| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:57:54 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live. |
That's true.....and that's not the people that should have to bear the brunt of whatever solution could be enacted.....give the tax break to the farmers/horsemen/contractors, etc., who need them to work, and tax the sh*t out of the Escalades, Blackhawks, Hummers, and the rest of the boutique pigs that people drive that never have the remotest relevance.....you have to pay a luxury tax to own a Ferrari, why not to drive some pig that weighs some 5000+ pounds, beats the sh*t out of the roads, and goes through fuel in a profligate manner?
It's a free country, so if some soccer mom wants to drive a full-boat Excursion all over town and haul kids to the games once a week, fine, but she should pay for the privilege, too.
I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the gas pig vehicles I see out here are during commuter hours.
The parking lot of the John Deere dealer where I work has work trucks parked there, with dirt, straw, and equipment in them......not leather, tinted glass, and golden retrievers.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2009 02:35:42 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh, puuuuuuuhleeeeeeeze!
I live in Pennsylvania......the pothole is the state animal......8>) |
Sorry, in my haste to type I neglected to include the tags ... |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 03:16:38 PM · #28 |
Now Jeb Golden's are good dogs, I prefer my Lab though, but she can't fit in the back of my F250 for all the concrete tools.....;p
|
|
|
|
01/30/2009 04:27:22 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Now Jeb Golden's are good dogs, I prefer my Lab though, but she can't fit in the back of my F250 for all the concrete tools.....;p |
Lisa and I had a Golden before the damn yuppies discovered them.
He was a wonderful animal and was with us for 17 years.....ruined us for all other pets.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2009 03:12:43 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
GM doesn't have a legacy image of lower quality, they consistently refuse to build their cars better because they've been able to get away with it for the last three decades.....their attitude has been, "F*ck 'em, they'll buy whatever junk we give 'em!".
It has caught up with them in spades, and now they're crying. |
Not true. When was the last time you drove a 2008 Malibu or CTS? Obama seems to like his new Cadillac - perhaps you should try one. Or maybe a Chevrolet HHR at 30mpg (like the govt wants GM to build) with fold flat rear seats, front wheel drive, and both 4 door and 2 door panel body styles and priced under 19K nicely optioned. Lots of small businesses are selecting these.
ETA: Cadillac and Lexus are either rated 1 or 2 in nearly every category they compete. Buick has a ride like no other vehicle on the road and have for decades. The Enclave is a star in its class with nearly every one who drives one - loving it. Luxurious, quiet, spacious and stylish. Pontiac has the Solstice coupe coming out this summer - a beautiful commuter car, with space behind the seats and gets 30mpg and priced at 19-22K - half of the comparable BMW. Corvette has led the world in its segment for many years as it relates to performance and value. No other manufacturer makes a vehicle competitively (with the Corvette) at GM's price point. The CTS has quickly become a world standard in its class. The chevrolet Malibu and its sister the Saturn Aura were multiple "car of the year" winners. The Saturn Vue is a very competitive cross over in its class with trim levels from sparse to loaded.
I really hope you look into a few of GM's offerings and take them for a test drive. They are far from the company of the 80's.
Message edited by author 2009-01-31 08:32:17. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 03:18:56 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by alans_world:
Now Jeb Golden's are good dogs, I prefer my Lab though, but she can't fit in the back of my F250 for all the concrete tools.....;p |
Lisa and I had a Golden before the damn yuppies discovered them.
He was a wonderful animal and was with us for 17 years.....ruined us for all other pets. |
17 years old? A Lab? - that gives me hope, our one is 13 this year and we hear these things are lucky to hit 12 - she has bundles of energy though and still acts like a puppy from time to time. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 03:26:42 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Flash:
- except he seems bent on pushing this huge spending bill through and marketing it as a stimulus package. Talk about dishonest. |
lol. The Republicans did precisely the same thing, making sure to get the Wall St. "bailout" package pushed through as quickly as they could. Would you rather spend $825 billion on projects that will create jobs (even if only in the short-term) on a state-to-state basis, or give $700 billion to already-millionaire "financiers" that couldn't wait to wallpaper their offices with $100 dollar-bills?
Forget honesty, let's talk about short-term memory. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 03:40:56 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by Flash:
- except he seems bent on pushing this huge spending bill through and marketing it as a stimulus package. Talk about dishonest. |
lol. The Republicans did precisely the same thing, making sure to get the Wall St. "bailout" package pushed through as quickly as they could. Would you rather spend $825 billion on projects that will create jobs (even if only in the short-term) on a state-to-state basis, or give $700 billion to already-millionaire "financiers" that couldn't wait to wallpaper their offices with $100 dollar-bills?
