OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

And you think this lunatic Bush has not degraded quality of
life with the costs of this insane war and letting banks and
Wall Street manipulate the mortgage and credit market so we
are in a serious recession, with the little people getting
thrown out of their homes and the big people seeing their
assets in financial stocks plummet? You think it's good
things were allowed to go hog wild?

Maybe when the little people have lost enough jobs and are
panicking to feed their kids, and so now they are tearing at
the gates of your suburban community and happy to knife you
as you walk down the street to support their families,
you'll get it.

A few liberal principles are precisely what ensures a
healthy labor force to keep the economy thriving, and all of
us, better off.

I'd like every idiot who supported Bush to get kicked out of
their house and go serve in Iraq for six months. This
includes the non-voters who go around complaining but do not
have the guts to admit putting Gore or Kerry in the White
House would have been much safer.

 

Umm - which previous administration was the same activity going on in?
And which one put a stop to it and prosecuted it. You're blaming the
Bush administration when that's the administration that blew the whistle
on it. The previous administration did nothing.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

You kid yourself if you really believe that it would not take extra
bodies in the gov't to administer it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

We disagree on the war, and Congress created the mortgage crisis by
incentivising (with both carrots and sticks) the lenders into lending
huge sums of money in violation of every sound business practice of
properly qualifying lenders. We're just seeing the chickens coming home
to roost on that one (again - achieving the exact opposite of the stated
intent).

with the little people getting

Congress put into action programs to cause exactly that to happen in
violation of proven good business practices.

What principles in particular would those be?

That last part I definitely disagree with you on.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

It would probably require adding some treasury department personnel to
administer it, but it's not like creating a whole new government
department. The infrastructure is all in place. The overhead would be
minimal, just like it is when other tax incentives are added to the tax
code, or when tax rates change.

 

This approach is extremely short-sighted.

Oil is needed for products other than just than gasoline and diesel
fuel. The supply and demand need to be managed carefully, as many
countries already do.

The actions of those not curbing their use of fuel, directly affect the
rest of us. These people need to be penalized.

That's right. It's the government that needs to help set the pricing at
a level that is optimal for society as a whole.

The price at which they are able to sell all the oil they want

The government is under no obligation to keep the taxes on fuel
artificially low in order to help the oil companies make more money, nor
are they required to institute policies that drive up the cost of oil.
This is what has happened under Bush, and it was not unintentional.

What the Obama administration should do:

1) Adjust the tax system on motor fuels to discourage consumption and
reward conservation

2) Raise CAFE standards significantly

3) Encourage the development of plug-in hybrids

4) Encourage the expansion of nuclear power for generating electricity

5) Work on the creation of high speed rail, powered by electricity,
powered by nuclear, to replace short hop air travel which is an
inefficient use of fossil fuel.


We just can't afford any more Republican presidents and their huge
deficits, lack of foreign policy expertise, and their ties to big oil.

 

You mean like the people of the US, who use more fuel, per capita, than
just about any other country?

Not to mention under Clinton, the first Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford,
Nixon ....

It's not just a problem with Republicans. It's a problem with Democrats.
And, Americans, in general, who do not demand that their Presidents,
Congress(wo)men and Senators are free from outside influences, like
money from oil company executives and other conflicts of interest, as well.

Over all, I agree with what you said about what the next President
should do. I would also love to see a system where there is a general
energy tax rebate and higher energy taxes. So, people can have a choice
between saving money and energy or wasting both.

Jeff

 

Some nice touches that might work well.

 

That has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. Go back to
school and get a lesson on economics. The largest pressure on the
value of the dollar is the plummeting interest rate, resulting in the
flooding of the economy with new currency, which reduces the value of
the currency. Spending money on the industrial complex has never been
a burden to any economy, and has been used repeatedly in the past to
dig out of recession.

