations were able to "cut into their margins" because they had larger reserve capital to weather the short-term storm. They could afford to forgo profits over the short term in order to keep or expand their business. But they are only willing to do this if the price increase is non-permanent. A tax operates differently.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 3:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
And, maybe you should have actually read what my post was responding to, and you would have realized that you were making up a point that I was not previously made and that I wasn't arguing against.

The guy I was responding to made it seem like driving large vehicles was some sort of want, and made it seem like people that drove large vehicles were excessive.

I was simply pointing out that many people NEED to drive large vehicles due to the nature of what they do or owning a business.

You brought up the elevated costs in relation to the tax increases, which is something that I was not arguing for or against to begin with, and it was not something that was mentioned in the post I was responding to.

Maybe you should do a little more reading before you respond next time.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 4:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
This just becomes a cost of doing business, and should be considered when entering in new business ventures.

And your comment about economies of scale is true - the "big guys" naturally have an advantage, and that's been true for a lot of business sectors for ages. Just part of the 'free market.' Overall, small businesses always have to find a niche, or compete through other means (such as excellent customer service).

I agree, though, that a sudden gasoline tax hike would strain small business owners unfairly. The slow four-year tax ramp for regular consumers makes sense; maybe for business uses, the period should be doubled, to give more time for businesses to adapt.

But some pain has to be expected and accepted, and the change is inevitable. Adapt or die...?


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 11:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This just becomes a cost of doing business, and should be considered when entering in new business ventures.
Most business owners know there's a cost. And most know there will be some tough times. The problem is when you're successful one day, then on the next day some a$$hole raises the gas tax on you and now you're considering shutting down because you can no longer afford to stay in business. That is unnecessary. I would LOVE to get off middle eastern oil but destroying or even partially hurting our own economy is not worth it. If we decide that middle eastern oil is not the way to go then we will ween ourselves off of it in due time. Until then, do your part and ween yourself off of it.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 6:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me I constantly see soccer mom's buying 6000 lbs SUV's to drive their 40 lbs kids to school and pick up the groceries. Ya that ridiculous.


RE: That makes sense
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2009 3:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
The second half of the post was just to explain that, even though I disagreed with your argument, I still recognize that there are valid reasons why an increase in the gas tax may not be the best thing for America at the moment. I'm on the fence personally at the moment - not for $8 gas, that seems pretty ridiculous - but for some sort of gas tax increase. Anyway, sorry to wander off point (now in both posts...).

As to your point, the first part of my comment fits in perfectly with the thread. You were arguing that this would affect people who need to drive large vehicles, not just those who want to drive large vehicles. I countered that it seems to me that things would end up balancing out for those who actually need to drive large vehicles. But I will readily concede the OP's implied point that large pleasure vehicles would probably become much less common.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 9:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
My sister and her husband drive two F350s around the country. They haul trailers that weigh a few tons each. Yes what horrible people they are for wanting to be able to run their business and have the vehicles they need to do so.

Of course idiots like you probably think we should need a permit to get certain classes of vehicles like that. Otherwise we're forced to buy smaller vehicles.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 11:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
I am sorry, what's your point?


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 11:59:07 AM , Rating: 3
Since when is the idea of being able to buy the car you want to buy a "super conservative" idea? Christ you're an idiot. Go around and do a poll asking people if they think the government should be able to control what kind of car they buy. Don't put any environmental hippie spin on it. Word it exactly like that. You'll get very few who say yes.


RE: That makes sense
By ClownPuncher on 11/6/2009 2:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely right. I know many liberals, not neccesarily Democrats, who have SUV's and F250's. They own them because those vehicles fit their needs, not because of political ideals...

Call me optimistic I guess, but I do not see a tax hike on gas like mentioned getting approved. Shame on the automakers pushing this agenda.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 1
You would still be able to buy the car you want, but you'll have to deal with the higher cost of ownership (high gasoline price).

Change is inevitable - you'll just need to learn to adapt.


RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/6/2009 3:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
And what exactly is wrong with letting the free-market do the adapting??

No managed economy ever out-preforms a market driven one.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 4:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's a myth. Market theories change over time when more information becomes available. The failure of 'free market' is clearly visible in the current financial crisis.

Moreover, how would you set the criterion for success? Huge GDP without considering the high poverty level? Trade surplus/deficit? National savings/debt?

The US model has been very successful in developing goods and services and driving innovation, but it has come with a steep cost of poverty for the lower 25% of the population, huge property gap between the richest and the poorest, very expensive health care system... do I have to continue?

I consider the european-style socialism being a more successful model. Those countries are also highly industrialized and quite successful in the global marketplace, yet have less poverty, better health care coverage, stronger basic educational system overall, and less corruption.

But as I said, that depends on one's performance criteria - mine obviously differs from yours.


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 5:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Scandinavian-style socialism I would agree.

French type socialism has been a disater however. The outer cities of Paris are full of poor immigrants and are increasingly becoming like 2nd world areas whithin a rich country. Extremely violent riots are frequent there. It's also a culture where people feel entitled.

Sweden and Germany would actually be two examples I would seek to follow. Greater social conscience while still having economic freedom. Unions and bosses actually cooperate rather than duke it out (this is mainly an union issue however - culture of entitlement). State sponsorred services that still have a minimal base cost to prevent abuse, etc. Canada is also doing well in that regard although its not perfect anywhere.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 9:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
Fine, let's say Scandinavian-style socialism. That's probably the best example of how socialism can work well.

I think It should probably be a guideline how to fix things here in the US. Where did I read it that Sweden nationalized their banks during a crisis in the 90's, and recovered quickly? Also, they have $8/gal gasoline. Universal health care. Do they even have homeless people? Poverty is low.

Sure, it's extremely hard to make a huge fortune there (unless you own Ikea), but extreme poverty is gone. A great trade-off in my opinion.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 11:16:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A great trade-off in my opinion.
Then move there!!!! LOL! I and other Americans like making our own way. I don't need nor do I want ANY handouts. If I want better healthcare, I'll buy it. If I can't afford it then I'll get a job or create a business that will allow me to do so. I, nor do most Americans need the governments assistance. OUR culture is one of self reliance not public assistance.

I was raised in a government housing project by a single Mom. We were poor dude. I didn't become successful by asking for handouts, I did it with hard work and determination. Things that my family taught me as a child. Self reliance, education, and good work ethics. Not welfare, jail, and whining for handouts. I was taught to be generous and apparently most of us were also as WE are the most generous country on Earth by far. Americans are more than happy to share from the poorest to the richest. We give equally. But we have it to give it. Do you propose that we give up our generosity too? All for the sake of getting off foreign oil?

I do not believe that getting off foreign oil is the priority. Of course, since we are free to make our own choices, you can live one way and I can live another. Unless, this is just all BS.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/7/2009 1:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
No; I moved here FROM there, because the US is great for highly educated people with jobs. I get paid more here that I would in northern europe. Getting a free master's degree in europe and moving to the US to reap the high salaries was a great deal for me personally.