Forget honesty, let's talk about short-term memory. |
I must be missing your point. Are you saying that the 700 Billion Wall Street bail out that the Republicans wouldn't pass (remember the campaign suspension of McCain due to the Repubs bawking at the Bill) justifies the misuse of another 825 billion? What I am reading in this thread so far, is the Obama suporters from prior to the election are justifying the immense pork in the current bill. Cut the pork and get it down to the essential stimulus items. That would be the Obama that I heard on the campaign trail - the Obama that many here promised me. Not a tired old tax and spend liberal - with a wish list from every liberal democrat interest group. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 03:57:05 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Lisa and I had a Golden before the damn yuppies discovered them. |
You seem to have a disdain for certain people. Is it their pretentiousness, their displayed success, or do you truly feel that no one should have the right to live above your personal means? I don't think you are a bad person, but you write like a bitter one.
Please keep this in mind - many of those "yuppies" aren't very happy people. Owning a dog can be one of the greatest joys known to man. No other animal gives so much so freely and asks so little in return - unconditionally. Lots of dogs need rescuing these days. I hope the Obama's pick a rescue. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 04:05:41 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I must be missing your point. Are you saying that the 700 Billion Wall Street bail out that the Republicans wouldn't pass (remember the campaign suspension of McCain due to the Repubs bawking at the Bill) justifies the misuse of another 825 billion? |
Right. The Bush-sponsored bill that the Republicans tried to use for a grandstanding campaign boost, and balked until Paulson was given carte blanche to distribute without needing to account to the taxpayers? That's the one.
I'm suggesting it's better for the economy to have $825 billion spent on new initiatives, rather than as a handout to already-failed businesses. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 04:46:34 AM · #36 |
I don't think he's doing too well...
In less than two weeks we're already getting bogged down in a partisan quagmire.
While I'm for the a Stimulus Package...whatever they come up with needs to be super squeaky clean with NO loopholes or pork. The fact that their was over a billion dollars of bailout money spent on gifts and bonuses (even though that's pretty small across the board) the government lost ALL it's credibility in my eyes to manage our money. Banks still aren't lending which was the initial goal of the package, so they screwed up immediately right out of the gate.
He also HAS to stay clear of hot, push button issues for the moment(Stem Cell Research, Abortion Rights etc.) including Climate Control to a degree. That can be addressed with a new energy policy much of which most of us agree on.
While we should handle our foreign policy in a more humble manner when Ahmadinejad asked for a public apology from the US that made me uncomfortable even though we screwed them over big time when we put The Shah in place. I don't mind being humble but I think we should remain strong against leaders that call for our death. I don't want crazy world leaders to mistake any shows kindness for weakness. In a perfect world it might fly but that's not what we have.
The House vote on the stimulus package was a disaster. After getting elected primarily based on the economy how did he manage to lose immediate support from a severely weakened Right.
He needs to stick to two or three key issues...no more no less and don't pick any fights that agitate any opposition.
Message edited by author 2009-01-31 10:41:21. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 04:52:44 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't think he's doing too well...
In less than two weeks we're already getting bogged down in a partisan quagmire.
While I'm for the a Stimulus Package...whatever they come up with needs to be super squeaky clean with NO loopholes or pork. The fact that their were over a billion dollars of bailout money was spent on gifts and bonuses (even though that's pretty small across the board) the government lost ALL it's credibility in my eyes to manage our money. Banks still aren't lending which was the initial goal of the package, so they screwed up immediately right out of the gate.
he also HAS to stay clear of hot, push button issues for the moment(Stem Cell Research, Abortion Rights etc.) including Climate Control to a degree. That can be addressed with a new energy policy much of which most of us agree on.
While we should handle our foreign policy in a more humble manner when Ahmadinejad asked for a public apology from the US that made me uncomfortable even though we screwed them over big time when we put The Shah in place. I don't mind being humble but I think we should remain strong against leaders that call for our death. I don't want crazy world leaders to mistake any shows kindness for weakness. In a perfect world it might fly but that's not what we have.
The House vote on the stimulus package was a disaster. After getting elected primarily based on the economy how did he manage to lose immediate support from a severely weakened Right.
He needs to stick to two or three key issues...no more no less and don't pick any fights that agitate any opposition. |
how can you possibly blame the partisan quagmire on him. Blame it on Limbaugh and whats left of the neocons.
