Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / July 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

U.S. FUEL "ECONOMY" Is Way, Way In The Future!   If Not Farther ...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Kyle Schwitters - 29 Jun 2009 16:40 GMT
Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years.

Until then, it'll be gas-guzzlin' all the way!

A one-dollar federal tax on gasoline would help solve the problem ...
but it won't happen here in SUV-land.

-----------------
"It's a Long Road to Profitable Fuel Economy in the U.S."

By Warren Brown
Sunday, June 28, 2009

THE BEST MYTHS are sometimes planted in academic studies, one of which
was delivered last week by the University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute.

The 35-page tome, "Fixing Detroit: How Far, How Fast, How Fuel
Efficient," argues that the Obama administration's push for more
vehicle miles per gallon could return domestic car companies to
profitability.

The study also says many of the domestic industry's current problems
stem from its habitual underestimation of U.S. consumer demand for
fuel-efficient cars.

That failure, according to study co-authors Walter McManus and Rob
Kleinbaum, caused U.S. automobile manufacturers to lose market share
to foreign rivals -- especially to those from Japan.

Kleinbaum, a former GM employee who is now a consultant to the
Transportation Research Institute, accused his former company of
myopia in matters fuel economy:

"For years [GM] has discounted consumer research results when
calculating the benefits of improving fuel economy. . . . If GM had
followed its own market research results over the last three decades,
[GM] would not be in Chapter 11 [bankruptcy reorganization] today."

The study and its core argument -- that fuel economy is a profitable
opportunity in the United States missed by domestic car companies who
ignored U.S. consumer demands for better vehicle mileage -- constitute
rich topsoil for environmentalists who have long made the same claim.
But it gets washed away in a market flooded with cheap gasoline, here
defined as a gallon of regular unleaded priced below $4.00.

Remember May 2008?

Back then, when regular unleaded gasoline prices hit that $4 tipping
point, U.S. motorists were screaming for better fuel economy. Toyota,
the God of Green Motoring, finally began turning toward profitability
with U.S. sales of its gas-electric Prius hybrid sedan -- a car
largely made possible by money earned from sales of Toyota sport-
utility vehicles, trucks and other high-horsepower rides in the United
States.

Giddy with the possibility of actually being able to earn money on
U.S. sales of fuel-efficient vehicles, Toyota scrapped plans to build
a sport-utility truck plant in Tupelo, Miss. Instead, the company said
it would build a Prius plant in that place.

But U.S. gasoline prices tumbled in the fall of 2008. Plans for the
Mississippi Prius plant were shelved. A globally collapsed economy
crushed worldwide car sales in general. But it shredded U.S. sales of
the most fuel-efficient models in particular.

Overall car sales in the U.S. market were down 34 percent in May,
compared with May 2008. Gas-sippers, mostly small cars that get 30
miles per gallon or better in combined city/highway motoring,
practically tanked. Here are some examples:

Chevrolet Cobalt, being marketed with big discounts, down 52 percent
May 2009, compared with May last year;

Ford Focus, down 54 percent;

Honda Civic, 61 percent;

Toyota Corolla, down 55 percent.

How bad is bad for U.S. sales of fuel-efficient small cars? Give me a
drum-roll, please: The GM-made Chevrolet Aveo gets 27 miles per gallon
in the city and 34 miles per gallon on the highway. It's cute and
reasonably safe. (Size matters in car-to-car crashes.) It starts at
$11,965, and GM is having a hard time giving them away.

There is a 380-day supply of Aveo cars in a market where a 60-day
supply of saleable inventory is considered "normal."

This isn't the first time that dreams of profitable fuel-efficient
motoring have been sideswiped in an America drunk on cheap gasoline.
History gives us the example of the now-defunct American Motors, a
company that thrived for a few decades with nifty, wonderfully rattle-
free fuel sippers such as the Nash Rambler and Rambler American, but
was buried in the dust of the nation's seemingly unending horsepower
wars.

The problem is one well-known to domestic and foreign car companies
doing business in this country. Absent high gasoline prices, most U.S.
buyers go for more horsepower, bigger cars and trucks.

Toyota didn't make billions selling fuel efficiency in the United
States. It cleaned up selling sport-utility vehicles, luxury sedans,
sports cars and trucks. Toyota lost billions -- $4.6 billion in the
fiscal year ended in March -- only when sales of its muscle-flexing
rides went limp in a U.S. market whipsawed by radically fluctuating
fuel prices. Tougher consumer credit in tandem with those fuel-price
gyrations didn't help.

Honda, which has yet to introduce an eight-cylinder car in the United
States, nonetheless has done exceptionally well selling six-cylinder
sport-utility models such as its Honda Pilot and Acura MDX, and hot,
six-cylinder versions of its Honda Accord mid-size sedan.

Maybe the day will come when domestic and foreign car companies can
turn handsome profits in America selling small cars that get better
than 30 miles per gallon. But that is not likely to happen without a
sensible federal policy affecting the price of gasoline in a way that
makes consumers pay more attention to how they use the stuff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062602338.html
ben91932 - 29 Jun 2009 18:00 GMT
> Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years.
>
> Until then, it'll be gas-guzzlin' all the way!
>
> A one-dollar federal tax on gasoline would help solve the problem ...
> but it won't happen here in SUV-land.

I'd be happy to pay an extra dollar or two for gas if the proceeds
went to alt fuels research directly.
Oil has been subsidized for decades and we have underpaid for decades.
Ben
E. Meyer - 29 Jun 2009 22:27 GMT
On 6/29/09 12:00 PM, in article
67408118-6389-4b57-b512-8ece665e9727@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, "ben91932"
<benteaches@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Oil has been subsidized for decades and we have underpaid for decades.
> Ben

Utopian-esque thinking.  That extra dollar or two would go to this, that, or
the other politically correct welfare program instead, just like the gas tax
does.
jim - 29 Jun 2009 23:59 GMT
> On 6/29/09 12:00 PM, in article
> 67408118-6389-4b57-b512-8ece665e9727@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, "ben91932"
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> the other politically correct welfare program instead, just like the gas tax
> does.

    Doesn't sound like you know much about how any of this really works. A
increased gas tax (or tax direct on oil) would spur new research for
other forms of transportation and research for alternate energy sources
even if not one penny of the collected tax went to pay for that
research. That is it could be used to pay nations current  bills instead
of shamelessly making future generations pay those bills and at the same
time encourage research in alternate fuels.

    Your information on where the gas tax is currently being spent is wrong
also. The current tax on oil in the US is much lower than Europe or
Japan and it is designed to facilitate one thing - use of oil. And right
now every penny of the tax goes to subsidize oil powered transportation
and nothing else. Currently the gas tax is way too low to even fully
fund the maintenance of the nation's highway system  as a result much of
the money spent on highways is now coming out of general revenue funds.

-jim
Kruse - 30 Jun 2009 01:15 GMT
>         Doesn't sound like you know much about how any of this really works. A
> increased gas tax (or tax direct on oil) would spur new research for
> other forms of transportation.