But in general, people don't move from country to country, and as a whole, the northern european system works better for the society because the poor are taken cared of. Minimal crime, violation, corruption... all a result of that.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/7/2009 11:22:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Minimal crime, violation, corruption... all a result of that.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

I would not trade high crime, corruption, and the homeless people for less freedom. I would rather struggle and be free than live easy and be a slave. Utopia's are not part of the American culture. Like I said above, we choose to make our own way. You came here from another country, I suggest you get out and see America for yourself. Drive out to Montana and talk to people (if you can find some there..lol), drive down to Georgia and stop at a Waffle House and talk to those people. Get out and go see for yourself. America is not a collective, it's a sum of individuals.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
The German economy was killing our economy before the world recession. Yet most people think of Germany and europe as being crazy pinko commies. How do you explain their economy beating ours? China is also a heavily managed economy and how a growth rate that was making ours looking like we were standing still.


RE: That makes sense
By stilltrying on 11/6/2009 8:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Was a heavily managed economy


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China is also a heavily managed economy and how a growth rate that was making ours looking like we were standing still.
Their economy isn't managed anymore plus they have the benefit of making their currency whatever they feel it's worth. We could do that do but then other countries would complain. Oh wait, other countries are already complaining. Or, more accurately, DT posters posing as people from other countries are complaining.


RE: That makes sense
By lightfoot on 11/7/2009 10:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
A myth?

Our poverty level is $22,050 USD per year for a family of four. Do we have a lot of people in poverty? Yes, we do, but even they are wealthier than most people in the world.

And the people in the US who are in poverty also already have heavily subsidized housing, food and health care.

To point at a single recession and say that the free market has failed is extremely naive. Yes, we had a massive failure in a single sector that probably should have been better regulated (it was already heavily regulated.) However even if the entire banking system collapsed, the free market would have adjusted and would have continued just fine. Would it have been painful and difficult? Yes it would! But no level of government regulation can completely eliminate economic hardship. Any attempt to do so usually requires different hardships.

I do believe that regulation is necessary to a functioning economy, but I do not believe that any market that is completely controlled by a government (or any other single entity) can ever be successful over an extended time period.

The free market will always adapt to changes faster than a managed system can.

The only failures that you have pointed to are also some of the most regulated industries in the United States. Banking and health care. Health care is not a free-market, it is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in the country.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/7/2009 11:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To point at a single recession and say that the free market has failed is extremely naive.
I will add that recessions are part of the free market, not a failure of it. Read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
http://www.howstuffworks.com/recession.htm


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/9/2009 2:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
Free market is a system with complex and poorly understood feedback loops that can result in instabilities, over/undershoots/"ringing", and difficulty in predicting the system's behavior.

The recessions are those over/undershoots that are characteristic of a near-unstable system. You say it's just a part of it - I'd say it's a dangerous condition of an unstable system.

And who says the market will eventually recover? There is a distinct possibility that the market will crash permanently, and the whole economy could collapse. Unstable systems tend to move towards extremes: in a case of an economy, this could be a situation in which _all_ the money and property is owned by just a few, and 99.9% of people have absolutely nothing.

Any control applied to a free-running system is meant to guide the system's behavior, limiting those overshoots and undershoots, and reducing instability. This is necessary, and even in the US people say regulation is needed. For instance, your beloved antitrust rules are controls limiting the free market.

Now it's just a question of degree: how much regulation is the "right" amount. There is no absolute way to determine this; it's more a matter of philosophy. US: less regulation, Northern Europe: more regulation.

Don't fool yourself and think that the US system is somehow a pure free market - it isn't and it can never be, because a pure free market would surely collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/9/2009 2:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Free market can move quicker, but can go unstable without control. The banking industry collapsed because it was not regulated well enough, and because that system didn't have sufficient observability built in to define the regulation. The greedy banking system went all-in and imploded - a classic example of an unstable system.

Health care is broken not because of regulation, but because of wrong regulation. There are no controls in place to limit the huge medical bills people might incur if getting sick. There are no controls in place to provide minimum level of health care to every individual. Minimum level of health care is a basic human right, but somehow completely ignored in the US.

And don't give me that "they can get health care if the NEED to, they can go to ER and not pay their bills". That's like saying "sure you might not be able to pay your heating bill right now, but you can always borrow some money to pay it, and never pay it back... or even rob someone if you really NEED to".

Finally, to respond to your comment "Do we have a lot of people in poverty? Yes, we do, but..." The mere fact that the US has a lot of people in poverty is a proof that the system has failed.


RE: That makes sense
By Steve1981 on 11/6/2009 11:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, clearly the people want $8 a gallon gasoline. /sarcasm


RE: That makes sense
By 91TTZ on 11/6/2009 12:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
So democrats never have jobs that require towing anything?


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 1:41:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So democrats never have jobs that require towing anything?
I find this hilarious. I know registered Dems driving 3/4 and 1 ton pickups to work everyday just like registered Repubs. Hell, the only hardcore liberal I know drives an Aztek for God's sake. And he has no desire to drive an economy car and could care less what others drive.

I honestly believe some of you have an agenda and may be part of an organization trying to push certain views into the American public. Regular people do not have the views that you have.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 1:51:42 PM , Rating: 1
Honestly I laugh at anyone driving an SUV or truck with an Obama sticker on it. Because they clearly don't realize that the man they put in office has no problem passing legislation that will make it hard for them to drive their vehicle. He even said during the campaign that we can't drive our SUVs and keep our homes cool and expect the rest of the world to say thats ok.


RE: That makes sense
By MarcLeFou on 11/6/2009 5:19:38 PM , Rating: 3
I find these arguments ridiculous.

The auto companies deserve to be shot for suggesting something like this but your comments are not any better.

Nobody is going to tell you what you can and can't drive so quit that tired argument.

You could say you disagree with the prospect of paying more for driving big cars and SUV's and that's actually a debate that has some merit.

I personally wouldn't have an issue if bigger vehicules were taxed further to pay the national debt but that's really a matter of what side effects (positive and negative) a tax might have. Because there will be higher taxes, its just a question of where.

As some other poster pointed out, a higher gas tax would encourage people to buy smaller vehicules enabling the US to import less petrol from the middle east, increasing energy independance with all the side effects that come with it.

However, instead of spending the money back in the economy, I'd pay off the foreign national debt to actually be able to lower taxes in 20-30 years instead of continuously raising them. We're all going to have to pay back our debts at some points. Might as well start now instead of needlessly paying billions in interest over the next decades.

Dems and Reps aren't any better in that regard. They're both too extreme in their own little world.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 11:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, instead of spending the money back in the economy, I'd pay off the foreign national debt to actually be able to lower taxes in 20-30 years instead of continuously raising them
I actually would not have a problem with this but I would not just make truck/SUV owners shoulder the burden. Besides, those people would simply not drive those vehicles anymore. Not to mention business owners would raise costs to compensate for the gas price increases. No one gets off scott free. Not to mention, when has the government ever lowered taxes? I'm not talking about delaying a tax increase, I'm talking about actually lowering taxes. It would not happen.


RE: That makes sense
By stilltrying on 11/6/2009 8:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly believe some of you have an agenda and may be part of an organization trying to push certain views into the American public.

