Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Why doesn't the state learn to budget, like normal people have to do? I
don't support all my cronies, my dad's old cronies, or his party's cronies
and the Outfit besides.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

 

trim your quotes before posting

 

trim your quotes before posting[/QUOTE]

Take your own advice...

 

That is a valid question.

In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
what would happen if mass transit stopped?

From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
into and out of NYC) were still running.

Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
not enough roads in NYC without it.

So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
public transportation so that the system continues to work.

Jeff

 

Make the urban-planning assholes allow enough homes to be built so I can
live there without having more money than God, and I'll do it.

 

It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually what
goes up must come down.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

 

Yeah. Why would someone want to feed their kids?

 

Except that the premise that fewer gas taxes are collected for a given
VMT figure isn't true. The CAFE has remained virtually the same for the
last 25 years.

 

The fact that stealing is useful doesn't make it any less stealing.

 

It's actually both groups, plus some developers, and especially the
green movement.

The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
and climbing higher forever. The movement's leaders are all rich, white
people who own nice big houses on huge areas of land, and by stopping
most development and new infrastructure they can: (1) create and maintain
a huge shortage of good homes by "protecting" other people's unbuilt land
from use; (2) in particular, make sure that any unbuilt land near THEM
stays empty, so they can keep using it as "viewshed" without paying for
it; and (3) prevent the riff-raff [you and me, and especially minorities]
from moving in next door where their kids might meet ours.

The Sierra Club, and the green movement which it leads and typifies,
exists in order to convince the gullible that the members of this cabal
are unselfish benefactors to the world, when the truth is that they are
"gimme-ist" bastards who have more than enough money already, and use
the unfair power of government to ensure that you and I can never share
in their cherished lifestyle. They are classists, racists, and elitists.

It astounds me that any real liberal (are there any left?) would venerate
such a bunch of hypocrites.

 

I haven't seen any liberals in years. Lots of LIEberals.

They want us to live in warehouses like the Russians do while they live in
their dachas.

Don't look now, but us conservative white males are in the minority in
America now.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

 

Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
I know I never will.

 

If you actually live in California, look around and see what the environuts
have already done to your state, WBMS

 

And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
full of environmentalists.

 

Yeah, the envirowackos have run roughshod over every other interest in their
quests, and either damage the Nation directly, or are useful idiots of those
with more malicious ends, such as those that would want high prices for things
such as real estate.

 

I would think that a per mile tax (gas) along with a sliding rate on
registration fees that reflect a particular vehicles impact on roads and
maintenance would be the way to go.

As such, large commercial vehicles would pay considerably more than sub
compact cars.

JT

 

The proof of it IMO is in the actions that they support that are counter
to environmentalism. I've heard and read of cases where through the
power of government (in different states) land was taken from its
rightful owners to preserve 'open space' and the like. Later on down the
road the land was sold by the government to insiders who then developed
it and built very expensive homes upon it. I didn't save the cites on it
but I have read/heard about it so it's not new to me.

Beyond that I think he is pointing out a subset of the "true purpose".
The true purpose is clearly that of a ruling class wishing to remain a
ruling class and have everything to themselves while the rest of us have
nothing.

It is my belief that if I were to develop a $10 zero point energy device
(I'm just using that as a 100% clean miricle energy source that would
preserve the environment and raise the standard of living world wide)
that could run a car or a home for 25 years that every attempt I made to
bring it to market would be blocked by government. I would also likely
be killed if that would prevent its release.

There are natural zero calorie sweeteners that have been blocked from
market in the USA by the FDA because of who stood to loose if they made
it to market. Now the FDA is slowly reversing itself on one that has
been used in Japan for 30 years because the soda giants want to use it.
And that's just the sugar industry...

 

In the sense of using environmentalism to gain wealth and power, yes.

 

Undoubtedly why Fleischman and Ponds went public directly. Now nobody can
"duplicate the experiment." Yeah... right...

 

Even with an explaination someone misses the point. Okay, I'll use wind
power. Remember when we were supposed to spend money developing and
building wind power when wind power didn't work and couldn't work? Where
if wind was used power would have to be rationed, etc? Now wind power
is working to a degree and guess what? Now wind power is bad. It chops
up birds and kills fish (when hydro electric has to use the spillways
because wind is over-generating) and the like. Wind power is ugly and
disturbs the view and every other objection that has appeared in the
last few years.

If you believe that people in power wouldn't kill to preserve it, I
suggest a better understanding of human society is in order. It is the
most ruthless that rise to the top. If you're not willing to kill either
directly or indirectly you won't get very far in the halls of power.