Currently the gas tax is way too low to

<snip>

Tell you what. If gas taxes are too low, not only can you pay for the
increased taxes that you feel
that YOU need to pay, but you can also pay for the increased taxes you
feel that I ought to pay.
Get you checkbook out and write a $100,000 (or more) check to the IRS.
Better yet, send them cash.
Just send $100,000 in cash to the IRS with no return address on your
envelope. We can blindly trust
our government to efficiently put this money to good use, right? The
government has always had
excellent programs that help people and they always run their programs
in the financial black.

Of course, I'm kidding. But people saying that we need more taxes is
like Hollywood telling everybody
that we need more taxes during an election year. Wesley Snipes, we
need to raise taxes, don't we?
If Hollywood truly wanted to pay for more taxes, why is California is
such bad shape? Why don't they just open up their wallets and pay off
the deficiet that California is strapped with?
People, open your eyes.
jim - 30 Jun 2009 02:03 GMT
> >         Doesn't sound like you know much about how any of this really works. A
> > increased gas tax (or tax direct on oil) would spur new research for
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that YOU need to pay, but you can also pay for the increased taxes you
> feel that I ought to pay.

I'm not going to pay your taxes, but you seem to have no problem with
dumping your taxes on future generations.

> Get you checkbook out and write a $100,000 (or more) check to the IRS.
> Better yet, send them cash.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> excellent programs that help people and they always run their programs
> in the financial black.

That is right the US government did that for 200 years . Up until 28
years ago the federal government was not wildly spending beyond its
means.

> Of course, I'm kidding. But people saying that we need more taxes is
> like Hollywood telling everybody
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the deficiet that California is strapped with?
> People, open your eyes.

California will pay - their party is now over.

-jim
Kruse - 30 Jun 2009 11:35 GMT
> I'm not going to pay your taxes, but you seem to have no problem with
> dumping your taxes on future generations.

You had to reply without reading what I said. You are posting just to
be heard.
I am NOT in favor of dumping this on future generation. Like most
state budgets,
we need to balance our books. Our national government, (both parties)
hasn't
balanced a budget for quite a few years, and I don't think they ever
will. Their
attitude is to just print up more money.
However, when somebody says that our taxes are too low, they are
usually being
a hypocrite. If they really believed that, why don't they just send
their cash to the IRS?
The government obviously will spend it wisely, correct? I mean,
they've always done it
in the past, correct?
A few months ago, Hollywood wanted a president that would openly raise
their taxes.
How many of them now are opening up their checkbook to pay off the
pathetic budget
of California?
Anybody who says that we need to raise our taxes is a hypocrite, pure
and simple.
If you disagree with me, how much have you freely given to the IRS?
And when you
get your tax rebate every year, please don't cash it. Just frame it
and hang it on the wall.
Yea, right.
jim - 30 Jun 2009 13:48 GMT
> > I'm not going to pay your taxes, but you seem to have no problem with
> > dumping your taxes on future generations.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I am NOT in favor of dumping this on future generation. Like most
> state budgets,

If you are not in favor of paying the tax then you are in favor of
making future generations pay taxes. Somebody will end up pay one way or
the other.

    Economists have been arguing for years that the increased national debt
isn't a problem because the GDP was growing along with the debt. The GDP
is no longer growing and it is now headed rapidly downward and the
national debt is rising faster than ever. What are the economist saying
now - they are too scared shitless to say much of anything. They are
like everybody else they have their heads buried in the sand and are
hoping that some miracle will happen.

    The current economic downturn was triggered by rising oil prices. The
last time that happened in the 70's it took 25 years for the economy to
fully recover. This time the economic downturn  is worse. Even if the
supply and price of oil can be stabilized and the economy put back on
track, this is all going to inevitably  happen again some time in the
future as long as the economy is based on cheap oil. Even if we pull our
a.ses out of the fire this time at some point in the future this course
is going to be fatal.

    The only reasonable solution if you don't believe a miracle is coming
is to apply a heavy tax on every barrel of oil that the oil companies
process. That will not only balance the budget it will force the economy
to find new ways to survive. New ways that are hopefully more
sustainable because it should be obvious to everyone by now that the
current economy based on cheap oil is not sustainable.

    Remember we are asking future generations to pay our current debts and
that future generation won't have the benefit of an economy run on cheap
oil. If they have a prosperous economy at all ( you have to be an
optimist to believe that) it will be because they have managed to do it
some other way without cheap oil. If we expect they can do it why is it
asking so much to expect we can do it?

-jim

> we need to balance our books. Our national government, (both parties)
> hasn't
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> a hypocrite. If they really believed that, why don't they just send
> their cash to the IRS?

There

> The government obviously will spend it wisely, correct? I mean,
> they've always done it
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and hang it on the wall.
> Yea, right.
fred - 30 Jun 2009 02:21 GMT
>>         Doesn't sound like you know much about how any of this re

> Of course, I'm kidding. But people saying that we need more taxes is
> like Hollywood telling everybody
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the deficiet that California is strapped with?
> People, open your eyes.

So you think that California is in bad shape because they have too much
money to spend on anything. Interesting that they're in deficit right now
then isn't it? In fact Arnold had Gray Davis Kicked out for the very same
problem *he* has right now - he's running on a deficit. without actually
*looking* at the budget for California (which you obviously haven't, but
then neither have I, I have no reason to - I don't live there) you just
can't say. Maybe Arnold's giving multi-million dollar kickbacks to all the
men who's wifes he chatted up. Who knows? The fact is that you have
cheaper gasoline in the US than we do here in Canada despite the fact that
we have more oil production per year and the largest oil reserves in the
world. There has been far to much sucking up to the oil companies since
the 1970's. They haven't built *one* gas refinery since then. That's how
they keep the price up there. Take a look at what gas costs in Saudi
Arabia - $0.50 a gallon last I heard.
E. Meyer - 30 Jun 2009 17:10 GMT
On 6/29/09 5:59 PM, in article jqednR-chfz62tTXnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@bright.net,

>> On 6/29/09 12:00 PM, in article
>> 67408118-6389-4b57-b512-8ece665e9727@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, "ben91932"
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> of shamelessly making future generations pay those bills and at the same
> time encourage research in alternate fuels.

I'm not interested in starting another flame war in the midst of this one,
but ... You can't possibly be that naïve.  If the money is not being fed
directly into research projects, they simply are not going to happen. Surely
we have enough history by now to prove that point.

> Your information on where the gas tax is currently being spent is wrong
> also. The current tax on oil in the US is much lower than Europe or
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> fund the maintenance of the nation's highway system  as a result much of
> the money spent on highways is now coming out of general revenue funds.

Yeah, well, the gas tax is SUPPOSED to be used to build & maintain highways.
Sort of makes my point, doesn't it.