Yep, they most certainly are.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 9:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
We all have our own opinions, including you.


RE: That makes sense
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/9/2009 1:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
Ok Ok, if socialism is so great, then how would you explain the Trabbie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Or do you actually think that is a good car?


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 1:37:04 PM , Rating: 4
People that are still holding on to super liberal views are in the minority. Voters wanted a different leadership than the sh!tbags that were in office. As a voter, I agree wholeheartedly although I did not vote for Obama nor did I vote for McCain. I'm not interested in the status quo. And the status quo is the Democrat and Republican parties.

Most Americans are NOT radicals, nor are they hardcore into politics. Regular people have opinions, even strong opinions but don't confuse that with radical ideologies. Most people mix their philosophies. That's why you have things like welfare along with gay marriage bans. You would not have BOTH of those if the American public was radical right or radical left.

quote:
Just because you can organize groups of teabaggers doesn't mean that the population supports you.
I find it interesting that the only people that have trivialized those protesters are "news" organizations and people that parrot those organizations. Regular people really haven't given it much thought other than to ally or disagree with some of the protesters views while it was happening. I haven't heard a peep about it since except from the parrot crowd.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well have to agree with you there. Voters elect politicians find out they are s'bags, get pissed and vote them out of office. We find the new politicians we replaced them with are s'bags so we vote them out of office. Its like a never ending cycle. Personally I think they are all s'bags because they are bought and payed for by special interests.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/7/2009 11:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally I think they are all s'bags because they are bought and payed for by special interests.
You'll get no arguments from me on this.


RE: That makes sense
By Shining Arcanine on 11/6/2009 5:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Then they decided to kick the democrats out during this year's elections. It is funny how things work, isn't it?


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/7/2009 8:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
Two governors, woopty f'in deal.


RE: That makes sense
By rudy on 11/6/2009 1:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
All this works the problem is that we are not isolated we compete with other countries like China whom will not adopt similar policies or they may adopt them on the front but ignore them inside. Then you put yourself at a severe disadvantage as though the environmental and labor costs disadvantages are not enough. I hate to say it but in the competitive world there is really nothing much we can do unless we are willing to pull the rug out from under our own economy and allow others to walk away with it.


RE: That makes sense
By rippleyaliens on 11/6/2009 1:34:04 AM , Rating: 5
Here is the killer about raising taxes on fuel.. If you add a 1$ tax to fuel.. mY DAILY 70MILE ROUND TRIP, GOES FROM $11.25 per day, to %15.15 IE $78 Dollars a month, $1000 a year. What this means is that 1, i will just not spend $1000 a year on other stuff. IF ya boost it $4 a gallon, that = $291 a month change. 35miles each way, sounds excessive, YET HOW do you expect 1000+ people at a company, 1 LOCATION to just up and move closer to work, with 1. Cant sell houses, LOSS 2. UP-ROOT family 3, the killer JOBS aren't a guarantee anymore.

Raising Fuel taxes will work, in 1 way.. IT will help raise money for the government.
BUT AND a big BUT.. It will just cause americans to not spend money on other things. WHICH will in turn hurt the governments other HAND on the tax jar. Fuel consumption is not the biggest issue in this country. If ya raise the price too high, then, money just gets re-allocated. Instead of spending $50 at the movies, boom, that just goes to gas..
No need for $500 tv's as that is going to gas.
NO NEED to eat out at restaurants as $20 for 2= GAS, which is more utilzed thanFast food.. YA eat at home and cook.

IT will not stop cars from rolling down the street. BUT will re-distribute funds from 1 thing, to another


RE: That makes sense
By Alexstarfire on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By Jalek on 11/6/2009 6:17:27 AM , Rating: 4
They'd have to charge more for those movies, since costs at every stage of production would also increase.

Pretty much any tangible object you purchase would be higher, all services would have to cost more, and your utilities would also get hit.

Nobody's stopping you from paying more to all of those places now, and I doubt they'd refuse any additional cash you'd care to offer them for being too inexpensive now.


RE: That makes sense
By Alexstarfire on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By zombiexl on 11/6/2009 7:21:43 AM , Rating: 5
But you need to tax electricity becuase all those coal plants are putting out harmful carbon emissions. Natural gas isnt as clean as propane, tax them to hell too..

where does it stop? Government shouldnt try to shape the free market by taxing things to force consumers into the choice they want us to make. They still work for us, for now anyway. The majority of americans are against any tax increases period.


RE: That makes sense
By Alexstarfire on 11/6/2009 8:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying I'm for this.... but this is specifically talking about gas, not pollution/carbon footprint.

I'm not necessarily against any tax increase provided that the funds are used properly..... but therein lies the problem. You don't get to control what the funds are used for. I just can't accept that. Yea, things like roads, police, firemen, and a very select few other things need to be paid for. I don't believe we should be paying for public schools, welfare, social security, and a ton of other things that taxes pay for. Only reason I say public schools is cause sooo many people just don't care about education these days. Perhaps if they were forced to pay out of pocket they'd realize how useful it is.


RE: That makes sense
By zombiexl on 11/6/2009 9:08:07 AM , Rating: 5
There is no tax that isn't misused. How many taxes are there that were temporary for example? Yet they still collect that money. Like i said in a previous post when you need to buy your votes you need to get the money from somewhere.

People in this country are just too used to getting free stuff. The government was never intended to steal from people to give to other people. Tax credit for those with hybrids is basically saying you do what we want and we reward you. That's BS and there's no argument you can make to change my mind (or the minds of millions). Of course since you seem to be against most social programs you should see that this is just another means of social engineering and redistribution of wealth.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 8:10:14 AM , Rating: 4
Yes and then hundreds of thousands lose their jobs and can't spend money either. Further hurting the economy and causing more jobs to be lost.

Just because you go to a movie or out to dinner, it doesn't mean you're spending excessively.


RE: That makes sense
By Alexstarfire on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By zombiexl on 11/6/2009 9:02:21 AM , Rating: 5
Actually its more about spending every dime you don't have than spending every dime you do have.

I'll eat out 7 days a week, 3 meals a day if i feel like it and can afford to do so. I don't receive any public assistance so it's not your money I'm spending.. Worry about how you spend your own money and keep your hands and laws off of mine.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/7/2009 1:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're not the norm, you're one of the lucky fews who can afford it. It's selfish to not even consider those who are less fortunate.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/7/2009 11:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're not the norm, you're one of the lucky fews who can afford it. It's selfish to not even consider those who are less fortunate.
Most Americans DO consider the less fortunate, that's why we top the charts on giving. No other country is even close.

Here, take a look for yourself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/


RE: That makes sense
By nct on 11/10/2009 2:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't luck to work hard in school and get good grades. It isn't luck to get a good job because of a high GPA. It isn't luck to excel in your job and be rewarded accordingly in your salary. And it sure as hell isn't selfish to want to keep the money I earn, rather than be forced to distribute it to others who feel entitled to it simply because they make less than me. They can feel free to wait tables at a restaurant I visit. If they do it well I'll give them a good tip.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 10:07:16 AM , Rating: 5
Who the heck are you to decide what is excessive spending for other people? Honestly man.....