No, it is the job of the government to preserve the freedom and
liberty of the people. The government is not your daddy, it is your
employee. I don't need a big brother. I need someone to do the
things that I cannot do on my own. Maintain the roads, protect the
borders, and preserve the freedom of myself and my fellow american.

If you think that's how government is supposed to operate, you belong
in a pen, just bahhhing along and eating your feed. You do not belong
in anything that was once called a great nation. You are an
abomination. You ARE the problem.

 

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.autos.honda.]

Bush isn't the first, or the worst, to wipe his ass with the
Constitution. The first BIG foray into ignoring it was probably FDR,
though it was done incrementally even before him...

Now they all consider the Constitution to be no more than a
challenge...

 

To be fair, one of Bush's big campaign promises in 2000 was to lower
gas prices. He hasn't been very successful.

 

What collusion? The oil companies make a small percentage of the
price of gas. Pennies on the dollar. That hasn't changed. They
still make the same percentage. The price increase isn't their fault.
It has gone up because of several factors, but none of them were oil
company greed.

You do the right thing for your customers because they pay you for it.
You don't do it for free, or you cease to have a company, and
therefore cease to have customers.

 

What is the cost? Most people who complain about the inefficiency of
government can't seem to cite the dollar amounts with any authority.
In this case, collecting the tax wouldn't cost any more because the
mechanism is already in place, and the feds already send out income
tax refund checks anyway, so what's the extra cost of including a gas
tax credit, other than the likelihood that more refund checks will be
mailed out (or electronic transfers made) than usual?

While you're trying to prove how inefficient government is, show me
where private health insurance is cheaper than Medicare. Betcha can't
do that, either.

Unlike conservatism, real or merely self-identified, which has never
resulted in any negative consequences, whether in peace or in war.

 

Prove it. Tell me why Mexico, where government spending is only about
10% of GDP, compared to roughly 30-35% in the US, is doing relatively
much worse. Even Forbes magazine, which hardly sympathizes with
socialism, ran an article saying that economic output was maximized
when government spending was around 20-24% of GDP.

So there should be no government police force, no government courts,
no government jails, and only you and private parties you hire,
befriend, etc., should protect your rights?

The big problem with your argument is that the oil industry isn't
totally free market but gets great subsidies, such as very cheap
drilling rights on public land and having the US military invade oil
producing countries.

And no responsibility to avoid polluting the environment, right?

 

Because he hurt his hand while enthusiastically beating one of his
slaves and now can't write his speech about personal liberty.

 

You're forgetting the Federalists' Sedition Acts.

 

Presumably the corollary to his statement is that schemes hatched by
non-liberals only have intended consequences, i.e. the consequences of
Bush-Cheney policies were all intended. Interesting hypothesis ...

 

A simple rule for simple-minded people.

 

I'd give the credit quarterly to every working adult under a certain
income level, the same dollar amount to each person, no matter how
much or little hydrocarbon fuel they consumed or even if they didn't
drive at all. That method would have the lowest bureaucratic
overhead, be the least prone to fraud, and offer the greatest
incentive to not waste energy. Government credits don't work well
when they're complex.

 

Well the liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth on this. For
example, regarding the fact that Al Gore's house uses over 18 times the
energy that the average U.S. house uses - hold on a minute - I need to
wrap my head in duct tape so it doesn't explode while explaining the
liberal "logic" - so Al Gore's house uses over 18 times the amount of
energy that the average U.S. house does - but he pays fees into the
utility for that usage that go into producing carbonless energy sources
like windmills based on the "excess" amount of energy he uses. Becuase
he is using so much energy and is therefore funding better sources of
energy, not only is he not a hypocrite, but he's actually a hero for
using more than his fair share of energy so that he's funding so-called
"green" sources. (removing duct tape)

So my question is: Which is correct: To *punish* (like liberals want to
do) people who use more than their fair share, or to *praise* and make
excuses for (like liberals do) those who, like Gore, use more than their
fair share. Or is the answer dependent on who the user is, i.e., is
he/she part of the liberal elite?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')