In fact, I can't believe Obama is doing so much... what the f was Bush doing? I know he was a lame duck but sitting on his hands during all this is no excuse.
Oh yeah, and Bush made us rush through a near 1 trillion bank bailout. But now, giving money to people in a stimulus package is big government waste. Give me a flipping break. If Obama took a crap in his pants at a press conference it still would be something better than the waste were left with. Even the harshest conservative must note that Obama was handed a big pile of crap. I hope he can shovel some of it out of the way.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2009 05:02:09 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
|
how can you possibly blame the partisan quagmire on him. Blame it on Limbaugh and whats left of the neocons.
|
He may wind up regretting taking on Rush Limbaugh for the rest of his Presidency. That was really stupid.
By mentioning the talk show host he unofficially appointed him the Head Of The RNC.
That was a very bad move. I can't stand Rush but don't misuderestimate him...
He's loud and he's funny.
eta-Paul-Relax. I'm not defending the Bush administration or the mishandling of our country over the last eight years. I just said that I think Obama's off to a slightly rocky start and I gave my reasons why. FWIW most of the pundits left and right (New York Times to the NY POST)are saying the same things I posted.
I voted for Obama and of course, hope that he does well. People that drank the Cool-Aid need to put it down and step back a bit. Bush didn't make anybody do anything and the apparent failure or mismanagement of the Bailout falls on both Parties equally.
Message edited by author 2009-01-31 10:35:48. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 07:00:46 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.
If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive. |
Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live. |
Did I say that everyone who owns a truck is a suburban commuter? I know there are people who really do need trucks, there are just a lot fewer of them than people who buy them who don't need them. The parking lot where I work is a great example it's probably 80% trucks and SUVs, most of them 4wd. As for the farmers or others with a genuine need, the government could offset their costs through subsidies or otherwise, paid for with the revenue from taxing the people that tool around to the mall in their giant trucks. |
|
|
|
01/31/2009 07:02:11 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
|
how can you possibly blame the partisan quagmire on him. Blame it on Limbaugh and whats left of the neocons.
|
I can't stand Rush but don't misuderestimate him...
He's loud and he's funny.
|
Lots of addicts are that way.
If I were Obama, I'd arrange for Rush to get an endless supply of Oxycontin and Vicodin delivered to his front door.
Message edited by author 2009-01-31 12:04:52. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 03:03:14 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
|
how can you possibly blame the partisan quagmire on him. Blame it on Limbaugh and whats left of the neocons.
|
He may wind up regretting taking on Rush Limbaugh for the rest of his Presidency. That was really stupid.
By mentioning the talk show host he unofficially appointed him the Head Of The RNC.
That was a very bad move. I can't stand Rush but don't misuderestimate him...
He's loud and he's funny.
eta-Paul-Relax. I'm not defending the Bush administration or the mishandling of our country over the last eight years. I just said that I think Obama's off to a slightly rocky start and I gave my reasons why. FWIW most of the pundits left and right (New York Times to the NY POST)are saying the same things I posted.
I voted for Obama and of course, hope that he does well. People that drank the Cool-Aid need to put it down and step back a bit. Bush didn't make anybody do anything and the apparent failure or mismanagement of the Bailout falls on both Parties equally. |
This reads to me as though you have a sound grasp of the situation. Excellant post imo. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 03:15:14 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.
If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive. |
Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live. |
Did I say that everyone who owns a truck is a suburban commuter? I know there are people who really do need trucks, there are just a lot fewer of them than people who buy them who don't need them. The parking lot where I work is a great example it's probably 80% trucks and SUVs, most of them 4wd. As for the farmers or others with a genuine need, the government could offset their costs through subsidies or otherwise, paid for with the revenue from taxing the people that tool around to the mall in their giant trucks. |
1st - as a complete aside - was in Frankenmuth last night and saw the ice and snow sculptures. Wonderful!