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 10:27:18 AM , Rating: 1
A liberal. That means he's all knowing.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A liberal. That means he's all knowing.
I know a hardcore liberal that does not share his views. I would say he's a radical liberal.


RE: That makes sense
By lewislink on 11/6/2009 5:56:17 PM , Rating: 1
You know, one thing I always see in life is the people who have are disassociated from the those who have not. The people who have cannot rationalize the difficulties a person who doesn't have goes through. To the have's, something like this gas tax wouldn't bother them and would easily think it a good thing for the have-not's, and they never consider the difficulty it would burden the have-not's with.

However, another thing I've seen in life is taking away the have's comfort (their insulating money) brings near instant wisdom to them. They tend to become more human and compassionate toward the have-not's.

It is easy to be an arm-chair quarterback and put on other people what you and the have's think is good for them. You don't feel the pain, why would you care about what the have-not's suffer?


RE: That makes sense
By BZDTemp on 11/6/2009 5:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
Fuel taxes will make people buy more economic cars. In Europe we have fuel taxes and for example here in Denmark it is not far from the $8 suggested here.If you commute more than 20 miles or so a day you get a tax deduction for every mile more than that and the deduction covers you cost if you're using an economic way of commuting (as in a high mileage car, a bike or any sort of public transportation). Partly because of this we are an exporter of oil (wind mills covering 20% of our electricity needs also helps).

Something similar could work in the US but of course it is a big change.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 9:32:10 AM , Rating: 4
Or just don't charge the tax at all. People should not be punished for a) wanting to drive and b) wanting to drive whatever they want.

We are a far larger country than Denmark. 20 miles might be far for you but for us its an average trip. And we like it that way. The majority of Americans don't like to all live close together in gigantic cities.

According to your way of doing things I should be punished for wanting to drive home to my family in Orlando (a 400 mile drive). Or be forced to pay $3-400 for a plane ticket or $150 for a 21 hour train ride (each way) which isn't feasible for a weekend trip.

You stay in Denmark and do things the way you want there and leave us to do things the way we want here.


RE: That makes sense
By jiminmpls on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 10:12:23 AM , Rating: 3
Fine, then the rest of the world should levy a 100% tariff on all US goods and services to compensate for Americans hogging resources and polluting the planet.

Great thinking genius.

Also, maybe you should give 50% of that tariff to China for being the #1 polluter.


RE: That makes sense
By BZDTemp on 11/8/2009 4:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but US is by far the #1 polluter if you include population size. I am sure some in the US will say it is their right but we are all sharing the same globe.


RE: That makes sense
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/9/2009 2:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
I have no moral obligation driving my Full sized SUV, its funny that you can't drive one, because your government has already made your choice of vehicle lol.


RE: That makes sense
By HostileEffect on 11/6/2009 10:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
I would suspect that if we didn't pull the resources from our own land, then it is likely that we bought them from another country.

I think China has some kind words for your pollution rants, go talk to them!


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 11:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
China is moving on green tech faster then we are, its just that they have are increasing growth in leaps and bounds where we have just basically been staying steady.


RE: That makes sense
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Increasing growth is increasing growth. Do you think the lack of pollution regulation in China has anything to do with the "growth in leaps and bounds"? What if the costs in China were MUCH higher as a result of being forced to use green tech sooner?

Also, China is still the number one polluter regardless of where they are moving.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 10:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
You're free to do so. Go have fun with that.

And we're hogging resources? You say that is if we surround them with tanks and say "MINE!!!". We purchase them off the open market just the same as everyone else.

And go look at China and India if you want to point fingers at the largest polluters. We have tighter emissions standards than Europe does. To the point where we (stupidly) can't import cars directly from Europe. Many of us would love the diesel options yall have over there. But our retarded environmental laws won't allow for it.


RE: That makes sense
By 91TTZ on 11/6/2009 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
The US doesn't "hog" anything. We buy it just like everyone else does.


RE: That makes sense
By Shadowself on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 10:52:37 AM , Rating: 4
We already have luxury taxes dumbass.

But that doesn't make them right. There's no reason anyone should have to pay an extra fee on a vehicle because it costs a lot of money. For three reasons.

First because it discourages lawful commerce. Second because what's next, charging a luxury tax on expensive home sales? Third, who decides what's a "luxury". What happens when someone gets in office that decides that a $25,000 vehicle is a "luxury" vehicle because you can buy a $15,000 Kia or Hyundai? You still going to scream for that luxury tax?

It's easy to demonize and call for taxes on something that won't affect you.


RE: That makes sense
By Shadowself on 11/6/2009 1:22:48 PM , Rating: 1
Stop it with the dumbass comments.

If you had thought about it for even one millisecond rather than just doing a knee jerk reaction you'd have realized this is NOT a luxury tax. It would be a tax on the fuel hogs and polluting cars.

A $100,000 car that gets the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon would actually get a huge tax rebate. A $15,000 car that gets the equivalent of 2 miles per gallon would get a huge tax hit.

In more realistic terms a car that gets the equivalent of 60 mpg that has a base price of $40k might cost the consumer less than a car that has a base price of $30k but gets 10 mpg.

Think before you post.


RE: That makes sense
By Schrag4 on 11/6/2009 1:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel hogs are already 'fuel taxed' more than other vehicles. Everyone pays the same tax per gallon, fuel hogs use more gallons. It's simple and elegant.

Suggesting that different vehicles be taxed differently is complicated, and open to corruption in deciding which are taxed and how.

...just sayin'...


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2009 12:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the "gas guzzler" tax.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 1:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think before you post.
Think before YOU post dude. Like Shadowself said, people already pay more in taxes on "fuel hogs". It costs more in gas to fuel a guzzler hence more taxes are paid. The guzzlers usually cost more to purchase hence you pay more for sales taxes and registration fees. These people ALREADY pay more for the privilege. There are no other fees needed.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 11:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
Fine no taxes, I guess that means private companies will build and maintain the roads and you will pay a toll for every street/hwy/interstate that you drive on. That will hurt the average family 10 times worse then gas taxes. Right now people like bill gates who makes more in 5 minutes then the average family will bring in their entire life pay a higher percent of maintaining the driving infer-structure. Most people cant actually afford their share of the "real" transportation costs.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 12:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you idiots always bring up this argument? No one is saying the government shouldn't maintain roads. The Constitution even tasks the federal government with doing this. And states do it to improve commerce in their state.

Roads are a good example of something the government SHOULD spend money on because it encourages commerce and prosperity. And the taxes paid by companies and individuals who use those roads help pay for them.


RE: That makes sense
By hyvonen on 11/6/2009 5:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a punishment. It's just how things will have to be to reduce fuel consumption and improve energy independence.

You might take it as a punishment because you want what you want and believe that you're entitled to whatever you want. You are still allowed to have what you want and drive as much you want, but it'll be more expensive.

And yes, you should be paying to visit your family - it shouldn't be free. it's unfortunate for you they live so far away... maybe you should live closer if you want to visit them so often. It's up to you to decide if it's feasible for you to pay the $400 ticket to fly there. You're not forced to - you have the FREEDOM to not go.