> -jim
jim - 30 Jun 2009 18:36 GMT
> I'm not interested in starting another flame war in the midst of this one,
> but ... You can't possibly be that naïve.  If the money is not being fed
> directly into research projects, they simply are not going to happen. Surely
> we have enough history by now to prove that point.

    The only thing that has been proved is you don't have a point.

    Research is already being done. Making oil products more expensive will
naturally increase the research into alternatives to oil. That much is
pretty hard to argue against. The only question is what people want to
happen how to make it happen is simple.

    There is no need to put the tax into research. The research will happen
if there is economic incentive to replace oil. If the tax is put  into
paying down the deficit that will  mean future generations (who won't
have the benefit of abundant oil) won't look back and wonder how they
could have been so stupid and selfish that they just wastefully burned
up a valuable commodity and at the same time didn't even pay their
bills. The current behavior is what is known as a binge. And society has
a stake in taking steps to prevent the bingeing because it is becoming
more and more clear that it is destructive.

> > Your information on where the gas tax is currently being spent is wrong
> > also. The current tax on oil in the US is much lower than Europe or
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Yeah, well, the gas tax is SUPPOSED to be used to build & maintain highways.
> Sort of makes my point, doesn't it.

You have offered no explanation of why a tax on oil is supposed to be
used to "build & maintain highways"? Did Moses come down from the
mountain with a stone tablet saying this is how it should be?
E. Meyer - 30 Jun 2009 18:53 GMT
On 6/30/09 12:36 PM, in article BaGdnX5eJ7W-0NfXnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@bright.net,

>> I'm not interested in starting another flame war in the midst of this one,
>> but ... You can't possibly be that naïve.  If the money is not being fed
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> There is no need to put the tax into research. The research will happen
> if there is economic incentive to replace oil.

Well, that's it isn't it: "economic" incentive, not scientific necessity.

> If the tax is put  into
> paying down the deficit that will  mean future generations (who won't
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a stake in taking steps to prevent the bingeing because it is becoming
> more and more clear that it is destructive.

Clear to whom?  Just because the liberal douches in power this week are
catering to that lobby, doesn't make it truth.

>>> Your information on where the gas tax is currently being spent is wrong
>>> also. The current tax on oil in the US is much lower than Europe or
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> used to "build & maintain highways"? Did Moses come down from the
> mountain with a stone tablet saying this is how it should be?

Pull up the congressional record from when the tax was levied.
jim - 30 Jun 2009 20:48 GMT
> On 6/30/09 12:36 PM, in article BaGdnX5eJ7W-0NfXnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@bright.net,
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Clear to whom?  

It is clear to any one with at least half a brain that the oil binge has become
destructive. It leads to destructive behavior such as attacking sovereign
nations that aren't showing any indication of threatening us. Every time the
price of oil spikes upward the country goes into a huge economic downturn. Are
you going to wait until the economic destruction is massive and permanent before
you are willing to call that destructive? The current economic model depends
almost entirely on low and stable oil prices. It is pretty clear that low and
stable oil prices is something that can no longer be relied on to always exist.
It is pretty clear to anyone who is willing to pull his head out of the sand
that the economic health of the nation depends on stable oil supply and prices.
A large tax on oil is the only effective option to bring about that level of
stability. The nation can easily adapt to higher costs of petroleum based
products, but it is obvious it can't handle inconsistent supply and pricing.

>Just because the liberal douches in power this week are
> catering to that lobby, doesn't make it truth.

What lobby are you talking about? Confucius warned of the destructive nature of
bingeing 3000 years ago. Does he have a lobby i don't know about?

> >>> Your information on where the gas tax is currently being spent is wrong
> >>> also. The current tax on oil in the US is much lower than Europe or
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Pull up the congressional record from when the tax was levied.

I do know what it is that congress said. Congress is not Moses and their ideas
are not divinely inspired. You are making it sound like when congress says jump,
you reply "Yes massah, how high would you like me to jump".

    I know why congress said they levied the tax and I know why the tax as it now
stands has been good for the petroleum and auto industry. That didn't answer my
question. What is the good reason you can give for the nation to only spend the
gas tax on highways? It seems to me it is like levying a small tax on alcohol
and then insisting on the belief that the  revenues from alcohol tax can only be
used to buy bar stools for taverns and the tax can never be any larger than that
specific need requires. What would be the good reason for such tax scheme if you
don't own a tavern?

    The question I asked and you can't seem to answer is: What good reason can you
give to not put a large tax on oil for the benefit of the economic health of the
nation and to benefit future generations?

-jim
Roger Blake - 01 Jul 2009 02:41 GMT
> It is clear to any one with at least half a brain that the oil binge has become
> destructive.

What is destructive are the liberal turds who have steadfastly stood
in the way of us developing our own vast energy resources.

> A large tax on oil is the only effective option to bring about that level of
> stability. The nation can easily adapt to higher costs of petroleum based

A large tax on oil would be tantatmount to a declaration of war against the
American people by their own government.  Of course such a thing might
motivate them to vote the left-wing dirtbags out of office.

>     The question I asked and you can't seem to answer is: What good reason can you
> give to not put a large tax on oil for the benefit of the economic health of the
> nation and to benefit future generations?

Because it is an unnecessary and idiotic idea backed primarily by leftist
a.sholes.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

jim - 01 Jul 2009 03:53 GMT
> > It is clear to any one with at least half a brain that the oil binge has become
> > destructive.
>
> What is destructive are the liberal turds who have steadfastly stood
> in the way of us developing our own vast energy resources.

Oh really, Well if there is an infinite supply that is being withheld
from the market the only ones benefiting from that would be the oil
producers. It is called hoarding and it is done to artificially jack up
the price.

> > A large tax on oil is the only effective option to bring about that level of
> > stability. The nation can easily adapt to higher costs of petroleum based
>
> A large tax on oil would be tantatmount to a declaration of war against the
> American people by their own government.

    How does that work? I can see how taxing your pay check might be
regarded as an assault in that way, but  a tax on the oil companies? How
is that an attack on the people?

>  Of course such a thing might
> motivate them to vote the left-wing dirtbags out of office.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Because it is an unnecessary and idiotic idea backed primarily by leftist
> a.sholes.

    So about all you can know is that the bogey man is hiding under the
bed.

-jim
Roger Blake - 02 Jul 2009 04:19 GMT
> Oh really, Well if there is an infinite supply that is being withheld

Not "infinite," but very, very large.

> from the market the only ones benefiting from that would be the oil
> producers. It is called hoarding and it is done to artificially jack up
> the price.

It is called "environmentalism" and is used to prevent oil companies
from drilling in places where oil may be found.

>     How does that work? I can see how taxing your pay check might be
> regarded as an assault in that way, but  a tax on the oil companies? How
> is that an attack on the people?

Taxes are not paid by corporations, but by their customers. Put a huge
tax on oil and all products based on oil or transported by oil go up,
and would be a death blow to an already faltering economy.  It is not
a difficult concept to understand. (What will people do when the time
comes to decide between feeding their families and feeding the government
with more and more taxes?)

>     So about all you can know is that the bogey man is hiding under the
> bed.

No, what I know is that there is sufficient oil to last centuries. We have
not even begun to tap shale yet, but have known how to do so for decades.
(I do have an unfair advantage, having worked years ago in the R&D lab
of a major oil company.) You are the one chasing phantom "we're running
out of oil" bogey men.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

HLS - 02 Jul 2009 12:37 GMT
"Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message

> No, what I know is that there is sufficient oil to last centuries. We have
> not even begun to tap shale yet, but have known how to do so for decades.
> (I do have an unfair advantage, having worked years ago in the R&D lab
> of a major oil company.) You are the one chasing phantom "we're running
> out of oil" bogey men.

There is a lot of oil in some shale deposits, but it is not cheap to extract
it.
That IS a fact.
E. Meyer - 02 Jul 2009 14:16 GMT
On 7/2/09 6:37 AM, in article aS03m.10150$Dx2.8933@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com,

> "Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> it.
> That IS a fact.

If the price goes up because it costs more to produce, that's reasonable,
but raising the price artificially through excess taxation as has been
proposed is quite another.
Roger Blake - 03 Jul 2009 03:38 GMT
> If the price goes up because it costs more to produce, that's reasonable,
> but raising the price artificially through excess taxation as has been
> proposed is quite another.

Agreed. In fact it could be argued that higher prices per barrel
are a *good* thing because it will insure continued supply.
Quite a different matter than imposing confiscatory taxation.
But some people see ever higher taxes as the solution for
nearly every problem, real or perceived.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

jim - 03 Jul 2009 15:29 GMT
> > If the price goes up because it costs more to produce, that's reasonable,
> > but raising the price artificially through excess taxation as has been
> > proposed is quite another.
>
> Agreed. In fact it could be argued that higher prices per barrel
> are a *good* thing because it will insure continued supply.

Yes it is a good thing for the reason you state. It is also a good thing
because high prices encourages the discovery and use of alternatives to
oil. That was the topic of this thread. It is not just that a tax will
help insure a continued supply, as you so well put it,  it will also
change the other side of the economic equation it will alter the demand
for oil by creating a demand for alternatives. That means the market
place figures out what alternatives to oil are best instead of the
government trying to guess what might be best and sinking money into
that. If you put a tax on oil there is no need for the government to be
involved in spending money on research. Research for alternatives
becomes a good investment opportunity for the private sector.

    The reason the oil companies and the people who work for oil companies
tell you a tax  won't matter and that it will just pass the cost to the
customer is because it is not true. If it were really true they wouldn't
say anything because they wouldn't care. If it were true they wouldn't
be arguing against it so vehemently. If you look at the big picture over
time. A tax on oil production will negatively impact on the oil
companies and it will positively impact on the customer. But that isn't
the reason for the tax. The purpose is not to favor one sector over
another the reason for the tax is that it has become abundantly clear
that fluctuating oil pries have become destructive to the long term
survival of the nation. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. It
something that shouldn't have been ignored for so long.

    The crux of the matter that those opposed to taxing oil refuse to even
think about is do we include future generations in our considerations or
do we continue on the present course of thinking only what is good for
ourselves, at this time, and let future generations worry about
themselves. The opponents to a tax just want to ignore that it would be
better for future generations if we paid our own taxes and it would be
even better still for future generations if we did so in a way that
helped insure that that future had a continued supply of oil.
    Instead the only solution they have to offer is to pass laws and
government incentives to extract more  oil out of the ground  at a
faster rate. One would think by now everyone would see why that is a
failed policy. There is little doubt that extracting more oil faster
will in the short run appear to look like it is making things better. It
might even encourage the public to go back to buying big SUV's, but what
will happen in the long run? As you have already pointed out there is no
reason the government needs to create incentives and means for oil
companies to extrract more oil. there is abundant oil they could be
extracting if they wanted to. Nobody is stopping the oil companies from
extracting shale oil.  

> Quite a different matter than imposing confiscatory taxation.

"confiscatory taxation" I like that phrase how clever of you to think
that up. I propose that the US impose a  $200/barrel "confiscatory oil
tax". That has a nice ring to it.

    In case you are unaware - all taxes are confiscatory. So trying to
paint one tax as bad as if they aren't all the same  would be OK if you
could supply some reason for that labeling. But you haven't supplied
reasons for any of the policies you want. All you can do is label
things. No reasoning, no thought. Just labels. It would be refreshing if
you could supply a reason why you think it is OK to impose a
confiscatory tax on future generations for our current spending. Is it
so terrible that the generation doing the spending be the ones that have
the money confiscated?

    But if you are so hung up on labels and don't like the word "tax" then
let's call this an insurance premium. Require that the oil companies buy
a $200/brl insurance premium that is used to bail out the economy
whenever the economy crashes. That way, the next time the price of oil
shoots upward the government won't be already drowning in debt when it
needs to bail out the economy. Heck you could even give the oil
companies a "good drivers rewards"- where their premiums would go down
after so many years without a crash (if that happens).

    People need to wake up and realize we already have a confiscatory
taxation policy and taxes aren't going to go away. The problem is that a
good bit of what we are confiscating is not from our ourselves but from
future generations. You may be able to make a reasonable argument that a
tax on oil now would not benefit the current generation, but it is hard
to argue that an oil tax today would not benefit future generations,
because as you said higher prices will insure continued supply. Not for
us, but for the future. That is the main point instead of robbing from
the future as we have done for the last 25 years we need to turn that
around and for a change do something that will be an investment in the
future.

    OTOH, Your proposal is to continue robbing from the future, but not as
slowly as before we need now to shift gears and accelerate robbing from
the future faster.

> But some people see ever higher taxes as the solution for
> nearly every problem, real or perceived.

Taxation is your solution where do you think the money is coming from
that is bailing out the economy that crashed as a result of last years
high oil prices? It is all coming from a confiscatory tax on the future
- every penny. Why are the future taxpayers being forced to pay for
this? Have you got it into your head that somehow the future taxpayers
are the ones who are to blame?

    You have never once said one word to address the fundamental economic
problem that taxing oil will address. Every time the price of oil shoots
upward the US economy tanks.  That is something that you would think can
no longer be just ignored. I mean just how long do you think we can keep
ignoring that? A tax on oil may be a bitter pill to swallow but it will
inoculate the nation against those price fluctuations which are
inevitable. The choice seems obvious either sit by and watch the
inevitable train wreck happen or do something to prevent it. Your
response to that problem is apparently to just bury your head in the
sand and pretend there is no problem.

    The only action you have proposed  is to ask that the government ignore
the long term health of the nation. Why should the nation go along with
that? Passing laws that help the oil companies pump more oil faster is
short term near sighted solution. It may look beneficial for a little
while, but once again puts the nation  in a position to crash once the
supply again becomes inadequate to meet the demand. It is an inevitable
cycle that is guaranteed to happen.