Your reply above reads to me as though there is some criteria on who can own what. Please share with me what that criteria is. You seem to be implying that the government should have the right to deny ownership of any number of items based on need. Please illustrate the needs required to own a towing vehicle. Does having a fishing boat qualify or is it excess, as fishing is a sport and not on the needed list? How about snow mobiles or rugged backwods camping or canoeing or cross country skiing? Are these needs supported by your version of government? If the government can determine what I NEED as a vehicle, then you should agree that they can tell us what we need as a camera and lenses, what we need as the size house to occupy (don't want to have space that requires heating or cooling and therefore wasted energy that exceeds what we NEED), how about the size of families - how many children does one NEED? Certainly we can save energy by limiting the size of families. Please expound on this NEED concept and clearly define what vehicle(s) I need. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 03:31:44 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by Flash:
I must be missing your point. Are you saying that the 700 Billion Wall Street bail out that the Republicans wouldn't pass (remember the campaign suspension of McCain due to the Repubs bawking at the Bill) justifies the misuse of another 825 billion? |
Right. The Bush-sponsored bill that the Republicans tried to use for a grandstanding campaign boost, and balked until Paulson was given carte blanche to distribute without needing to account to the taxpayers? That's the one.
I'm suggesting it's better for the economy to have $825 billion spent on new initiatives, rather than as a handout to already-failed businesses. |
We see the glass of partially filled water a bit differently. 1). The Bush sponsored bill was the product of the worst Treasury Secretary in history who was an appeasement to the Democrats who heralded his choice. So blaming the Bush administration - yet again - is fairly disengenious. 2). The Republicans were the ones who were restricting the measure while the Dems were calling them obstructionist and playing politics (OK both side were playing politics) to try to pressure the repubs into voying the bill through. 3). The pork added to that Wall Street bailout was disgusting and McCain (after campaigning against pork then signing the bill) paid a political price for it - as he should have. 4). That albatros of a bailout bill does in no way justify another pork laden piece of legislation. Obama should know better than to poke the "right" in the eye with such a disgustfull social engineering expenditure. Pawdrix has it pretty darn close. Obama needs to concentrate on a couple of squeaky clean bills to get the WHOLE country behind him - at least the whole country who voted for him - which included many middle class right leaning voters. Voters who are scratching their heads about now. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 05:07:10 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.
If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive. |
Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live. |
Did I say that everyone who owns a truck is a suburban commuter? I know there are people who really do need trucks, there are just a lot fewer of them than people who buy them who don't need them. The parking lot where I work is a great example it's probably 80% trucks and SUVs, most of them 4wd. As for the farmers or others with a genuine need, the government could offset their costs through subsidies or otherwise, paid for with the revenue from taxing the people that tool around to the mall in their giant trucks. |
1st - as a complete aside - was in Frankenmuth last night and saw the ice and snow sculptures. Wonderful!
Your reply above reads to me as though there is some criteria on who can own what. Please share with me what that criteria is. You seem to be implying that the government should have the right to deny ownership of any number of items based on need. Please illustrate the needs required to own a towing vehicle. Does having a fishing boat qualify or is it excess, as fishing is a sport and not on the needed list? How about snow mobiles or rugged backwods camping or canoeing or cross country skiing? Are these needs supported by your version of government? If the government can determine what I NEED as a vehicle, then you should agree that they can tell us what we need as a camera and lenses, what we need as the size house to occupy (don't want to have space that requires heating or cooling and therefore wasted energy that exceeds what we NEED), how about the size of families - how many children does one NEED? Certainly we can save energy by limiting the size of families. Please expound on this NEED concept and clearly define what vehicle(s) I need. |
Not at all, you can own and drive whatever you want. Unless your occupation is in a specific industry (Farming or the like) you would have to pay the same elevated price for fuel ($8/gal) as everyone else.
The government does things like this to change people's behavior all the time. It's the same reasoning used to tax tobacco and alcohol. Both are hazardous, tobacco especially to others, so the government inflates the price through taxation and uses the proceeds to fight the use of the product generating the problem.
Think of it as a sin tax on fossil fuels. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 07:24:42 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.
If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive. |
Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live. |
Did I say that everyone who owns a truck is a suburban commuter? I know there are people who really do need trucks, there are just a lot fewer of them than people who buy them who don't need them. The parking lot where I work is a great example it's probably 80% trucks and SUVs, most of them 4wd. As for the farmers or others with a genuine need, the government could offset their costs through subsidies or otherwise, paid for with the revenue from taxing the people that tool around to the mall in their giant trucks. |
1st - as a complete aside - was in Frankenmuth last night and saw the ice and snow sculptures. Wonderful!