You whine too much. You are not entitled to everything - everything has a cost.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 9:33:49 AM , Rating: 4
Not to mention we could easily be an exporter of oil as well if not for our dumbass politicians allowing anyone and everyone else but us to drill for oil. We just gave $2 billion dollars we don't have for Brazil to look for oil off its coast but we won't spend the same money to go drill for oil here when we already know its there.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Charlie Sheen and his buddies don't want to see oil platforms off of their Malibu homes. Special interests are stopping it not environmentalists.


RE: That makes sense
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2009 12:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
We had the moratorium on offshore drilling lifted. Obama reinstated it the presidential mandate. Not special interest.

And oil rigs will be in the neighborhood of 25 miles off the coast. Line of sight out to see is 10 miles at best. If any of them are trying to stop it, its because of a political agenda, not a property value one. And California has oil leaking out of the ocean floors and screwing up its coastline. Drilling would actually HELP the coastline by relieving pressure.

Environmental groups ARE special interest groups.


RE: That makes sense
By lewislink on 11/6/2009 6:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
No it won't. It will put the poor people, who are already struggling to make ends meet, in the poor house. It will condemn their children to a life on the street and the parents to jail. It will increase crime and poverty.

But the arrogant among us don't care about that. But that's okay because when their footsteps (the backs of the poor) have gone down, they will follow. I'd almost give up my life to watch an arrogant, un-compassionate, money-insulated person suffer that.


RE: That makes sense
By jrcaptain on 11/6/2009 7:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Let the free market work, and keep the government out. Gas will go up when the supply goes down. At that point people will migrate to smaller cars or better fuel savings.

Right now, if you put a large influx of electric cars in the system; the electrical grid would collapse because none of the stimulus money went to upgrading the grid.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
You forget that the OPEC controls prices to keep us addicted to oil. As soon as we start looking for alternatives they lower the price to put those alternatives out of business. They are not stupid. They have done it to us twice already and we keeping falling for it because apparently we are stupid.


RE: That makes sense
By straycat74 on 11/6/2009 9:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
That can't keep doing it because we only have a 50 year supply of oil left......Right?


RE: That makes sense
By AEvangel on 11/6/2009 10:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I believe that fairy tale...we were told we only had a 50 yr supply back in the 70's.


RE: That makes sense
By Gyres01 on 11/6/2009 11:09:42 AM , Rating: 2
So the d-bag execs ( would don't pay for their fuel anyway) want to force me to buy some lameass electric vehicle...I say EFF them and I cannot wait for the Crime-wave to insue. This country is turning to sh!t faster then we can fix it....


RE: That makes sense
By dnd728 on 11/6/2009 9:26:27 AM , Rating: 3
I am no less pro free market than you are, but even in a free market you still have to pay for the results of your actions.
If two cars are in the market - A costs a little less than B, but spews tons of cow manure all over the place as you drive, while car B actually cleans the road as a side effect, then yes, car A would need to be taxed, while car B should get a benefit.
You can't just choose car A because it costs you a little less and @#$^ the neighbors.

So large cars don't spew manure, but they do come with a cost, as I've mentioned here below and people didn't like to hear. And of course the tax needs to return to taxpayers the proper way - it's not stolen.


RE: That makes sense
By dnd728 on 11/6/2009 9:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the extent of the taxes & benefits - that's beyond me.


RE: That makes sense
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 8:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm I kind of like that idea. F the neighbors, how about exhaust that just smells like cow crap, better yet pig crap. Just make sure I can't smell it in my own car. :)


RE: That makes sense
By dnd728 on 11/6/2009 10:47:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
HOW do you expect 1000+ people at a company, 1 LOCATION to just up and move...

That's why it's gradual - by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8.
By then you may have better car tech, better public transportation, or maybe you've mooved...

quote:
It will just cause americans to not spend money on other things...

Or you can look at it another way - Oil would be expensive one way or another (supply would be limited when market is healthy again). If it's through taxes then the money can be returned to the public, but if it's all going to oil producers *then* you'd be poorer.


RE: That makes sense
By dnd728 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By dnd728 on 11/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: That makes sense
By lewislink on 11/6/2009 6:53:37 PM , Rating: 1
And when people smoke cigarettes, they damage the health of everyone around them. But do cigarette smokers care about that? Hell no. In fact, a cigarette smoker would be offended by someone who didn't want their health hurt by no having to breathe the 2nd hand smoke.

Do people like you care about the suffering the industry has put on the poor? Hell no! People like you condemn the innocent and pay no attention to the guilty industry that forced the oil consumption on the nation.

The mind of a Repub (the ones behind this tax) is to always take the hard way. There is no need for hardship. But because the arrogant Repubs can't see a non-hard way...or refuse to accept an easy way...they put pain and suffering on us all by trying to make us do what doesn't have to be done.

Typical arrogance and self-righteousness. The Repub always believes his/her way to be best for everyone...until they, themselves, have to suffer what they try to burden others with. Then, let me tell you, their attitudes change. If they had to suffer what they want everyone else, for their own good, to suffer... WHOA! WAIT A DAMN MINUTE! THAT JUST ISN'T FAIR!!!


RE: That makes sense
By superPC on 11/6/2009 6:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
No need for some tax to make an electric vehicle economical. consider this: tesla roadster uses 21.7 kW·h/100mile. that means for 100 miles it cost about 2$ to drive a tesla roadster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster), compare that to vehicle with similar performance, it's very cheap. and most of other production pure electric vehicle uses about 20 kW.h/100mile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_E6; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_F3DM; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_C1_ev%27... citroen C1 ev'ie and BYD F3DM cost about 20000$!!! electric vehicle are economical NOW, not in 5 years, even without more gasoline tax. it's the cheapest way to go (if you don't mind long hour to recharge that is, the only uneconomical part of electric vehicle since time is money)


RE: That makes sense
By frobizzle on 11/6/2009 10:43:14 AM , Rating: 3
You're a jackass! You think "Yeah, raise fuel taxes so families use less. Fine but keep in mind that fuel tax would effect everyone, both commercial and privagte, All the goods get to the store how? By truck and gee, you think they run on farts? (That might be an avenue to explore in the future - fart power! :-)

And the farmers? Do their tractors and other equipment need gasoline? Ya think?


RE: That makes sense
By IlllI on 11/6/2009 10:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
this is the smartest thing anyone has written so far


RE: That makes sense
By JediJeb on 11/6/2009 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
Very true, noone is thinking that with $8/gallon fuel their loaf of bread would soon cost $10 their fresh bundle if carrots would be $20. If people really want this tax, I hope they are prepared to pay $20 or more for each meal they eat.

Even over a 10 year period the change will not be slow enough to keep from causing people to spending money they dont have to buy the new cars. When gas hit $4/gallon last year I ran the numbers and to replace my truck with a new car that got 40mpg if I only used the fuel savings I would have to buy a car with $80/month payments. Since I really have no money left over at the end of the month that is the only way I could afford a new car, and you know what you can buy for that price, something that is worn out and gets less milage than my truck.

If the auto makers are so worried about people not buying their EVs and Hybrids because they want the gas guzzlers, they they should just stop making the gas guzzlers and only make the efficient vehicles. The auto makers are wanting to be able to blame the government for forcing them into doing what they should do so they don't have to face the backlash from the consumers alone for doing what should be done. If auto makers shift the production volume from gas guzzlers to econo boxes then the price of the gas guzzlers will naturally climb and the econo boxes will fall by virtue of supply and demand. People will then migrate to what they need to purchase. Leave fuel prices alone because trying to make this shift artifically by taxing fuel will only lead to hyper inflation across the board and that will kill the economy for a long time to come, or does anyone not remember the late 70s. We need to learn from those mistakes and not repeat them.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 2:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the auto makers are so worried about people not buying their EVs and Hybrids because they want the gas guzzlers, they they should just stop making the gas guzzlers and only make the efficient vehicles.
This will never happen unless they colluded (illegal) to do it. And all it would take is ONE company to decide NOT to do this and it would result in lost market share for the other companies. I tell you what. If you think it's important to drive a fuel efficient vehicle, then do your part and buy one. Lead by example.


RE: That makes sense
By Cerin218 on 11/6/2009 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's so sad that the people of this country have such a short memory and attention span. Did you all forget when gas was $5 a gallon a few years ago? What happened? The economy contracted. People didn't spend money to go out, people didn't by new products, the cost to produce and distribute products went up. Notice that the size of a lot of things on the shelf in the grocery store got smaller? It is one of the factors that put us in a recession.
The big problem I have with this is that the auto makers are trying to keep themselves relevant. No one will buy the volt because it is expensive, and new and largely untested technology. It doesn't go very far and you need to recharge it. So if I were to go on a 600 mile trip I would have to stop and recharge 3 times at 1 hour each? adding 3 hours to a trip? You haven;t made the technology easy to use and friendly enough currently, so your only hope is to force people to buy it. May as well just make a law and say that your next car you buy must be a Volt. And as stated, can our power grid handle the increase in demand? Will we build to accommodate?
I love how Chevy was more then happy to ride the gas guzzling wave of the SUV, and now that now one wants their SUV's and they can't market their crap Volt, they have to mandate the public to stay relevant. They remind me a lot of big content, why innovate, when you can simply legislate. Go ahead and make gas 8 dollars a gallon. I don't need a car and will be happy to live without one. That way you won't get the money for the car, or taxes for the gas I don't use. We don't have to decrease our reliance on a type of energy, we just have to actually use the resources we already have. God you liberals are f'ing dense.


RE: That makes sense
By Skott on 11/6/2009 11:28:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think all of us that are adults and been around a little while know that there is a valid point here. Yes, raise fuel costs enough and alternative fuel and EV vehicles do become a lot more attractive to the consumer. And you wouldn't need to raise gas prices $8. Getting it to $4 a gallon should do the trick. $5 at the most.

However I dont support increasing gas prices artificially. Why? Because I believe that because of two things. OPEC wanting to have a cartel on pricing and the fact other big economies, like India and China will put enough strain and demand on fuel to raise prices without our Govt to artificially do it.

In a nut shell I believe its going to happen anyway so we don't need some idiot suggesting our Govt to go ahead and do it to speed things up.


RE: That makes sense
By Hiawa23 on 11/6/2009 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think all of us that are adults and been around a little while know that there is a valid point here. Yes, raise fuel costs enough and alternative fuel and EV vehicles do become a lot more attractive to the consumer. And you wouldn't need to raise gas prices $8. Getting it to $4 a gallon should do the trick. $5 at the most.

Many of us are adults, been around for a while but I don't buy that. Most can't buy new vehicles if they wanted to. I, myself have a 2006 Lancer Ralliart 2.4, & a 1997 Honda Civic & I am not, or donot plan on buying another car, period, still owe quite a bit on the Lancer.

With shrinking income, skyrocketing energy & other costs, couldn't afford to do that anyways, so I think our government should instead be saying how do we get gasoline prices lowered, because for the middle or bottom 1/2 of the country gasoline vehicles will be all that we will be driving, & I also run a business, my fuel bills are already about $10k/month. Get the darn gas prices down, as this would kill average Joe or lower income families already struggling.


RE: That makes sense
By bortiz on 11/6/2009 1:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Let's think about this, the problem is the economy. When gas prices went up we bought hybrids to try and save ourselves. Gas prices drop, hybrids no longer make sense, so you say we should make high gas prices permanent. That is stupid, how does that help the economy.

Let's look at what Nixon did. Land is cheap in the US. he upgraded the highway system to lower the cost of transportation in the US, helping the US economy. Later, Pres Ford extended this by lowering the speed limit to allow the conversion to radial tires, again lowering the cost of transportation.

What I propose, today we have gridlock in many of our highways. Another upgrade to our highway system is due. Companies like Peugeot are working on hybrid systems that make up the difference of small speed changes at high speeds, keeping engines at constant RPMs, saving fuel at highway speeds, unlike the systems sold in the US that save gas in gridlock situations. We need to open up our highways again and apply technologies to lower the price of trucking once again. We are a big country, spread out. This is our financial advantage. We need to keep fuel prices and transportation costs low to be able to better compete against densely populated countries such as Japan and Europe.


RE: That makes sense
By walk2k on 11/6/2009 1:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
And what happens when the oil cartel drops the price right back down again?

This is retarded.

How about auto makers just stop suing the government every time they are required to make more efficient cars and just produce them like they're supposed to? People can only buy what's for sale.


RE: That makes sense
By Spuke on 11/6/2009 2:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People can only buy what's for sale.
People buy what they want and the automakers provide the cars we like. It's that simple.

A link to the cars that Americans really want:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...


RE: That makes sense
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2009 2:52:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Hearing such pleas for government intervention and taxation certainly seems a strange one coming from the business sector


As usual Jason, and most of you guys, are missing the point.

This isn't coming from the business sector, this is coming from GM. A company that sold out to the government, and now is forced to go along with Obama's green objectives to stay alive.

The problem is no car company as large as GM can stay alive making cars people don't want. And, sorry, most people don't want electric cars or hybrids. The proof of this statement is right in this article. What are these guys really saying ? They are saying "People don't want these cars so we have to FORCE them to buy them.".

It's shameful, it's absurd. And in the past 2 years we have done and talked about things I NEVER thougth would be happening in this country. This is why big business and socialist governments should NEVER get in bed together.

quote:
Maybe in a couple of years after the economy's recovered and most americans have stable income


The economy is NOT going to recover in a few years, if ever. I really don't think some of you understand the trouble we are in. We are already massively in debt, massively unemployed, and our President is ramming home even MORE taxes, trillion dollar health care plans, Cap and Trade and god knows what else.

This isn't rocket science. Our economy and country cannot sustain the burden that these plans and programs and wasteful spending that we are seeing discussed. And the very LAST thing you should do in a recession is raise taxes and put huge increases in the cost of living for the American public.

These idea's destroy wealth, they destroy jobs, and they destroy families. Our government seems hell bent on killing prosperity and you people need to take notice. Because it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican, they are coming after YOU.


