new gas tax

nash said:

I hope the new rumored gas tax from Bush will get people off the road.
Easy breezy the road is mine.
too little too late but somebody had to do it

Gas is $8 per gallon here. It doesn't seem to affect how many cars
there are on the road. People drive what they have to. If gas was only
$3 per gallon, would I drive my kids to school twice each day? Would I
drive 2 cars at once?

Maybe much higher prices in the long run influence how far a small few
commute or where they move, but in terms of expecting any discernable
reduction in the number of cars, forget it. People will [censored] and moan,
and say they are going to cut down, but 99.9% of them won't.

Joseph

nash said:

I hope the new rumored gas tax from Bush will get people off the road.
Easy breezy the road is mine.
too little too late but somebody had to do it

Never happen. Bush is so in the pocket of big oil that a gas tax won't
happen until about January, 2009.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nash said:

I hope the new rumored gas tax from Bush will get people off the road.
Easy breezy the road is mine.
too little too late but somebody had to do it

Never happen. Bush is so in the pocket of big oil that a gas tax won't
happen until about January, 2009.

But it should mean only the richer crowd can handle it and if you lose your
job cause of economics well then you do not need the car.
Business channel said it will happen before your next election. When is
that. This year?

nash said:

Business channel said it will happen before your next election. When is
that. This year?

Two critical things for any tax increase these days are:

1) It's not really a tax, but a "Revenue Enhancement," "User Fee,"
"Service Fee," "Operational Surcharge," or some other political mumbo-
jumbo that does not use the word "tax".

2) There needs to be a lame duck to blame it on. Hmmmm, where can we
find one of those?

Austin

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

nash said:

I hope the new rumored gas tax from Bush will get people off the road.
Easy breezy the road is mine.
too little too late but somebody had to do it

Never happen. Bush is so in the pocket of big oil that a gas tax won't
happen until about January, 2009.

Thing is, those who seem to be for the gas tax tend to be those who
complain the most about taxes that aren't progressive in nature. The
gas tax is probably the least progressive of all possible taxes - it
tends to cost those on the bottom end of the economic scale (who tend
to drive cars that get poorer gas mileage) more than those at the top.

At the same time, if the gas tax helps reduce demand for oil - that's
a good thing.

And in the end, let's not forget that something like 50 cents of each
gallon is already tax - that's a pretty high percentage (we'd all be
screaming if we had to pay that rate on our bike stuff, after all).
;-)

So I'm torn - I'd love to see a crippling tax reduce demand, but would
hate to see the effect of it on those who can afford it least. I
guess I'll just wait and see...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

They have a choice to go to ethanol or biodiesel too. [censored]'s biodiesel in
some places along with wheat, soy, vegtable oil, hash oil. Just pay more if
you want the luxury higher demand lower supply gasoline. Nature has put the
limits on it. We have to live by her rules. One of the biggest oil fields
is in Egypt or Arabia somewhere and is going to be out of oil soon
Represents 7% of present oil. I know that is dicy commentary but the news
is out there.

This is to save the planet and its future people not todays people.
So better late than never Bush. At least he is thinking about the trouble
oil is in. What would the poor most effected do when there is no oil. They
have the least power to promote change too. Or do research for new
alternatives. Poor are always in a bind while the rich get richer.
Course the poor occasionally eat the rich too so go figur'

Quoted message said:

those on the bottom end of the economic scale (who tend
to drive cars that get poorer gas mileage) more than those at the top.

Civics, corrollas, and Sentras get pretty good mileage.

email hidden said:

Quoted message said:

those on the bottom end of the economic scale (who tend
to drive cars that get poorer gas mileage) more than those at the top.

Civics, corrollas, and Sentras get pretty good mileage.

I'm pretty sure he meant old junkers. Even cars that got good milage
in their day can turn into polluting guzzlers with enough neglect.

I personally don't think such a tax would hurt poor folks because they
have crappy cars. I think it would just be a matter of what percantage
of their income goes to the tax to be able to drive the "essential"
miles they must use their car. (Grocery shopping, getting to work,
bringing kids to places)

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't mean to imply that one
absolutely needs a car for these things, but most people do regard
these things as a necessity.

Joseph

nash said:

They have a choice to go to ethanol or biodiesel too. [censored]'s biodiesel in
some places along with wheat, soy, vegtable oil, hash oil. Just pay more if
you want the luxury higher demand lower supply gasoline. Nature has put the
limits on it. We have to live by her rules. One of the biggest oil fields
is in Egypt or Arabia somewhere and is going to be out of oil soon
Represents 7% of present oil. I know that is dicy commentary but the news
is out there.