Your reply above reads to me as though there is some criteria on who can own what. Please share with me what that criteria is. You seem to be implying that the government should have the right to deny ownership of any number of items based on need. Please illustrate the needs required to own a towing vehicle. Does having a fishing boat qualify or is it excess, as fishing is a sport and not on the needed list? How about snow mobiles or rugged backwods camping or canoeing or cross country skiing? Are these needs supported by your version of government? If the government can determine what I NEED as a vehicle, then you should agree that they can tell us what we need as a camera and lenses, what we need as the size house to occupy (don't want to have space that requires heating or cooling and therefore wasted energy that exceeds what we NEED), how about the size of families - how many children does one NEED? Certainly we can save energy by limiting the size of families. Please expound on this NEED concept and clearly define what vehicle(s) I need. |
Not at all, you can own and drive whatever you want. Unless your occupation is in a specific industry (Farming or the like) you would have to pay the same elevated price for fuel ($8/gal) as everyone else.
The government does things like this to change people's behavior all the time. It's the same reasoning used to tax tobacco and alcohol. Both are hazardous, tobacco especially to others, so the government inflates the price through taxation and uses the proceeds to fight the use of the product generating the problem.
Think of it as a sin tax on fossil fuels. |
Sin tax - I like the name. The only folks I see paying the exhorbatant tabacco taxes are the ones who can least afford it or are on my taxpayer dime. Doesn't hardly seem fair to me - but hey - life is full of choices. Like how big of a house to buy, how many children to have, what recreational activities to pursue etc. Seems to me that government could "sin tax" all of them as they are certainly not NEEDED. I think you (and others) are off base when you begin "sin taxing" politically incorrect behavior. But as you point out - we have already begun. The slope is indeed a slippery one.
ETA: I believe Obama is planning a similar "sin tax" on ammunition in an attempt to implement gun control. Raise the price so high - no one can afford it - therefore any firearm becomes obsolete. Wonder what the black market will do then. It seemed to work during prohibition.
Message edited by author 2009-02-01 12:29:23. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 08:06:20 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.
If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive. |
Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live. |
Did I say that everyone who owns a truck is a suburban commuter? I know there are people who really do need trucks, there are just a lot fewer of them than people who buy them who don't need them. The parking lot where I work is a great example it's probably 80% trucks and SUVs, most of them 4wd. As for the farmers or others with a genuine need, the government could offset their costs through subsidies or otherwise, paid for with the revenue from taxing the people that tool around to the mall in their giant trucks. |
1st - as a complete aside - was in Frankenmuth last night and saw the ice and snow sculptures. Wonderful!
Your reply above reads to me as though there is some criteria on who can own what. Please share with me what that criteria is. You seem to be implying that the government should have the right to deny ownership of any number of items based on need. Please illustrate the needs required to own a towing vehicle. Does having a fishing boat qualify or is it excess, as fishing is a sport and not on the needed list? How about snow mobiles or rugged backwods camping or canoeing or cross country skiing? Are these needs supported by your version of government? If the government can determine what I NEED as a vehicle, then you should agree that they can tell us what we need as a camera and lenses, what we need as the size house to occupy (don't want to have space that requires heating or cooling and therefore wasted energy that exceeds what we NEED), how about the size of families - how many children does one NEED? Certainly we can save energy by limiting the size of families. Please expound on this NEED concept and clearly define what vehicle(s) I need. |
Not at all, you can own and drive whatever you want. Unless your occupation is in a specific industry (Farming or the like) you would have to pay the same elevated price for fuel ($8/gal) as everyone else.
The government does things like this to change people's behavior all the time. It's the same reasoning used to tax tobacco and alcohol. Both are hazardous, tobacco especially to others, so the government inflates the price through taxation and uses the proceeds to fight the use of the product generating the problem.
Think of it as a sin tax on fossil fuels. |
Sin tax - I like the name. The only folks I see paying the exhorbatant tabacco taxes are the ones who can least afford it or are on my taxpayer dime. Doesn't hardly seem fair to me - but hey - life is full of choices. Like how big of a house to buy, how many children to have, what recreational activities to pursue etc. Seems to me that government could "sin tax" all of them as they are certainly not NEEDED. I think you (and others) are off base when you begin "sin taxing" politically incorrect behavior. But as you point out - we have already begun. The slope is indeed a slippery one.
ETA: I believe Obama is planning a similar "sin tax" on ammunition in an attempt to implement gun control. Raise the price so high - no one can afford it - therefore any firearm becomes obsolete. Wonder what the black market will do then. It seemed to work during prohibition. |
Really? The only ones? Only poor people smoke, drink and gamble, is that it? In this case however, everyone would pay more.
Do you have any proof of this "ammunition tax" if so, please share it, otherwise, I'll continue to disregard it as more paranoid neo-con speculation on your part.