RE: That makes sense
By atomikyyz on 11/6/2009 4:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! Look at who the cost is deferred to! Us! And who says we should subsidize their car? If I dont drive it I am not paying for it simple. Everytime I buy a gallon of gas , Iam not sending GM/government 4 dollars too...No one seemed to notice that here.. Christ the current administration has dumped all kinds of debt on the consumers already what do you think we want more? Be careful what you wish for because this points us to a fricken nightmare. And think of this... The government MADE you pay for GM's car. WTF?


WTF!!!
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: WTF!!!
By Quenlar on 11/6/2009 2:30:35 AM , Rating: 3
I think it's unconstitutional for others to affect the public.

No public smoking, DUI, or anything that negatively affects the environment...

Maybe we can get government funding to put people who want to do what they want when they want into a giant biodome and launch it around the sun. Screw up your own place please.

Big friggin deal, $8/gal will happen this next decade with or without taxes. With taxes some progress might actually get done (though I have little faith in government funded progress, I have even less faith in individuals doing the right thing).


RE: WTF!!!
By TheBaker on 11/6/2009 3:06:46 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I think it's unconstitutional


Both of you need to stop thinking and start researching, because you're both wrong. What you think is constitutional means exactly zero. The document is there to be referenced for precisely this reason. Instead of complaining that you think something you don't like is unconstitutional just because it doesn't fit your vision of America, you should try actually READING the document to find out.

It is fully constitutional to tax people into driving cars they don't want, as long as the laws are originated properly in congress and pass a vote. It is also fully constitutional to do things that affect the public, so long as your state or local government hasn't passed a resolution forbidding such activities.

Spiritually, the first poster is closer to the American "Don't Tread on Me" ideal, although somehow I seriously doubt he really wants to be left alone. How would you feel if your home were robbed and the police said "that's your problem, man."? Mr. "I think it's unconstitutional for others to affect the public" is even more of a lunatic, though. Seriously, you don't want others to affect the public? Stop driving on my roads then, you're affecting me and everyone around you. Oh, and while you're at it, stop breathing my air. And put that food back, you're affecting the price of potatoes by increasing demand.

And this is my favorite: "though I have little faith in government funded progress, I have even less faith in individuals doing the right thing." You do know that "Government" is not actually a sentient being, right? It's just a word we use for the set of individuals we elect to pass laws.


RE: WTF!!!
By straycat74 on 11/6/2009 10:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
You spent a whole lot of time saying absolutely nothing. And I wasted my time reading it. Damn.


RE: WTF!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 10:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
You are also wrong. The Constitution does give the federal government the power to collect taxes. And liberals like you always use the general welfare clause as proof that you can tax whatever you want "for the common good". Except that the founders even said in the Federalist Papers that it was NOT intended to be used for anything and everything, otherwise the rest of the Constitution wouldn't matter because using that clause as liberals do today gives the government unrestrained power.

And your comparison of being left alone with what car you purchase and the getting robbed is completely idiotic.

And we elect people to run our government. That means abiding by the Constitution as the framers intended. Not as they see fit. Now if they believe today that the Constitution doesn't cover something, we have an amendment process. But you don't see Amendments to the Constitution being proposed. Just twisted interpretations. Because they know they wouldn't be able to hide from the public a Constitutional Amendment.

Remember that the reason some opposed the Constitution and had to be swayed into signing it was because they feared a federal government with too much power, not to little. They had just fought a war to end the rule of a tyrannical central government and had no desire to institute another one.


RE: WTF!!!
By TheBaker on 11/7/2009 12:24:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You are also wrong. The Constitution does give the federal government the power to collect taxes. And liberals like you always use the general welfare clause as proof that you can tax whatever you want "for the common good". Except that the founders even said in the Federalist Papers that it was NOT intended to be used for anything and everything, otherwise the rest of the Constitution wouldn't matter because using that clause as liberals do today gives the government unrestrained power.


Who are you responding to here? Because if it is me, i'm not sure how you can say I'm wrong. I didn't try to justify or vindicate any taxation, I simply stated that it is constitutional, which it in fact is. Look at taxes on tobacco for a start. The taxes are fully legal and constitutional because they were enacted properly and legitimately, regardless of whether you and I agree with them. Congress is specifically empowered to tax any goods that flow across state lines, which tobacco and of course gasoline both do.

quote:
And your comparison of being left alone with what car you purchase and the getting robbed is completely idiotic.


Idiotic? Really? How about a reason why you find it so? The comparison is perfectly valid when someone says something like "give me my V8 pickup and leave me alone." It's that kind of attitude that divides people into black and white groups on opposite sides of issues instead of seeing the whole picture. If you want the government to not exercise it's constitutionally granted power to tax, what else do you not want the government to do? Provide for the common defense? Treat with other nations? protect its citizenry? Where does it stop? You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you follow. They're not telling you what car to buy. You can buy whatever you want. They're taxing the gas. It's no different than fining someone for littering or fining a company for dumping waste improperly, the only difference is that there's no consensus on whether fuel efficiency is really that important environmentally. Either way, you're being charged for doing something the government doesn't want you to do.

quote:
And we elect people to run our government. That means abiding by the Constitution as the framers intended. Not as they see fit. Now if they believe today that the Constitution doesn't cover something, we have an amendment process. But you don't see Amendments to the Constitution being proposed. Just twisted interpretations. Because they know they wouldn't be able to hide from the public a Constitutional Amendment.


Are you high? The constitution is amended frequently specifically to enable many of the things the framers never intended. Do you really think Thomas Jefferson would have supported a tax on income, for God's sake? Seriously, for 150+ years Senators were not generally elected. They were SPECIFICALLY chosen by state governments in order to look out for those states' interests. Now, thanks to an amendment, they think they are some modern-day House of Lords. Things that run counter to the written document can be challenged. Things that run counter to the framers' intentions unfortunately cannot, as those intentions have been overruled by amendments on multiple occasions.

You need to come to grips with the difference between "unconstitutional" and "not what the founders would have wanted." Even so, many of the things the founders wanted in teh document didn't get put there, and vice versa. They were smart enough to realize that this country is populated by people, not idealists, and that some things just weren't realistic in a community. They may have wanted the federal government to be as small as possible, but they recognized that the federal government was the entity that would need to make decisions that would affect the nation as a whole. We live in a drastically different world now, and we must unfortunately live with the failings of the founding fathers to foresee that, or else propose new amendments to counter the bastardization of the document that has occurred.

Rabid isolationism will not work, and neither will going to the opposite extreme. The government does have constitutional powers that neither side likes, and they both need to learn to live with them and stop jumping to "unconstitutional" arguments without getting their facts straight.


RE: WTF!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2009 9:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
The commerce clause gives Congress the power to tax based on the act of going across state lines. So if a company wants to move a car across state lines, Congress can tax the actual movement of that car across state lines. It does not have the power under the intent of the framers to tax or control the how the car is built. The same goes for how gas is made. Yes it can tax gas per gallon as it does.

However it is not for the common good to drive the cost of energy beyond a level that people are able to pay for it because it hurts the economy and can cause people to die (freeze in their homes in the winter from not being able to afford heat or heat stroke from not being able to afford to cool their homes). It also makes it harder for people to afford the necessities of life (food and clothing) since higher energy costs are distributed across the cost of everything.