They could always try Antarctica. If there is oil in Alaska then there
might be on the south pole too. The earth has undergone quite a lot of
changes, axis, Ice ages, hot ages, and plate tectonics, to mention a few.

Quoted message said:

This is to save the planet and its future people not todays people.
So better late than never Bush. At least he is thinking about the trouble
oil is in. What would the poor most effected do when there is no oil. They
have the least power to promote change too. Or do research for new
alternatives. Poor are always in a bind while the rich get richer.
Course the poor occasionally eat the rich too so go figur'

Viva le revolution.
Bill Baka

do you see many cars with obvious signs of neglect on the road? Even
if they were 10% of all cars driven, most the guzzlers are guzzlers by
design - i.e. SUVs. 50% of vechicles I see on the road are SUVs with
one driver inside.

Bill Baka said:

They could always try Antarctica. If there is oil in Alaska then there
might be on the south pole too. The earth has undergone quite a lot of
changes, axis, Ice ages, hot ages, and plate tectonics, to mention a few.

I imagine even your Mr. Bush knows the USA doesn't own Antarctica,
even if this was a sane idea.

email hidden said:

do you see many cars with obvious signs of neglect on the road? Even

When I lived in NYC, Chicago, and LA I sure did! I suppose it is very
area dependant.

Quoted message said:

if they were 10% of all cars driven, most the guzzlers are guzzlers by
design - i.e. SUVs. 50% of vechicles I see on the road are SUVs with
one driver inside.

Agreed. But actually the difference isn't that great between a modern
average guzzler and an economical car. Things like commute distance
have a much greater effect. But in general yes I agree with you.

Joseph

Quoted post said:

Gas is $8 per gallon here. It doesn't seem to affect how many cars
there are on the road. People drive what they have to. If gas was only
$3 per gallon, would I drive my kids to school twice each day? Would I
drive 2 cars at once?

Maybe much higher prices in the long run influence how far a small few
commute or where they move, but in terms of expecting any discernable
reduction in the number of cars, forget it. People will [censored] and moan,
and say they are going to cut down, but 99.9% of them won't.

The cars in Norway get better gas mileage than the ones in the US. Here
they are big and getting bigger all the time, as people believe they are
safer in a huge SUV. A higher tax in the US would encourage people to drive
smaller cars.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I don't imagine he knows that. I don't imagine he really knows much of
anything.

"Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Baka said:

They could always try Antarctica. If there is oil in Alaska then there
might be on the south pole too. The earth has undergone quite a lot of
changes, axis, Ice ages, hot ages, and plate tectonics, to mention a few.

I imagine even your Mr. Bush knows the USA doesn't own Antarctica,
even if this was a sane idea.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Brian Huntley said:

Bill Baka said:

They could always try Antarctica. If there is oil in Alaska then there
might be on the south pole too. The earth has undergone quite a lot of
changes, axis, Ice ages, hot ages, and plate tectonics, to mention a few.

I imagine even your Mr. Bush knows the USA doesn't own Antarctica,
even if this was a sane idea.

Please, no insults. He is not my Bush since I voted against him both times.
If however oil was found down there, I imagine it would be like a new
gold rush.
There would be oil cities popping up like crazy.
That's all.
Bill Baka

James Fitch said:

I don't imagine he knows that. I don't imagine he really knows much of
anything.

I have to admit, he is a bit of a nimrod. Watching him on television is
like the world's most famous moron got elected to be President. Ooops,
that DID happen.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

"Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Baka said:

They could always try Antarctica. If there is oil in Alaska then there
might be on the south pole too. The earth has undergone quite a lot of
changes, axis, Ice ages, hot ages, and plate tectonics, to mention a few.

I imagine even your Mr. Bush knows the USA doesn't own Antarctica,
even if this was a sane idea.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

If you look at the energy cost of fertilizer, irrigation,
distillation, etc. ethanol is a net energy loss. It also contains far
less energy than gasoline. It is only favored because of the corn
growers.

Ted.

Ted said:

If you look at the energy cost of fertilizer, irrigation,
distillation, etc. ethanol is a net energy loss. It also contains far
less energy than gasoline. It is only favored because of the corn
growers.

Ted.

Probably true but it makes for a good political speech. There is no way
we could EVER grow that much corn.
Bill Baka

James Fitch said:

I don't imagine he knows that. I don't imagine he really knows much of
anything.

I have to admit, he is a bit of a nimrod. Watching him on television is
like the world's most famous moron got elected to be President. Ooops,
that DID happen.
Bill Baka
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

My friend was unlucky enough to have the same birthday as him.
If you Google stupid, or dumb, or fool, G.Bush is the first answer. FOTFL
Not sure if it still that way cause things change on Google alot.