I'm not suggesting that only people who drive such wasteful vehicles pay more for a gallon of gas, I think everyone should pay more. They will pay more for driving inefficient vehicles. However, some essential industries could receive subsidies to lessen the burden on them and/or avoid huge price increases of food and other essentials.
As for the sin-taxing of politically incorrect behavior, it's done all the time. Such as taxes on gambling, alcohol, tobacco. Comparing increasing gasoline tax to Prohibition, which was a complete ban, is simply misleading at best, a more appropriate comparison would be to the taxes on gambling, alcohol and tobacco.
Message edited by author 2009-02-01 13:11:37. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 09:25:58 AM · #47 |
I'm not American, I'm not much into vehicles (nor, do I have much knowledge about them other than they take me where I need and want to go LOL), and therefore, I may not have much of a place in this discussion but, as a Canadian and neighbor with a lot of American friends, I can say that I find the "hope" in Obama refreshing and inspiring.
I don't envy him one iota. He has a tough set of shoes to fill as both the successor to a government that was pretty loathed in a lot of countries around the world on top of being the first African American president of The United States of America with so much expectation riding on his back because of that fact. If there's any merit to the talk about his "rapidly graying hair being caused by stress" LOL....there's little wonder!
As for driving SUV's well, in most cities, it's not necessary but, being Canadian and having some pretty harsh winters (potholes included), there's often only that choice or, the choice and great cost of snow tires every winter (unless one is a handyman and able to change these tires yourself in the driveway each Fall and Spring :)). Even so, the fact that there will be 8 tires to each vehicle used on the road all year long begs the question of how we will dispose of all of these tires 10 years from now or, how we will recycle them??? You just don't see a lot of some of the smaller or hybrid cars on the roads up here in winter. Not that everyone needs an SUV or Ram but, the bottom line is that the SUVs are needed in certain instances and places and have their role. Now, Hummers are a different story! No one needs a Hummer. ;-)
Bottom line here is that the financial crisis is not just an American problem. It's worldwide and while some countries are faring a little better than others, most countries in the world are being affected in one way or another because of it. Obama can only do what he can do, as he can do it. I say that everyone cut the guy some slack for a bit and wait and see what he does or doesn't do. Bush was given 8 years to accomplish what he did. Obama may need a couple of years to undo some of Bush's dealings and create some of his own. :)
Just my 3.5 cents worth (exchange rate to Cdn currency LOL) :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 01:41:08 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
As for driving SUV's well, in most cities, it's not necessary but, being Canadian and having some pretty harsh winters (potholes included), there's often only that choice or, the choice and great cost of snow tires every winter (unless one is a handyman and able to change these tires yourself in the driveway each Fall and Spring :)). Even so, the fact that there will be 8 tires to each vehicle used on the road all year long begs the question of how we will dispose of all of these tires 10 years from now or, how we will recycle them??? You just don't see a lot of some of the smaller or hybrid cars on the roads up here in winter. Not that everyone needs an SUV or Ram but, the bottom line is that the SUVs are needed in certain instances and places and have their role. Now, Hummers are a different story! No one needs a Hummer. ;-)
|
Hmmm, we have a lot of cold and snow here in Michigan along with some of the worst road conditions in the states and there's no need for 4wd Trucks and SUV's. In fact, a great many of the slideoffs and rollovers that I see are people driving just such vehicles who equate 4wd with invincibility in snow and ice. As for the snow tires, they're not a necessity either, a good set of 4 season tires will do fine year round. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 01:53:53 PM · #49 |
| serious question because it just occurred to me - are there mountains in Michigan? (I'm thinking no, if I remember by US Geography correctly) |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 02:08:19 PM · #50 |
I say give him time. Not like he just walked right into a very dire situation. I don't see raising the price of fuel is a good thing. Because it effects all the other forms of fuels, from heating to transportation of goods. Thats the nice thing, we have a freedom of choice to drive what the heck ya want to. I want to see about the healthcare problems that Obama has to address. Personally paying $472 a month for my 14 month old son is crazy. Add that to the rest of my family unit we are paying out almost $1000 a month.
Course bitching about it really fixes nothing. My boss told me, put the effort in and change it. Course hes a county commissioner. So I ended up doing a write in campaign for the local city counsel, and won. Now I got people bitching to me about everything. Sure did change my attitude of seeing both sides. Im only dealing with local issues that effect local people. Like I said it totally changed my perspective on all the issues.
Message edited by author 2009-02-01 19:10:16. |
|