-jim
Roger Blake - 03 Jul 2009 03:35 GMT
> There is a lot of oil in some shale deposits, but it is not cheap to extract
> it.
> That IS a fact.

So now that it has been demonstrated that we are NOT running out of
oil, the subject is changed to the cost.

Yes, the stuff will be more expensive to extract than conventional
sources. But it is definitely available in very large quantities
that will last a very long time. It is a pretty safe bet that by the
time we actually run out of oil we will no longer need it.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

HLS - 03 Jul 2009 09:37 GMT
>> There is a lot of oil in some shale deposits, but it is not cheap to
>> extract
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So now that it has been demonstrated that we are NOT running out of
> oil, the subject is changed to the cost.

I didnt change the subject, Roger.   I made the point, which is quite true,
that trying to extract shale oil is going to cost a lot of money.

Production from the tar sands and oil sands in Canada is very dependent
on price because these operations can be prohibitively expensive.  The
ecology demon has not even been invoked.

In some cases, or at some point in time, it may be more feasible to shift
over
to agricultural production of vegetable oils that to try to mine shale oil.

Some of the shale deposits DO contain a lot of oil, but the concentration of
oil in the shale can be low and variable.  It can be likened to the
situation of
there being a lot of dissolved gold in the oceans.

Knowing how to remove oil from shale is nothing new.
Scott Dorsey - 03 Jul 2009 15:16 GMT
>> There is a lot of oil in some shale deposits, but it is not cheap to extract
>> it.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>that will last a very long time. It is a pretty safe bet that by the
>time we actually run out of oil we will no longer need it.

Problem is that removing oil from most of that shale will take more
energy than you'll get from burning it.  Now, that's fine if you want
the oil for something like plastics fabrication or lubricating oils,
but it's not such a good thing if your intention is to burn it.

Also, please do not forget lubricating oils.  Not all crude oil is
light sweet crude... there are a lot of crude oils out there that
are specialized for particular lubricating oil applications and when
those are gone they are gone.
--scott
Signature

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jim - 02 Jul 2009 15:03 GMT
> > Oh really, Well if there is an infinite supply that is being withheld
>
> Not "infinite," but very, very large.

Well I hope you are right because then there would be some hope for
future generations. Right now the most optimistic estimate for how much
oil is in ANWR is about equivalent to what the nation uses in 4 years.
ore realistic estimates are more like 2 years. And that oil belongs to
the people of the United States not the oil companies. You are asking
the people to sell that oil cheaply to the oil companies and they sell
it back to us at whatever price they can get. That doesn't solve
anything it just delays it a little while.  Actually there is no
guarantee the oil companies will even sell it to Americans - they could
sell it to Japan or China just as easily. But the bottom line is if we
sell it now then in the future it isn't going to be there - Then what
happens? Oh right, I forgot, that is not our problem.

> > from the market the only ones benefiting from that would be the oil
> > producers. It is called hoarding and it is done to artificially jack up
> > the price.
>
> It is called "environmentalism" and is used to prevent oil companies
> from drilling in places where oil may be found.

Yes but if you had the benefit of a working brain you would still want n
answer to the question who is benefiting from hoarding that oil. That
oil isn't going any place it is just becoming more valuable the longer
it sits in the ground.

> >       How does that work? I can see how taxing your pay check might be
> > regarded as an assault in that way, but  a tax on the oil companies? How
> > is that an attack on the people?
>
> Taxes are not paid by corporations, but by their customers.

    That statement  convinces me you are extremely gullible, but it doesn't
matter you can believe what you wish to.  Even if your belief were true
it is still undeniable that if the US had put a high tax on every barrel
of oil 50 years ago the amount of oil that would be still sitting in the
ground as a result would be vast. I mean, it would be a lot more oil
left in the ground than the oil you think we have now. Not only would
there be more oil available still in the ground there would also be less
need (demand) for oil. That would be because alternate sources of energy
would have long ago developed and more efficient ways of using oil
energy would have also been developed. But most important of all: we
wouldn't stuck with an economy that isn't capable of functioning without
cheap oil.

> Put a huge
> tax on oil and all products based on oil or transported by oil go up,

Yes absolutely. That is the whole idea. It creates an economy that is
not distorted by a bubble of cheap oil. In case you haven't been paying
attention lately, bubble economies always pop and the consequences of
bubbles popping are always disastrous. You have to be a complete moron
to invite the greatest of all bubble economies to pop on you. And the
fact that you argue that disaster will happen, but not in our life time
is just an indication of your selfishness nothing more.  

> and would be a death blow to an already faltering economy.

You might be right. Increasing the cost of oil may be fatal to the
economy, but if the economy can't adapt to high priced oil then the
economy is ultimately doomed anyway. Either we learn to survive with
high priced oil or we die. The only real choice we have is do we face
that reality now or do we put a gun to the head of future generations
and make them figure out how to live with high priced oil. And at the
same time that we avoid any responsibility for creating a viable economy
that we can pass to future generations we also saddle them with a huge
amount of debt. Do you think those future generations are going to be
better able to survive then we are now? Is it their fault that we now
have a faltering economy? You seem to think it is if you are asking them
to pay the bills.

>  It is not
> a difficult concept to understand. (What will people do when the time
> comes to decide between feeding their families and feeding the government
> with more and more taxes?)

Where do you think the money is coming from that the government spends.
Right now we are asking future generations to tax themselves to pay for
a large portion of what the government is spending for us now. This is
because we refuse to pay our own taxes. Your wonderful solution to all
our problems is don't tax us make somebody in the future pay the tax.
But I realize you are not alone. Not paying our taxes is also the
government's solution and most of the people are going along.

> >       So about all you can know is that the bogey man is hiding under the
> > bed.
>
> No, what I know is that there is sufficient oil to last centuries.

Sure, oil is not going to run out any time soon. But it will get more
expensive. And as we have seen in the last couple of years we cannot
rely on oil prices remaining stable and low.

>We have
> not even begun to tap shale yet, but have known how to do so for decades.

Cheap oil is a bubble that will pop. Expensive oil will last forever.

> (I do have an unfair advantage, having worked years ago in the R&D lab
> of a major oil company.) You are the one chasing phantom "we're running
> out of oil" bogey men.

I never said we are running out of oil. I said we need to do what needs
to be done to change the economy so that it can survive high oil prices.
The nation has a vested interest in doing that because as you yourself
have indicated the nation is completely vulnerable in this area. The
failure to immunize ourselves from this could be a "death blow" as you
so eloquently put it.  I also said we need to start raising our own
taxes instead of asking future generations to raise taxes to pay for our
spending.

   
    Only a complete idiot would not be able to see that our current
economy only functions well when oil prices are low and stable.
Currently the economy is clearly incapable of withstanding the shocks of
oil price fluctuations that are bound to come. Now you can rant a rave
and foam at the mouth about who is responsible for oil price instability
and whether or not it will happen sooner or later, but that won't make
it go away.

-jim
vaughn - 02 Jul 2009 15:26 GMT
The below reasons, all suppied by Jim, show why we should create stinulus
jobs by developing ANWR at taxpayer expense, BUT LEAVE THE OIL IN PLACE.
This would save the oil for future generations, leave the taxpayers with a
new "Fort Knox" of national treasure, give us the immediate benefit of a
potential supply buffer to discourage internationl oil price/supply
blackmail of our economy, and provide a strategic oil reserve.

Reason 1:
>Right now the most optimistic estimate for how much
> oil is in ANWR is about equivalent to what the nation uses in 4 years.
> ore realistic estimates are more like 2 years. And that oil belongs to
> the people of the United States not the oil companies. You are asking
> the people to sell that oil cheaply to the oil companies and they sell
> it back to us at whatever price they can get.

Reason 2:
>Actually there is no
> guarantee the oil companies will even sell it to Americans - they could
> sell it to Japan or China just as easily.

Reason 3:
>But the bottom line is if we
> sell it now then in the future it isn't going to be there - Then what
> happens?

Reason 4:
>.... Increasing the cost of oil may be fatal to the
> economy,

Reason 5:
> Where do you think the money is coming from that the government spends.
> Right now we are asking future generations to tax themselves to pay for
> a large portion of what the government is spending for us now.

Reason 6:
> Sure, oil is not going to run out any time soon. But it will get more
> expensive. And as we have seen in the last couple of years we cannot
> rely on oil prices remaining stable and low.

Reason 6:
> ... we need to do what needs
> to be done to change the economy so that it can survive high oil prices.

Back to Reason 4:
> Only a complete idiot would not be able to see that our current
> economy only functions well when oil prices are low and stable.
> Currently the economy is clearly incapable of withstanding the shocks of
> oil price fluctuations that are bound to come.
Roger Blake - 03 Jul 2009 03:49 GMT
> Well I hope you are right because then there would be some hope for

I am right. There are huge, untapped oil reserves in nontraditional
sources such as tar sands, not to mention the enourmous amount of
coal we have in the U.S. which can be used to create petroleum
products.

> future generations. Right now the most optimistic estimate for how much

The "future generations" you speak of will be so far in the future by
the time we are actually in danger of running out that they will probably
no longer have a need for it. (Perhaps they will use nanotechnology to
assemble the necessary molecules on occasion for nostalgia's sake.)

Predicting the end of the oil supply has been going on for decades.
I have a copy of Popular Science published in 1957 where the cover
article is "Are We Running Out of Oil?" (Prediction then was 20-30
years and it would be gone.)

> Yes but if you had the benefit of a working brain you would still want n

That is certainly something you do not have, that dormant organ rotting
between your ears seems to do you no good whatsoever. Amazing anyone
can believe the kind of bilge you spew.

>     That statement  convinces me you are extremely gullible, but it doesn't

Yours convinces me you are congenital idiot. Or perhaps a Communist who
simply does not understand how the market works.

> I never said we are running out of oil. I said we need to do what needs
> to be done to change the economy so that it can survive high oil prices.

The path to stable oil prices is to develop our own resources, not through
confiscatory taxation.

>     Only a complete idiot would not be able to see that our current

Only a complete idiot would think that taxing oil to make it more
expensive is going to somehow "help" the economy or make the price
lower and more stable.

> oil price fluctuations that are bound to come. Now you can rant a rave
> and foam at the mouth about who is responsible for oil price instability

You are the one ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth, venting
nonsense.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

Scott Dorsey - 03 Jul 2009 15:20 GMT
>> Well I hope you are right because then there would be some hope for
>
>I am right. There are huge, untapped oil reserves in nontraditional
>sources such as tar sands, not to mention the enourmous amount of
>coal we have in the U.S. which can be used to create petroleum
>products.

Tar sands are long chain hydrocarbons... it is outrageously expensive
in terms of energy input to crack that stuff down into gasoline and
diesel.  On the other hand, some of those long paraffins are great for
plastics precursors.

>Only a complete idiot would think that taxing oil to make it more
>expensive is going to somehow "help" the economy or make the price
>lower and more stable.

The argument is made that people won't research other energy sources
(and that includes things like shale oil extraction) as long as cheap
petroleum is so cheap.  I won't argue either way, but I'd like to
clarify what the argument is.
--scott

Signature

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

News - 01 Jul 2009 13:00 GMT
> Because it is an unnecessary and idiotic idea backed primarily by leftist
> a.sholes.

Do you see red under the bed as well?
Roger Blake - 02 Jul 2009 04:20 GMT
> Do you see red under the bed as well?

No, but I see plenty of red in the Congress and the White House.

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

News - 07 Jul 2009 15:09 GMT
>> Do you see red under the bed as well?
>
> No, but I see plenty of red in the Congress and the White House.

Well balances the raving ring wing loonies on here.
E. Meyer - 01 Jul 2009 03:28 GMT
On 6/30/09 2:48 PM, in article T6Cdnc6_CqeI8dfXnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@bright.net,

>> On 6/30/09 12:36 PM, in article BaGdnX5eJ7W-0NfXnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@bright.net,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
> my
> question.

I wasn't aware I was answering any of your questions.  My only point was
that your answer to the questions of others was from some dream world.

> What is the good reason you can give for the nation to only spend
> the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> you
> don't own a tavern?

More social tinkering.  And other than loading the coffers of government
treasuries, what actual benefit does an alcohol tax serve anyway?

> The question I asked and you can't seem to answer is: What good reason can you
> give to not put a large tax on oil for the benefit of the economic health of
> the
> nation and to benefit future generations?

If you asked me that question, I missed it.  In any event, that is an
absolutely irreverent question because it assumes a benefit that is in no
way guaranteed.  The real question is whether anyone with a half a brain
will roll over and allow themselves to be raped in the name of politically
correct social tinkering that has no chance of fixing anything and every
chance at destroying the whole infrastructure of the nation.

> -jim
jim - 01 Jul 2009 13:33 GMT
> I wasn't aware I was answering any of your questions.  My only point was
> that your answer to the questions of others was from some dream world.

Yes your lack of awareness is becoming more and more apparent. Here is
what I said:

You have offered no explanation of why a tax on oil is supposed to be
used to "build & maintain highways"?

You responded:

Pull up the congressional record from when the tax was levied.

You now claim you weren't trying to answer the question????

    As for "dream world" - it is  you and congress  that are ignoring
reality.

> > What is the good reason you can give for the nation to only spend
> > the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> More social tinkering.  And other than loading the coffers of government
> treasuries, what actual benefit does an alcohol tax serve anyway?

    If the coffers of the government treasuries were loaded and overflowing
as you imply I would agree with you. But that isn't the case. The
government is spending money it doesn't have. Those coffers you are
worried about are being loaded with IOU's. Future generation will be
forced to create taxes to pay for those bills we are now so carelessly
creating. Alcohol is taxed so that the government doesn't just create
more debt. Future generations will be forced to increase taxes on
alcohol and everything else to get out of the hole we put them in.

> > The question I asked and you can't seem to answer is: What good reason can you
> > give to not put a large tax on oil for the benefit of the economic health of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> absolutely irreverent question because it assumes a benefit that is in no
> way guaranteed.

    I never said there was a "benefit". There is obviously a benefit to us
by making future generations pay our taxes. There is an obvious benefit
to ourselves by paying as little as we can for petroleum products that
we are consuming. There is no doubt we will be losing benefits by paying
for what the nation is now spending and paying more for the oil that we
are now consuming, but despite the lack of immediate gratification it is
still the right thing to do.   

> The real question is whether anyone with a half a brain
> will roll over and allow themselves to be raped in the name of politically
> correct social tinkering that has no chance of fixing anything and every
> chance at destroying the whole infrastructure of the nation.

    Ah, so you do see the problem, but like congress you just are simply
not willing to face the problem. You are correct, if  the cost of oil
products goes up drastically it might destroy the nation. If we do it by
taxation we can be sure that  at the very least it definitely will cause
some hardship, but if it is phased in slowly, The nation should be able
to survive.
    You see the problem so clearly, but you don't care because it will be
somebody else and  not you that has to deal with it. You don't care that
future generations will (barring some miracle) be faced with that very
gigantic problem of uncontrollable increased cost of oil products that
you clearly understand could destroy the nation. And you don't care a
bit that they will also be faced with having inherited a mountain of
debt as well as an economy that is completely unprepared to survive
without cheap oil.

-jim
E. Meyer - 01 Jul 2009 14:19 GMT
On 7/1/09 7:33 AM, in article yaydnVSS5KUyytbXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@bright.net,

>> I wasn't aware I was answering any of your questions.  My only point was
>> that your answer to the questions of others was from some dream world.
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> I never said there was a "benefit". There is obviously a benefit to us
> by making future generations pay our taxes.

That argument has been floated since at least the 1960's.  We're two
generations down the road now and it still hasn't happened.

> There is an obvious benefit
> to ourselves by paying as little as we can for petroleum products that
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> debt as well as an economy that is completely unprepared to survive
> without cheap oil.

So, I am now one with the congress.  At least you admit I'm not out there in
the dark all alone - I have the entire representative part of the government
(at least some past, more sane version of it) supporting my position.

> -jim
jim - 01 Jul 2009 15:15 GMT
> > I never said there was a "benefit". There is obviously a benefit to us
> > by making future generations pay our taxes.

> That argument has been floated since at least the 1960's.  We're two
> generations down the road now and it still hasn't happened.

What is it you are saying hasn't happened? Are you saying it is not
anywhere near as bad as it could be? That is certainly true.

    We had essentially a balanced budget in the 60's. In the years when
there wasn't a surplus the economy was growing much faster than the
small amount of debt. Which means the debt was shrinking in comparison
to our ability to pay it off. For 60 years economist have been saying
that the debt was OK as long as there was economic growth that kept
ahead of the debt. But it has only been the last 25 years that we have
been growing at a rate that is as great or greater than economic growth.
We don't have economic growth today and the debt is still growing faster
than it ever has. This is not a situation that has been around for
generations it is brand new. This new policy is only about one year old
- maybe a little less.

> > There is an obvious benefit
> > to ourselves by paying as little as we can for petroleum products that
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> So, I am now one with the congress.

It sounds like you always have been. So is most of the rest of the
nation. If the nation wanted to do anything different it could have had
congress do it a long time ago.

>At least you admit I'm not out there in
> the dark all alone - I have the entire representative part of the government
> (at least some past, more sane version of it) supporting my position.

You are sharp as a tack. Right on top of things.  

    The government is doing exactly what the people want and there is
little doubt that it will continue to do so. That is called democracy
and that has been around for a couple hundred years now. In case you
failed to notice: That is the way democracy works.

    But just because a policy is popular doesn't make it wise.

-jim
E. Meyer - 01 Jul 2009 18:07 GMT
On 7/1/09 9:15 AM, in article Y-edndS27tvs8tbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@bright.net,

> You are sharp as a tack. Right on top of things.

It never fails.  As soon as a liberal starts getting frustrated, they resort
to personal attacks.

> -jim
jim - 01 Jul 2009 18:39 GMT
> On 7/1/09 9:15 AM, in article Y-edndS27tvs8tbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@bright.net,
>
> > You are sharp as a tack. Right on top of things.
>
> It never fails.  As soon as a liberal starts getting frustrated, they resort
> to personal attacks.

That could well be true, but like just about everything else you have
written it has nothing to do with anything that was previously said. How
did liberals get dragged into this? The people who advocate a balanced
budget are usually labeled as conservatives.
   

-jim
Vic Smith - 01 Jul 2009 19:22 GMT
>> On 7/1/09 9:15 AM, in article Y-edndS27tvs8tbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@bright.net,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>budget are usually labeled as conservatives.
>   
Anytime you see the "liberal" or "right-winger" label tossed around,
it's time to stop "debating."
All you'll get is the talking points they are parroting from their
respective camp leaders.  No thought.
That kind of bullshit just gets tiring.
Reminds me of barking dogs.  
Identical dogs, except for minor markings.
But the barks are the same.
Woof woof.  Maybe it's the mailman, maybe a firecracker.
Only thing that shuts them up is a swift kick in the a.s.

--Vic
HLS - 01 Jul 2009 14:48 GMT
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> If the coffers of the government treasuries were loaded and overflowing
> as you imply I would agree with you. But that isn't the case. The
> government is spending money it doesn't have.

Truer words were never spoken.. I want to puke every time I hear some
politician talk about the Social Security "trust fund".   There is NO trust
and
NO fund.

All that money goes into the general budget, and SS expenses are paid the
same way.

If those funds that were originally held in trust for SS had been invested
at a minimally reasonable rate, I have seen calculations that we would now
have an excess of some $31 trillion dollars...

This is criminal, in my mind.
jim - 01 Jul 2009 15:28 GMT
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> > If the coffers of the government treasuries were loaded and overflowing
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> This is criminal, in my mind.

Well you might want to  call it unethical, but it is certainly not
criminal, because it was all done in broad daylight with the consent and
approval of the governed.

    When the SS tax rate was doubled 25 years ago there was also a
reshuffling of the income tax code. The government announced joyously
that everybody got a tax break. But 30% of the people at the bottom end
of the pay scale actually saw there pay checks go down because there SS
tax increase was more than there income tax decrease. But it didn't
matter they still all cheered "YEA we got a tax break!" and elected the
politicians back into office with landslide victories.

    When you are dealing with a population that is too incompetent to be
able to read and understand their own pay stubs there is no need to
engage in criminal activity to fleece them.

-jim
HLS - 01 Jul 2009 15:42 GMT
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>> > If the coffers of the government treasuries were loaded and overflowing
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> criminal, because it was all done in broad daylight with the consent and
> approval of the governed.

Little is done here with the consent of the governed.  That was the goal,
but the
system doesnt really work that way
prometheuspan - 01 Jul 2009 19:14 GMT
"Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years. "

http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment_Research_2

there are busses in sb that run up and down state street all day long
which are electric only, they have been doing that for 20 years.

they have a max speed of about 60 mph, run for two hours on a charge,
and carry as many as 30 people.
Roger Blake - 01 Jul 2009 02:38 GMT
>     Research is already being done. Making oil products more expensive will
> naturally increase the research into alternatives to oil. That much is
> pretty hard to argue against. The only question is what people want to
> happen how to make it happen is simple.

So you believe that violence and coercion are the most desirable approach?

Signature

 Roger Blake
 (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
 "Obama dozed while people froze."

News - 29 Jun 2009 22:48 GMT
> Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years.
>
> Until then, it'll be gas-guzzlin' all the way!

The USA may still be backwards, but others countries are not.
Don Stauffer - 30 Jun 2009 14:51 GMT
> Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> -----------------
The problem seems to be that we are a country full of instant
gratification folks.  We don't understand lead time.  Most people I know
seem to have a wait and see attitude.  Wait awhile, and if it is a real
problem, do something overnight to fix it.  They do not understand the
tremendous time "inertia" of geologic/atmospheric responses, nor the
lead time to build major new facilities.
Himpg - 03 Jul 2009 12:36 GMT
> Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years.
>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Remember May 2008?

US INDEPENDENCE DAY 2009: Economy, Auto Industry, Oil?

First, humans seem to have VERY short memories and a rather weak sense
of "self reliance".

To get a sense of magnitude of fuel economy impact, let's look at US
oil imports for 2008.

In 2008, the US purchased (paid OPEC) roughly USD $700 BILLION in
imported oil REMOVING approximately USD $700 BILLION  from the US
economy resulting in the LOSS of about USD $3.5 TRILLION in TOTAL US
economic activity ... while reducing State and Federal tax revenues by
USD $700 BILLION.

BTW, how many homes and vehicles would USD $3.5 TRILLION buy? Does
more than 7 million homes or 85 million vehicles sound about right?

Interestingly, that USD $700 BILLION in lost tax revenue is a
significant portion of the incremental increase in NATIONAL DEBT for
2008.

The "average" 2008 Detroit light vehicle fuel economy was in the range
of 20.5 mpg combined average ... according to EPA.

Replacing one "average" traditional Detroit vehicle with one that gets
an average 44 mpg could save roughly 15 BARRELS (or more) of crude
annually.

Any elasticity in consumption is applied to IMPORTED OIL. At the
current price of  approximately $70/barrel, a 15 barrel/year savings
in imported oil is a “NEW savings” of roughly $1,000 that will be put
into the US economy ANNUALLY for the life of the vehicle because it
will NO LONGER be spent (paid to OPEC)!

By the way, that "NEW" $1,000 per year continues to circulate in the
domestic economy UNTIL it is “taxed into oblivion” generating roughly
$5,000 in domestic economic activity each year ... plus generating
$1,000 in tax revenue/year (at $70/barrel).  Of course this would be
true for ANY 44 plus mpg vehicle ... whether imported or domestically
built!

Now consider that a 14~17 mpg combined average Ford E250/350 could be
replaced by a Ford Transit (with similar load capabilities) and rated
between 30 and 39 mpg(US) depending on configuration with GVW
capacities up to 6,240 pounds. Fuel economy drops to about 25 mpg(US)
for GVW up to almost 7,800 pounds.

So the question is NOT how small and light the vehicle must be ...
but ... how to make it as fuel frugal as reasonably possible and
profitable at a rational price!

It does raise a serious question about "are WE using more fuel (and
CRUDE) than WE need to because of ignorance about what Ford, GM, and
many other auto manufacturers are doing elsewhere in the world?"

... FYI ... Check out the sites below for a bit of existing reality
and consider what it would mean to the US ECONOMY if the manufacturers
would let it happen in the US ...

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/index.asp

http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices/SpecsAndPrices.aspx

http://www.vca.gov.uk/vandata/Default.aspx

http://www.fordtransituk.co.uk/fordtransitspecifications.htm

By the way, it appears that a "California compliant" small
displacement (under 2.2 liters) turbo diesel can apparently built and
sold profitably for less than $1,600 more than it's comparable
gasoline counterpart. Try the Jetta pricing for example.

Also look up the Mahindra diesel pickup due in the US 12/09 (pricing
expected by 10/09) and their Scorpio due in 2010.

This type of strategy does NOT require that EVERYONE use "fuel frugal"
machines ... only those that wish to ... and NO CAFE!

Maybe "small displacement (under 2.2 liters) CLEAN DIESEL" could be
"the STOPGAP/BRIDGE solution" to other better future FUEL FRUGAL
technologies since these small displacement diesels already beat the
PRIUS in fuel frugality?

*** BEST to ALL ... in these COMPLICATED TIMES!! ***

*** REMEMBER ... The 4th IS OUR (US) INDEPENDENCE DAY!!! ***
LEROY KNEVIL - 08 Jul 2009 16:33 GMT
"Pickens Calls Off Plans For Vast Texas Wind Farm"

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

T. Boone Pickens has temporarily shelved plans to build the world's
biggest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle because of tight credit
markets and low natural gas prices, and his company Mesa Power is
looking for other projects that could use the $2 billion worth of wind
turbines already on order.

Pickens unveiled plans in 2007 for the 4,000-megawatt wind farm -- big
enough to power 1.3 million homes -- at a projected cost of $10
billion. In May 2008, Pickens ordered 667 wind turbines from General
Electric for the first of four project phases. Mesa is scheduled to
begin taking delivery in 2011.

The project was a symbol of the oilman's commitment to his high-
profile campaign to slash the nation's dependence on foreign oil with
a combination of wind power and the use of natural gas in vehicles.

"Boone still remains committed and focused on developing wind energy
in the United States," said Jay Rosser, a spokesman for Pickens's BP
Capital Management. "The timing is not as aggressive as he originally
outlined because of the collapse of the capital markets and because of
the steep downturn of natural gas prices." (Many utilities are
choosing natural gas to generate electricity.)

Rosser said Mesa Power was also unable to borrow $2 billion for
transmission lines to link the wind farm to the Texas grid. "Now we're
going to wait for the state to put the transmission [lines] in, which
will invariably be slower than what we were planning," Rosser said.

He said Mesa Power was looking at projects in the Midwest and Canada
that might need the turbines.

Pickens made his fortune in the oil business but last year lost a big
chunk of it in oil trading because he failed to anticipate a swift
drop in prices. He has spent $60 million promoting the Pickens Plan
for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Rosser said, "We've got a lot of skin in the game -- and a lot of
turbines."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702455.html
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.