No the Constitution is not amended all the time. Laws are passed all the time, but they are not amendments to the Constitution. The last amendment to the Constitution was in 1992 and addressed increases in Congressional pay.

What is and is not Constitutional is interpreted by reading the document and what the framers intended. "Provide for the general welfare" is a broad statement. So how do you know what they meant? You look at their writings where they clearly state their opinions and thoughts when writing that statement. Not think about what YOU want it to mean.


RE: WTF!!!
By zombiexl on 11/6/2009 7:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
Can you name for me one tax that proves to be a good tax?

Can you name one thing the government of the US does to actually help the people or that is in the people's best interest?

Do you really think they want people to stop smoking? Here's a hint, those taxes add up pretty quick and the nut jobs in D.C. love spending money (both parties).

Do you think a sin tax is really to help the people or could it possibly to raise more money for the government to waste?

Also please back it up with valid sources because then i'll actually have to think to rip your arguments to shreds.


RE: WTF!!!
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
Ya you free market people are nuts. Lets get the government out of regulating the pesticides farmers use, the toxins contractors use building our homes, FDA making sure that we are safe, government out of licensing doctors, and pharmacists, we will be so much better off. We all know we can trust the big hearted corporations to do the right thing because we know they have big hearts. You people eat up all the corporate propaganda that's fed to you from right we radio.


RE: WTF!!!
By AEvangel on 11/6/2009 10:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
Actually we will be better off....all the Government has to do then is back and protect private contracts and personal property rights.

If a Farmer Spray a pesticide that is bad for the environment, then he gets sued he loses his farm and the $$ taken goes to clean up the damages.

If a builder uses toxic material to build a home then once again he gets sued out of business and the money raised then goes to repair the damages.

If the Doctor or the Pharmacist give you bad advice then you sue them out of business and they money goes to repair the damages.

The funny thing is that all of the issues that you state in your counter argument is issues that we have now anyway, with all the Government regulation and intrusion in our lives.

When will people realize that Governments pass regulation and rules to protect big business and stifle competition, they just do it all under the guise of "protecting the people from evil corporations." as you like to think.

The other problem with your logic is now the "Evil Corporation" only has to lobby and make happy 535 elected officials instead of the general public which according to your train of thought our just pawns they wish to poison and destroy with their evil money making schemes.


RE: WTF!!!
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 11:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
How many times has it been shown that companies have knowingly put their employees health at risk. The only thing that matters to a corporation are profits.


RE: WTF!!!
By Steve1981 on 11/6/2009 11:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
Do you suppose the government is a whit better in that regard?


RE: WTF!!!
By Cerin218 on 11/6/2009 2:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do US Military vehicles have an emissions controls on them at all?

And yes Jeff, companies put their employees health at risk and the employers are then sued for damages. Companies don't just get to do what they want, they can be held accountable.


RE: WTF!!!
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Grate, so I get cancer and then when I'm sitting on my death bed, I get some money. Yeah


RE: WTF!!!
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
By the way most regulations have come about because of blatant abuses by corporations.


RE: WTF!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 10:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with the guy who replied above me, no one on our side is really calling for the removal of government regulating pesticide use assuming it really is hurting things. But something like DDT that got banned after all the evidence said it wasn't hurting anything is what IS wrong.

As far as the FDA making sure we're safe? Please. The FDA largely goes around hurting businesses because a single chicken gets sick or a person gets sick from eating a bad jalapeno. How many times has the FDA pulled millions of dollars of a product off shelves to protect us when there wasn't really a problem?

But few on the conservative side have a problem with the government regulating drug companies to insure drugs do what the companies say they do. Or are against doctors and pharmacists being licensed (actually that's a state run license, not a federal government one). My mom has her pharmacy license in 10+ states.

What we ARE against is the government mandating prices on drugs so that new drugs never get developed because it isn't profitable.


RE: WTF!!!
By Jeffk464 on 11/6/2009 7:38:11 PM , Rating: 3
By the way government regulations protect those drug companies intellectual property for 10 years. Another one of those crazy regulations that keep other companies(aka china) from making copies and dumping them on the US market.


RE: WTF!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2009 12:20:08 AM , Rating: 1
What exactly is your point?


RE: WTF!!!
By armulyman on 11/6/2009 3:18:38 AM , Rating: 3
screw you buddy, we all have to breathe the cancer causing exhaust that your precious V-8 puts out?

Is climate change caused by man? nobody knows for sure.

but YOU should show some respect for your neighbors by not trying to give them lung cancer, or help their children develop asthma.


RE: WTF!!!
By blueaurora on 11/6/2009 8:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
Screw you for screwing my buddy. The fumes that a V-8 puts out are the same fumes that a v-4 puts out just in larger quantities. That doesn't mean I should go out and execute fat people because they eat too much or smokers because they spend their last dime on something that will make them die a horrible death anyways as long as they don't do it next to me. I don't smoke don't drink and make a better than average environment for my family to be raised in.

Climate change is NOT CAUSED by man everyone knows that for SURE. We don't know if it is influenced by man.

You should show some respect for your neighbors and stop telling them how to live. You are not their boss and our government is supposed to be us running the country not the country running us. I hate liberals.


RE: WTF!!!
By Denigrate on 11/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: WTF!!!
By armulyman on 11/6/2009 9:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
whoa so i'm a liberal for not wanting to breathe other people's exhaust fumes?
I walk a total of 6 miles every day to both school and a full time job.
I live in a city plagued by smog, not the worst in the nation but still pretty bad.
and i have asthma.
...
what gives you the right to directly damage other people's health?
what gives you the right to dump used auto oil down the drain?
what gives you the right to kill somebody?
...
OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, we've decided as a society that none of those things are cool! So why should combustion engines be legal at all?


RE: WTF!!!
By Spuke on 11/8/2009 12:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So why should combustion engines be legal at all?
You do realize that engine displacement does not determine the amount of pollutants an engine produces or doesn't produce, right?


RE: WTF!!!
By weskurtz0081 on 11/6/2009 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I should pull my big trailer around like a mule instead of using my evil V-8 diesel truck to do that.

How about this, since you don't like V-8's, and I need to pull my trailer around, why don't you pull it around for me or figure out some other way I can move it around? Keep in mind, I am not just pulling it around because I like trailers, it's business related.


RE: WTF!!!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2009 3:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
V-8's cause cancer now ???

What the...ummm, ok. It's amazing the human race made it out of the 1940's in that case. Where EVERYONE smoked in your face and everyone drove V-8's.


RE: WTF!!!
By armulyman on 11/6/2009 9:48:44 PM , Rating: 3
is it really too far of a stretch of logic for you to realize:

1. toxic gas causes cancer.
+
1. cars emit toxic gas.
=
2. so emissions from your v-8 might cause cancer?
...
cancer risks are well known to increase in highly populated areas.

a quick feeling lucky search on google returned

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2...
...
it's debated exactly how much damage smog causes, but driving a combustion engine is EXACTLY like smoking in somebody's face