On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:31:50 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Spike wrote:
>>>Nothing encourages more fuel effecient vehicles than high fuel prices. If
>>>we as a nation consider consumption to be bad, we should stop taxing
>>>income and start taxing consumption.
>> But who gets hurt? No matter what you do, add one tax and eliminate
>> another, you're hitting the ones who can least afford it.
>Well, if you want to reduce consumption, that's what you do. Not come up
>with half-assed schemes to restrict market choices. If you don't like the
>implications of it, then maybe government should butt out entirely.
>Do you really want the government telling you what you can drive? Because
>one of the first cars the government will eliminate is the Ford Mustang.
>Hell, it's practically dumb luck the Mustang survived CAFE. Remember the
>probe? The mazda platform car that was supposed to be the mustang for
><idiotcy about mass killing>
>Ya, know, that is uncalled for.
no problemo... it was intended idiocy..
but hopefully you see the point. It might seem that there is a simple
answer to the problem, but such is rarely the case. Life is so
interwoven that when you change one thing, it begins a domino affect
that usually has impacts which were not even considered.
Like California's special non-emission fuels. Good idea. Clean the
air. So the price goes up "a little" on top of the federal tax. Then
they discover that the fuel actually ruins engines, especially 18
wheeler engines. That leads to higher repair costs for fleet
maintenance, and those are passed on to the consumer. So, indirectly,
that "a little" is increased. And they find that it not only does not
help clean the air, it actually causes more environmental problems.
So, California gets smart and says ditch that junk. Ah, but in steps
the EPA who tells California, it has BIG problems with the feds if
they quit the special fuel. So the fuel is continued... causing more
damage. Add to that, that truckers who work within California are
required to use the fuel which messes everything up, but truckers from
out of state fill up before entering the state, and again when they
leave. So, add in lost revenues for truck stops.
As I recall, the last ruling said California had to use up all the
stocks, but did not have to mandate the production of more. It's still
being used up today.
And that's just for vehicles... in only one state. There is still the
home heating situation across the northern tier states.
No, I don't like government deep in my daily existence. Unfortunately,
a lot of people with good intentions end up causing the government to
intrude. Such cases include the gun ownership issue, recruiters on
campus, religious symbols on public property, etc. If the founding
fathers could see what has become of the nation they'd rise up out of
their graves and lynch us all. Saw a woman in Seattle who was
fighting military recruitment who said she sees much to die for but
nothing worth killing for....
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://220.127.116.11/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://18.104.22.168/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://22.214.171.124/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://126.96.36.199/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg