PDA

View Full Version : Gas prices dropped, LET'S TAX THEM THEN!



Lord Belphegor
01-02-2009, 23:33
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/gas_tax


WASHINGTON – Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren't raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.

A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.

The 15-member National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is the second group in a year to call for increasing the current 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel. State fuel taxes vary from state to state.

In a report expected in late January, members of the infrastructure financing commission say they will urge Congress to raise the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon and the diesel tax by about 12 cents to 15 cents a gallon. At the same time, the commission will recommend tying the fuel tax rates to inflation.

The commission will also recommend that states raise their fuel taxes and make greater use of toll roads and fees for rush-hour driving.

Although the cost of gasoline has dropped dramatically in recent months, such tax increases could be politically treacherous for Democratic leaders in Congress. A gas tax hike was one of the reasons they lost control of the House and Senate in the 1994 elections. President-elect Barack Obama has expressed concern about raising fuel taxes in the current economic climate.

But commission members said the government must find more road and bridge building money somewhere.

"I'm not excited about a gas tax increase, but the reality is our current gas tax doesn't pay for upkeep of the system we have now," said Adrian Moore, vice president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank in Los Angeles, and a member of the highway revenue commission. "We can either let the roads go to hell or we can pay more."

The dilemma for Congress is that highway and transit programs are dependent for revenue on fuel taxes that are not sustainable. Many Americans are driving less and switching to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and a shift to new fuels and technologies like plug-in hybrid electric cars will further erode gasoline sales.

According to a draft of the financing commission's recommendations, the nation needs to move to a new system that taxes motorists according to how much they use roads. While details have not been worked out, such a system would mean equipping every car and truck with a device that uses global positioning satellites and transponders to record how many miles the vehicle has been driven, and perhaps the type of roads and time of day.

"Most if not all of the commissioners have a strong belief and commitment that we need a fundamental transformation of the current system," said commission chairman Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy think tank in Washington.

A study by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies estimated that the annual gap between revenues and the investment needed to improve highway and transit systems was about $105 billion in 2007, and will increase to $134 billion in 2017 under current trends.

Projected shortfalls in revenue led the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a report issued in January 2008, to call for an increase of as much as 40 cents a gallon in the gas tax, phased in over five years.

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations, which supports a fuel tax increase as long as the money goes to highway projects, said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

Transportation is responsible for about a third of all U.S. carbon emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Traffic congestion wastes an estimated 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year. Less congestion would reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said.

Bottlenecks around the nation cost the trucking industry about 243 million lost truck hours and about $7.8 billion per year, according to the commission.

Awesome, so now that I no longer have to pay 5$ a gallon they want to push it back up either way. You just LOOOVEEE my money Gov, don't you.

stalwart
01-02-2009, 23:34
lmao. i fucking hate the government.

Trikk
01-02-2009, 23:34
Yeah it's such a bad idea to keep gas prices steady.

Cepha
01-02-2009, 23:35
They want you to stop driving thus pushing the prices for anyone who IS still driving hoping you'll quit so they can use this argument to raise it again?

Shrang
01-02-2009, 23:36
Yeah it's such a bad idea to keep gas prices steady.
Yeah if they don't completely waste the money(the will)... then it could be a good thing.

Lord Belphegor
01-02-2009, 23:37
They want you to stop driving thus pushing the prices for anyone who IS still driving hoping you'll quit so they can use this argument to raise it again?

Yes, it seems like it!

Hey, people don't drive, let's tax gas so we can leech some more cash, then those who still drive will have to cut down and we'll be able to tax some more!

You have to love Dems.

/facepalm

WhiteF1ame
01-02-2009, 23:40
Did anyone else hear about how its now "unclear" what happened to some of the $700 billion bailout money? Not like there's actually checks to monitor the funds.

By the way you can be sure as hell that when the price goes back up they won't remove the additional tax they put on. Same thing happened with the "sales tax", was sold to the public as a temporary measure during World War II.

tallefred
01-02-2009, 23:40
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

Masumatek
01-02-2009, 23:41
Higher gas prices is a great thing for the environment. Just something to keep in mind...

I think too many people think only "omg my wallet" and are ignorant of the benefits.

Lord Belphegor
01-02-2009, 23:44
Higher gas prices is a great thing for the environment. Just something to keep in mind...

I think too many people think only "omg my wallet" and are ignorant of the benefits.

Awesome, will the environment pay my bills and secure my retirement? Does that mean all of us now will be getting our own secluded environmentally perfect tropical island to live on happily ever after?

WhiteF1ame
01-02-2009, 23:46
Higher gas prices is a great thing for the environment. Just something to keep in mind...

I think too many people think only "omg my wallet" and are ignorant of the benefits.

Nothing will help the environment so long as the human population continues to grow. So MAYBE they cut back enough pollution by 2%, what use would that be if the population will grow by 5% withing the next 10 years? You can't stop pollution, you can marginally slow it down. Its the same end result so why does it matter. the benefit is not worth the economic cost.

Cursisanafou
01-02-2009, 23:47
You can guarantee if this goes through and the price of oil goes back up they won't get rid of the tax.

Drizden!
01-02-2009, 23:48
Why cant the feds just let the states take care of their own fucking roads.

Seriously, it makes no sense that I pay taxes in Missouri to the Fed Gvmt who may spend it to fix some rural route in Montana.

StainlessSteelRat
01-02-2009, 23:49
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/gas_tax



Awesome, so now that I no longer have to pay 5$ a gallon they want to push it back up either way. You just LOOOVEEE my money Gov, don't you.

They are so fucking stupid. GPSs in all cars reporting to the Fed?

$26 billion/year from gas tax alone; which is $560,000 per mile of road..... Yeah, more money is the answer.

Drizden!
01-02-2009, 23:51
They are so fucking stupid. GPSs in all cars reporting to the Fed?

$26 billion/year from gas tax alone; which is $560,000 per mile of road..... Yeah, more money is the answer.

Well you know raising the price will certainly make people buy more not lest....wait a minute!

keeperofstars
01-02-2009, 23:54
Higher gas prices is a great thing for the environment. Just something to keep in mind...

I think too many people think only "omg my wallet" and are ignorant of the benefits.

But the problem is they want higher taxes so they can build more roads / repair the ones we have, so we can continue to spend more money on maintenance, and on gas.

When they really need to figure out better technologies for road ways. / work for more mass transit. Notice they want the money so they can continue our trend vs defining / enforcing better transport means. Also this is the fucking digital age, governments could start giving companies that give people work at home options, a tax break, as it cuts ommisions, road wear and tear, and such. Yes you run into issues with people being lazy at home, but you can offset that with performance based pay, that is truely performance based pay, reviewed semi annually.

But see they not trying to figure that system out, just a new way to tax us as we switch to electric / hybrid cars that are more efficent. Won't be long and I will be seeing a sidewalk tax cause I walk on it, and by walking on the sidewalk I am causing the government money in repairs.

I am sorry but if the government didnt blow shit loads of money on stupid bull shit that is total wastes, they could afford not having to tax people for the transportation infratrstuture. But they continue to waste money, without getting a return.

Yes they lose money on the road system, but they gain money cause transportation / business commerce increases. Cause there is a new highway I can quickly get to a new part of the state which has a tourist spot which causes me to spend money to buy goods with, which forces the business owners to pay income tax on.

WhiteF1ame
01-02-2009, 23:57
Raising gas prices just means people have less to spend on essentials like food, medicine, clothing. People who need to get somewhere are still going to drive, its not like an extra tax is gonna result in everyone biking and walking to work.

Shrang
01-03-2009, 00:01
its not like an extra tax is gonna result in everyone biking and walking to work.

Just proof that people are stupid...

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 00:01
Raising gas prices just means people have less to spend on essentials like food, medicine, clothing. People who need to get somewhere are still going to drive, its not like an extra tax is gonna result in everyone biking and walking to work.

It will, it will. Try living in LA metro area and travel with the gas prices we had here not to while ago. I personally had to waste additional hours everyday using Metro to get to work and school and around because my budget is tight and I was not able to afford the gas prices we had.

Honest Bill
01-03-2009, 00:04
I haven't read the whole topic. But this being a Forumfall debate, I'm sure This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?emb=1&aq=0&v=zcAqR-Hs9II&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fv ideosearch%3Fq%3Dbig+train+billie&oq=big+train+bill) is relevant to some of you

WhiteF1ame
01-03-2009, 00:07
It doesn't make a damn difference to the environment. Trust me you are not going to save anything by biking to work instead of driving. If you really care that much go live in the woods in a tent if you really want to live up to your words. Its just an excuse for the government to get more money, its always under the banner of doing the right thing.

Malhavok
01-03-2009, 00:09
They are so fucking stupid. GPSs in all cars reporting to the Fed?

$26 billion/year from gas tax alone; which is $560,000 per mile of road..... Yeah, more money is the answer.

Uh, what shit-hole of a country are you living in? Alternatively, what shit-hole of an education did you receive. There's a hell of a lot more than 46,000 miles of road in the United States. In '08 it was 29.6 billion in gas/diesel tax revenue and there are ~4 million miles in the US highway system. Is division really that difficult?

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 00:11
I haven't read the whole topic. But this being a Forumfall debate, I'm sure This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?emb=1&aq=0&v=zcAqR-Hs9II&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fv ideosearch%3Fq%3Dbig+train+billie&oq=big+train+bill) is relevant to some of you

So how is that relevant?

Apex Vertigo
01-03-2009, 00:13
Yeah it's such a bad idea to keep gas prices steady.

Right, because they won't just waste the extra revenue they will get while keeping the tax at the same rate once gas soars through the roof again.

Honest Bill
01-03-2009, 00:14
So how is that relevant?

I don't know. I just assumed it was, as it's true of most forumfall debaters

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 00:15
Uh, what shit-hole of a country are you living in? Alternatively, what shit-hole of an education did you receive. There's a hell of a lot more than 46,000 miles of road in the United States. In '08 it was 29.6 billion in gas/diesel tax revenue and there are ~4 million miles in the US highway system. Is division really that difficult?

4 million in the national highway system? Are you sure? Link plz.

My number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

Malhavok
01-03-2009, 00:21
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_01.html

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 00:23
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_01.html

I don't think those are all federal highway miles.

So, about that education you received....

Mr.LichTwitch
01-03-2009, 00:45
I'd rather see them shrink the bureaucracies that are in charge of maintaining our infrastructure, and use what would have been their salaries to fix the roads.

Shane
01-03-2009, 01:03
"I'm not excited about a gas tax increase, but the reality is our current gas tax doesn't pay for upkeep of the system we have now," said Adrian Moore, vice president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank in Los Angeles, and a member of the highway revenue commission. "We can either let the roads go to hell or we can pay more."

Or you can fuck off and stop burning money on bullshit.

Oh wait, you get paid to do that. Fucknut.

ejnomad07
01-03-2009, 02:30
Libertarians want a gas tax increase eh? Oh well. :(

bluthorn
01-03-2009, 03:18
Blegh, this is just the tip of the socialist iceberg, courtesy of...well, dumb Americans. :bang:

Malhavok
01-03-2009, 04:08
I don't think those are all federal highway miles.

So, about that education you received....
Ahh what a world it'd be if the Federal Govt only maintained the Interstate instead of just holding that huge pool of money over the states heads to force them into line.

salany
01-03-2009, 04:18
I so sick of both the gas companies and the government. Would like to thank the gas company for drawing attention to there greedy hearts. I can't wait for the day when companies such as the ZENN motor company bring out a faster product. Make the oil companies scream "what happen" just like the music industry did 15 years ago with the birth of mp3.

Link to ZENN http://www.zenncars.com/

Oh if have a chance watch Who killed the Electric car. F-U General Motors you made your bed now die.

Shrang
01-03-2009, 04:24
I so sick of both the gas companies and the government. Would like to thank the gas company for drawing attention to there greedy hearts. I can't wait for the day when companies such as the ZENN motor company bring out a faster product. Make the oil companies scream "what happen" just like the music industry did 15 years ago with the birth of mp3.

Link to ZENN http://www.zenncars.com/

Oh if have a chance watch Who killed the Electric car. F-U General Motors you made your bed now die.
Its not like we have unlimited amounts of coal(quality is getting worse too) to supply electricity for those cars... so much as it could slow oil consumption by cars... population continues to go up and oil is important for a number of reasons.

Have seen the movie though and i agree that it could have been nicer to switch over sooner as to move us farther back from running out of oil. And.. who the hell subsidizes hummers?

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 04:24
Imagine if GM was never bailed out, I'd be so fucking happy.

Malhavok
01-03-2009, 04:27
Myth 3: It takes too long to charge an electric vehicle.

Charging a ZENN is as easy as charging your cell phone. Simply plug it into a conventional electric outlet at night and in the morning, it will be fully charged. If you’re short on time, as little as four hours charging gives you 80% capacity from a completely “empty” tank. Most importantly, you ‘fill up’ at home, and eliminate wasted time standing outside at the gas pump.



Myth 5: Electric vehicles aren’t fast enough.

Designed to meet neighborhood and urban transportation needs, the regulated maximum speed of a ZENN is 25 mph. As such its intended use is busy urban areas, lower speed roads and places like gated communities and campuses where speed is neither necessary, desirable or safe.


Hell yah, Zenn! 'Cause I never go out of town and like sitting around an electric outlet for four hours so I can go another 30 miles at 25 mph! That sounds just terrific! I can't wait to spend $17,000 on that! Stick it to the oil companies man.

Now let's compare it to another one of my friends. The bicycle. It can go longer than 30 miles. If you're not a fat slob it can go 16 quite well. It costs less. It's better for you, the environment, and you can park its much easier to park.

kiasta
01-03-2009, 04:28
So while there are people getting fired left and right the government is STILL trying to increase taxes? Seriously....where the fuck is the coup?

bluthorn
01-03-2009, 04:32
Imagine if GM was never bailed out, I'd be so happy.

GM, Chrysler, all of them should burn burn BURN!!!

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 04:34
Hell yah, Zenn! 'Cause I never go out of town and like sitting around an electric outlet for four hours so I can go another 30 miles at 25 mph! That sounds just terrific! I can't wait to spend $17,000 on that! Stick it to the oil companies man.

Now let's compare it to another one of my friends. The bicycle. It can go longer than 30 miles. If you're not a fat slob it can go 16 quite well. It costs less. It's better for you, the environment, and you can park its much easier to park.

You realize you can get a hybrid and charge the electricity over night, right? That's coming from a pretty right wing individual so don't spew the liberal eco-friendly hippy shit on me please.

Helgeran
01-03-2009, 04:34
Sweden has had over 100% tax on gas for ages, if the government would lower it gradually when peak oil sneaks closer we wouldn't notice shit. What annoys me though is when someone starts running a car on alternative fuel they start taxing the shit out of that too so it's not like they're trying to steer people away from petrol.

salany
01-03-2009, 04:34
I don't wish GM to fail, in reality I'm just really pissed that no one does anything till it's too late. Be proactive not reactive. GM had Electric cars 15 years ago give or take. They had a great product that people would have bought, if they would have kept the idea and did allot of testing and research, they might have a car for us in 2009, Hybrid is just a band aid solution Now they are struggling to get a Electric car out to feed the demand, mean while asking government for our tax dollars. It's just poor planning; it makes me sick, even more so that I'm little older and have kids to worry about.

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 04:37
Sweden has had over 100% tax on gas for ages, if the government would lower it gradually when peak oil sneaks closer we wouldn't notice shit. What annoys me though is when someone starts running a car on alternative fuel they start taxing the shit out of that too so it's not like they're trying to steer people away from petrol.

In your tiny paradise, how far do Swiss have to travel using cars to get to their jobs? Mind that distances between point A and B in Europe are WAYYY shorter than in many parts of US. No, highways/freeways do not help when you are stuck in traffic.

Helgeran
01-03-2009, 04:42
In your tiny paradise, how far do Swiss have to travel using cars to get to their jobs? Mind that distances between point A and B in Europe are WAYYY shorter than in many parts of US. No, highways/freeways do not help when you are stuck in traffic.
Public transit is pretty sweet. I don't have a drivers license yet though, perhaps there is no going back from that luxuary?

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 04:43
Public transit is pretty sweet. I don't have a drivers license yet though, perhaps there is no going back from that luxuary?

That's another thing, Europe, in general has a divine transit system compared to US. At least that's my experience.

Malhavok
01-03-2009, 04:44
You realize you can get a hybrid and charge the electricity over night, right? That's coming from a pretty right wing individual so don't spew the liberal eco-friendly hippy shit on me please.

No you can't. PHEVs don't exist yet unless you're talking aftermarket modifications ala CalCars PHEV Prius. For an extra $10,000 on what is an already over priced car you can make the Prius PHEV with enough battery capacity to be worth it. Paying 35k for a Prius isn't much more exciting than 17k for Zuseless.

Shrang
01-03-2009, 04:45
Public transit is pretty sweet. I don't have a drivers license yet though, perhaps there is no going back from that luxuary?

US public transit mostly sucks..... i wish it were better.

Erroneous
01-03-2009, 04:47
In your tiny paradise, how far do Swiss have to travel using cars to get to their jobs? Mind that distances between point A and B in Europe are WAYYY shorter than in many parts of US. No, highways/freeways do not help when you are stuck in traffic.

Shouldn't we just live closer to work. I'm not saying there should be any subsidy or from the government to cause this, but it makes a lot more sense.

Shrang
01-03-2009, 04:47
Shouldn't we just live closer to work. I'm not saying there should be any subsidy or from the government to cause this, but it makes a lot more sense.

Housing prices can make a difference on this... but yeah it is generally smarter.

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 04:54
Shouldn't we just live closer to work. I'm not saying there should be any subsidy or from the government to cause this, but it makes a lot more sense.

No, it's up to you where you choose to work, nobody else. The government should have no word or action in it. On the other hand, as a proper public administration it should provide efficient transit system to be able to travel from point A to B in a timely and uninterrupted fashion at lowest possible cost. If local government can't do it right, let private companies do it, and they'll do it better. The same goes for personal transportation. Logically, if you want an efficient work force, you should not prevent it from being able to GET TO WORK. Increasing costs of fuel only prevents that. If Dems are so fucking liberal loving freaks, wouldn't they want to actually help their comrades get to their commune work places?

Road maintenance, other than interstate highways, should be completely funded by state governments. I don't want to lose money both on gas and taxes just because some asshole needs his dirt road fixed in Montana. I don't use roads in Montana and there is a high chance I probably never will.


Housing prices can make a difference on this... but yeah it is generally smarter.

That's true too, ESPECIALLY in California.

Vanno
01-03-2009, 04:56
Shouldn't we just live closer to work. I'm not saying there should be any subsidy or from the government to cause this, but it makes a lot more sense.

Monocentric cities use to be the norm. That type of layout is still very much evident in cities on the East Coast.

My opinion is that more efficient and smaller domiciles will probably be the future of housing, as TVs, electronics, and other household items become smaller, the need for space will as well. I also think there is an efficiency in communal eating (cafeterias) that could be tapped into if run on a tax-free non-profit level. This reduces the need for major appliances in all houses. Unfortunately, such a thing might be considered too Socialist to occur in our time.

Erroneous
01-03-2009, 05:09
No, it's up to you where you choose to work, nobody else. The government should have no word or action in it.

My post only had two sentences you'd think you would read both of them before replying.


On the other hand, as a proper public administration it should provide efficient transit system to be able to travel from point A to B in a timely and uninterrupted fashion at lowest possible cost.

This is subsidizing people who live farther away from cities. If they want to enjoy the extra space they should have to pay the cost.


If local government can't do it right, let private companies do it, and they'll do it better.

RIght so a private company could do it and then they would have to bear the full cost of their decision. Why on earth would you prioritize governmental investment if private companies can do it better? I'd accept the opposite (needing to use eminent domain to make the transport system work, and so calling in the government) under certain conditions, but the way you describe it makes no sense to me.

Regarding road maintenance and house costs these are other tools that should be used to make people living away from cities pay their fair share, but the government gets involved in all the wrong ways.

On the plus side, we are pretty close to being able to work a lot of jobs from the comfort of our rural home commuting over the information superhighway.

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 05:31
My post only had two sentences you'd think you would read both of them before replying.

Huh what?


This is subsidizing people who live farther away from cities. If they want to enjoy the extra space they should have to pay the cost.

They already do, it's called paying for gas.


RIght so a private company could do it and then they would have to bear the full cost of their decision. Why on earth would you prioritize governmental investment if private companies can do it better? I'd accept the opposite (needing to use eminent domain to make the transport system work, and so calling in the government) under certain conditions, but the way you describe it makes no sense to me.

Have private companies operate transportation. You have private cab companies, why not private transit system?


Regarding road maintenance and house costs these are other tools that should be used to make people living away from cities pay their fair share, but the government gets involved in all the wrong ways.


They do already, it's called gas prices and toll roads.



On the plus side, we are pretty close to being able to work a lot of jobs from the comfort of our rural home commuting over the information superhighway.

Awesome, then don't make me pay for maintenance of your rural dirt roads, especially if you don't need to use them.

Erroneous
01-03-2009, 05:38
Wow I don't even know where to start with that one.

Lord Belphegor
01-03-2009, 05:39
Wow I don't even know where to start with that one.

Good, less time to waste replying.

Sharuk
01-03-2009, 05:40
All i have to say is a little Rebllion aint bad every once in a while :ninja:

Our Government Sucks

Bunch of greedy A-Holes who just want power

Imo all elected Offcials should work for FREE, why should i pay them? They work for people

Aragoni
01-03-2009, 05:48
Public transit is pretty sweet.

Not everyone lives in the bigger cities. Up here in Norrbotten the public transit is shit. My family was almost ruined when the gas costed 13kr/l (or was it 14?) because we're so dependent on using cars.
Then again, you live in Danderyd (if I remember it correctly you said so on your 'Hai! I'm going on a trip to the Caribbean with mah school!!!'-thread ) which is in Stockholm, where you got subways and shit.

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 16:44
Ahh what a world it'd be if the Federal Govt only maintained the Interstate instead of just holding that huge pool of money over the states heads to force them into line.

Nice spin. You'd feel better about yourself if you just apologized like a man.

Article was federal tax only, not state. Fed subsidizing state costs doesn't really have any bearing on you making an ass out of yourself. When you only have 1 revenue number (Fed), it makes no sense to divide by all roadway mileage including private roads as your number did.

Razel
01-03-2009, 17:00
Did anyone else hear about how its now "unclear" what happened to some of the $700 billion bailout money? Not like there's actually checks to monitor the funds.

By the way you can be sure as hell that when the price goes back up they won't remove the additional tax they put on. Same thing happened with the "sales tax", was sold to the public as a temporary measure during World War II.

actually it was 350 billion first, and none of the money, not one dollar went to where it was origionally supposed to go which was buy securities. They chose to bail out their buddies instead, e.g. bankers etc.

alfaroverall
01-03-2009, 17:21
This is a good idea, actually, both to discourage people from burning so much gasoline and also to pay for transportation costs. Gas taxes IMO should be fixed such that the net price of a gallon of gas at any gas station is $4.00. It's just low enough that people can tolerate it if they cut back on their consumption.

Razel
01-03-2009, 17:23
This is a good idea, actually, both to discourage people from burning so much gasoline and also to pay for transportation costs. Gas taxes IMO should be fixed such that the net price of a gallon of gas at any gas station is $4.00. It's just low enough that people can tolerate it if they cut back on their consumption.

if... it would be guaranteed that it would be fixed i wouldnt have a problem with it however.... if they double the taxes on it and it hits 7 bucks a gallon i think there will be some pissed off people.

alfaroverall
01-03-2009, 17:26
if... it would be guaranteed that it would be fixed i wouldnt have a problem with it however.... if they double the taxes on it and it hits 7 bucks a gallon i think there will be some pissed off people.
Well if the price pre-tax exceeded a certain amount, the fixed number would have to rise solely to deal with transportation revenue. But for a while, they could very easily fix the price at $4.00 a gallon via taxes and get away with it. The only problem would be oil companies jacking up the prices since the consumer's price would be fixed, and dealing with that would require some dealings with the oil companies.

Razel
01-03-2009, 17:28
Well if the price pre-tax exceeded a certain amount, the fixed number would have to rise solely to deal with transportation revenue. But for a while, they could very easily fix the price at $4.00 a gallon via taxes and get away with it. The only problem would be oil companies jacking up the prices since the consumer's price would be fixed, and dealing with that would require some dealings with the oil companies.

just bend over if you expect something good to come out of this

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 17:34
This is a good idea, actually, both to discourage people from burning so much gasoline and also to pay for transportation costs. Gas taxes IMO should be fixed such that the net price of a gallon of gas at any gas station is $4.00. It's just low enough that people can tolerate it if they cut back on their consumption.

A gas tax is the best way to tax for road repairs etc. The problem with gov't and the reason I oppose any tax increase is they never manage the money properly. With proper fiscal responsibility, the Fed could tax gasoline and get rid of our nat'l debt. They are not responsible however. (And $4 is too high.)

$2 right now would increase Fed revenue by $55.5b. Properly spent (as in not spent but used to pay off debt) that money could do wonders getting our gov't out of the red. But they would just waste it.

Shaehl
01-03-2009, 20:02
I think you guys are missing the real issue in that article: government GPS systems in every car? Wtf?

Fuck that shit. I didn't like my own parents invading my privacy and I trust them a hell of a lot more than the government.

sephff9
01-03-2009, 20:14
I was just reading about how people are fucking driving MORE and buying MORE now that gas prices went down. What the fuck?

alfaroverall
01-03-2009, 20:16
A gas tax is the best way to tax for road repairs etc. The problem with gov't and the reason I oppose any tax increase is they never manage the money properly. With proper fiscal responsibility, the Fed could tax gasoline and get rid of our nat'l debt. They are not responsible however. (And $4 is too high.)

$2 right now would increase Fed revenue by $55.5b. Properly spent (as in not spent but used to pay off debt) that money could do wonders getting our gov't out of the red. But they would just waste it.
The main idea of the static $4 price would be to get people to stop burning so much gasoline, for the long-term health of the economy, society, and the environment. The federal revenue would just be a bonus.

Cf. The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich as I've said before.

Erroneous
01-03-2009, 20:20
why is $4 the right price? Why not $8?

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 20:27
The main idea of the static $4 price would be to get people to stop burning so much gasoline, for the long-term health of the economy, society, and the environment. The federal revenue would just be a bonus.

Cf. The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich as I've said before.

The only way to get people to stop burning gas is to offer a better option, not to tax gas out of peoples' price range.

4 is too high.

Any tax is too high b/c the gov't will waste it anyway.

Slaker
01-03-2009, 20:33
this shit fucking piss me off, seriously they will never stop to steal money from us.

TheVillageIdiot
01-03-2009, 20:36
Raising the price of gas pushes people to use public transportation, which in the long run is cheaper, better for the environment, and provides infrastructure which fuels commerce.

An increased gas tax everywhere may not be a good idea, however additional taxes on gas in cities combined with toll roads for congested urban arteries is a VERY good idea. The US has one of the worst transportation systems in the world. In Europe or China, or Japan, Or Korea I can take a low cost train nearly anywhere. In Hong Kong I can work in the equivalent of San Antonio and live in Austin. The train is actually FASTER than taking a car home.

In the long run something has to be done about US fuel consumption it not only hurts the economy, and the environment, it hurts our ability to compete economically.

A tax on gas is simply leverage to push stupid people who rely on their car too much and oppose public transportation systems into support viable alternatives.

Razel
01-03-2009, 20:38
I think you guys are missing the real issue in that article: government GPS systems in every car? Wtf?

Fuck that shit. I didn't like my own parents invading my privacy and I trust them a hell of a lot more than the government.


According to a draft of the financing commission's recommendations, the nation needs to move to a new system that taxes motorists according to how much they use roads. While details have not been worked out, such a system would mean equipping every car and truck with a device that uses global positioning satellites and transponders to record how many miles the vehicle has been driven, and perhaps the type of roads and time of day.

ya thats disturbing as fuck

sephff9
01-03-2009, 20:38
The main idea of the static $4 price would be to get people to stop burning so much gasoline, for the long-term health of the economy, society, and the environment. The federal revenue would just be a bonus.

Cf. The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich as I've said before.

The environment is fine. Our burning gas isn't really hurting it. Stop being a touchy feely liberal douche.

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 20:38
Raising the price of gas pushes people to use public transportation, which in the long run is cheaper, better for the environment, and provides infrastructure which fuels commerce.

An increased gas tax everywhere may not be a good idea, however additional taxes on gas in cities combined with toll roads for congested urban arteries is a VERY good idea. The US has one of the worst transportation systems in the world. In Europe or China, or Japan, Or Korea I can take a low cost train nearly anywhere. In Hong Kong I can work in the equivalent of San Antonio and live in Austin. The train is actually FASTER than taking a car home.

In th elong run something has to be done about US fuel consumption it not only hurts the economy, and the environment, it hurts our ability to compete economically.

A tax on gas is simply leverage to push stupid people who rely on their car too much and oppose public transportation systems into support viable alternatives.

Supposition and speculation. Not a shred of evidence to suggest what you just said is true.

I'll say it again: you have to offer a better alternative if you want people to stop driving their cars. You have to man up to the Teamsters union if you want fewer trucks on the road.

Raising the price of gas will achieve nothing.

Now go back to your village, they miss the laughs.

Shaehl
01-03-2009, 20:39
Raising the price of gas pushes people to use public transportation, which in the long run is cheaper, better for the environment, and provides infrastructure which fuels commerce.

An increased gas tax everywhere may not be a good idea, however additional taxes on gas in cities combined with toll roads for congested urban arteries is a VERY good idea. The US has one of the worst transportation systems in the world. In Europe or China, or Japan, Or Korea I can take a low cost train nearly anywhere. In Hong Kong I can work in the equivalent of San Antonio and live in Austin. The train is actually FASTER than taking a car home.

In the long run something has to be done about US fuel consumption it not only hurts the economy, and the environment, it hurts our ability to compete economically.

A tax on gas is simply leverage to push stupid people who rely on their car too much and oppose public transportation systems into support viable alternatives.

Yeah, pushing tax payers to use public transit is a great idea. Except, there is no public transit.

sephff9
01-03-2009, 20:44
Yeah, pushing tax payers to use public transit is a great idea. Except, there is no public transit.

USA public transit blows in 99.9% of the country.

TheVillageIdiot
01-03-2009, 20:44
Supposition and speculation. Not a shred of evidence to suggest what you just said is true.

I'll say it again: you have to offer a better alternative if you want people to stop driving their cars. You have to man up to the Teamsters union if you want fewer trucks on the road.

Raising the price of gas will achieve nothing.

This is not speculation I have been there and experienced this first hand.

I have worked in Hong Kong and taken the train every night back to my hotel on the Kowloon waterfront at mid-night. I have worked in Regensburg Germany and ridden the train back to Munich to our local corporate offices. I have hopped a train from Munich to Vienna because I was bored for a few days. I have taken the bus and train in Seoul once or twice.

I have been in many countries and I have NEVER rented a car once outside of the US. It is simply not needed in most cases.

You really need to get outside of the country.

Here is an idea, use the money from the tax raise and DEVELOP public transit

alfaroverall
01-03-2009, 20:49
The only way to get people to stop burning gas is to offer a better option, not to tax gas out of peoples' price range.

4 is too high.

Any tax is too high b/c the gov't will waste it anyway.
When it was 4, consumption went down. It rose when the price dropped. The numbers don't lie.

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 20:55
This is not speculation I have been there and experienced this first hand. I have worked in Hong Kong and taken the train every night back to my hotel on the Kowloon waterfront at mid-night. I have worked in Regensburg Germany and ridden the train back to Munich to our local corporate offices. I have hopped a train from Munich to Vienna because I was bored for a few days. I have taken the bus and train in Seoul once or twice.

I have been in many countries and I have NEVER rented a car once outside of the US. It is simply not needed in most cases.

You really need to get outside of the country.

Here is an idea, use the money from the tax raise and DEVELOP public transit

Oh, my bad, I thought we were discussing a US gas tax.......

No shit public transport is good in Europe and Hong Kong. Has nothing to do with the US.

Here's an idea - you need the transit system in place BEFORE you start taxing. Like I said TWICE already, you have to offer a BETTER ALTERNATIVE if you want to price fix gas prices in order to reduce driving.

Would you like it in French? Or do you get it this time? Or would you prefer to make more assumptions about my worldly travel instead?

TheVillageIdiot
01-03-2009, 20:57
I think you guys are missing the real issue in that article: government GPS systems in every car? Wtf?

Fuck that shit. I didn't like my own parents invading my privacy and I trust them a hell of a lot more than the government.

FYI, This has already happened in both the US and Europe (in europe it is called e-call).

For instance, any On*Star capable vehicle is always enabled whether you pay for the service or not. GM find the Marketing data they gather on your driving habits more valuable than the communications contract. Once there was a bug in the processor which caused the modem to call in every day (normally it is every 30 days) and it was a big deal. How do you tell someone who supposedly doesn't have a service to come in and have their car worked on because GM has been spying on you? In other cases the police have tapped conversations in cars using On*Star without occupants knowledge.

Big brother was here long ago my friends.

TheVillageIdiot
01-03-2009, 21:01
Oh, my bad, I thought we were discussing a US gas tax.......

No shit public transport is good in Europe and Hong Kong. Has nothing to do with the US.

Here's an idea - you need the transit system in place BEFORE you start taxing. Like I said TWICE already, you have to offer a BETTER ALTERNATIVE if you want to price fix gas prices in order to reduce driving.

Would you like it in French? Or do you get it this time? Or would you prefer to make more assumptions about my worldly travel instead?

SO you have a population which vote down any improvements to public transportation systems such as rail, and bus. You also have to find the money somewhere. What do you do?

Europe imposed a significant gas tax and built a world class rail system. Even small towns can be reached. Japan and Hong Kong imposed toll roads and then built first class subway, train and private bus systems.

How do you think these countries got to where they are? Magic?

There is a reality and that is that people are short sighted. Unless you can map out a plan to go where you are going and FORCE people to do the right thing it will rarely happen.

Erroneous
01-03-2009, 21:04
There is a reality and that is that people are short sighted. Unless you can map out a plan to go where you are going and FORCE people to do the right thing it will rarely happen.

People are short-sighted, government is sublime! Hear hear!

Razel
01-03-2009, 21:09
FYI, This has already happened in both the US and Europe (in europe it is called e-call).

For instance, any On*Star capable vehicle is always enabled whether you pay for the service or not. GM find the Marketing data they gather on your driving habits more valuable than the communications contract. Once there was a bug in the processor which caused the modem to call in every day (normally it is every 30 days) and it was a big deal. How do you tell someone who supposedly doesn't have a service to come in and have their car worked on because GM has been spying on you? In other cases the police have tapped conversations in cars using On*Star without occupants knowledge.

Big brother was here long ago my friends.

oh joy, i 'feel safer' already

Malhavok
01-03-2009, 21:12
Nice spin. You'd feel better about yourself if you just apologized like a man.

Article was federal tax only, not state. Fed subsidizing state costs doesn't really have any bearing on you making an ass out of yourself. When you only have 1 revenue number (Fed), it makes no sense to divide by all roadway mileage including private roads as your number did.

/shrug

Difference between peachy idealism and reality. I tend not to dwell in idealist land as I'm a pragmatist. When the Federal govt provides the largest chunk of money for maintaining the bulk of the roads via incentives it does make sense to include the bulk of the roads rather than <1% of them, it's a more accurate portrayal of reality.

The fact is it isn't $500,000 per Interstate mile as the transportation budget is diluted paying for roadworks on other roads. I wish it were but rather than pretending it was I'd prefer to look at the situation objectively. Now if you wanted to say "look you take in $500,000 per Interstate mile stop wasting it on handouts to the States and you'd have plenty of money" I'd very much agree.

mrbubbles
01-03-2009, 21:14
The environment is fine. Our burning gas isn't really hurting it. Stop being a touchy feely liberal douche.

Ya it is. Ill try to make this simple for you.

we burn stuff (gas, coal, etc.)
\/
The Byproduct of burning is CO2.
\/
The CO2 rises into the air being hotter and less dense.
\/
The CO2 being a proven greenhouse gas holds in more heat reflecting from the surface than its supposed to.
\/
The atmosphere heats up.
\/
Icecaps melt
\/
The antartic ice cap is a very important piece in the water ecosystem. The underlying currentsare propelled by the condensing and sinking of hotter water from the equator, The water around the antartic cools and sinks, which flows back to the equator and gets warmed up and starts all over again.
\/
This current moves plankton (lowest on the food chain) around and helps them gather food.
\/
But when the antartic ice cap melts the water currents stop.
\/
Plankton die off becuase of no movement to new food becuase of lack of currents
\/
The lack of plankton starve the food chain just above it, which continues through the entire ocean food chain.
\/
lack of fish starve fishing villages, and fishing birds die off
\/
wild cats that eat fishing birds die off
\/
since cats die off, the vermin (squirrels and chipmunks) population fly through the roof
\/
They eat the tree seeds, that coupled with lumberjacking kills off all the major trees
\/
all the woodforest animals die off from lack of shelter. and CO2 levels once again skyrocket due to a lack of plant life recycling CO2
\/
Bees die off becuase of higher temperatures (it's already happening)
\/
Flowers don't pollinate as much
\/
Massive human starvation due too low amounts of crop production
\/
Eventually the human race dies off due to a combination off Heat, not enough crops, and disease due to the little amounts of phermone injected meat we eat.

Human race dies.


CHAOS THEORY BITCHES!

Razel
01-03-2009, 21:18
heres the problem with taxes or 'tolls' for roads. I know some roads that have tolls and have had for 40+ years even tho the roads never get fixed. Now thats wot ya call a hell of a scam and i fear thats exactly what will happen with a higher tax on gas 'for roads'.

TheVillageIdiot
01-03-2009, 21:35
heres the problem with taxes or 'tolls' for roads. I know some roads that have tolls and have had for 40+ years even tho the roads never get fixed. Now thats wot ya call a hell of a scam and i fear thats exactly what will happen with a higher tax on gas 'for roads'.


I do too, it's called the Turner Turnpike in Oklahoma.

But Government corruption/stupidity is a completely different animal.

The reality is that US fuel consumption is a problem. Why?


Security. Dependence on foriegn oil has been highlighted as one of our top security issues
Environmental Contamination. This leads to huge health problem we all pay for.
Global Warming. This is real, this is not a hoax. There is no 'scientific proof' countering that man has not caused global warming, and that it is far worse than previously measured as determined from recent particulate studies
Economics. Over reliance on volatile gas prices causes extreme short term stress on the economy. By investing in public transit you reduce the impact of fluctuating gas prices and give consumers more money to spend which can be used to give you a big bonus at your job.


Saying that government is inefficient is irrelevant. Do you care how inefficient when you house is on fire? If they are the only ones who can put the fire out I don't give a rats ass how inefficient they are. Inefficiency is no excuse not to act.

If you really think the government is inefficient maybe you should do something about it. Run for office, educate yourself and start a company which can help in one of these areas. Do something, but ACT.

However doing nothing is far worse than acting inefficiently.

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 21:58
When it was 4, consumption went down. It rose when the price dropped. The numbers don't lie.

Of course it did. But we aren't talking about spikes here. If you want durable change, you have to offer an alternative. People cancelled vacations and stayed home. People will not do this on an ongoing basis. $4/gal is too much and will just piss people off in the long run.

You can't look at a short-term spike and reach a conclusion about the effects of a $4/gal price.

terafis
01-03-2009, 23:07
The writing has been on the wall regarding increased fuel prices directly relating to oil shortages from as far back as the 70's, with the forming of OPEC.

And yet what have our Governments done to solve this problem?

1. Improve and expand the public transport system to reduce the load on our roads - NO

2. Design and develop an alternative energy source for road transport - NO

3. Give tax incentives to people using public transport, to employers who manage a car pool system for employee's, or to people who rent/buy accommodation within walking or riding distance to their place of employment - NO

What they have done is - increase fuel taxes, increase vehicle registration costs, increase licensing costs, subsidize companies manufacturing fuel combustion vehicles, invade foreign countries who have oil resources (under laughable pretexts), heavily tax any private companies trying to develop an alternative energy source, spend hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out the companies producing inefficient fuel combustion driven vehicles, introduce laws making it illegal to run your own vehicle under an alternative fuel which you yourself can manufacture (E 85, biodiesel etc.) - and then actively prosecute people attempting to make alternative fuels.

People have been arrested and served actual jail time for producing their own alternative fuel source and helping others to do so.

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 23:21
/shrug

Difference between peachy idealism and reality. I tend not to dwell in idealist land as I'm a pragmatist. When the Federal govt provides the largest chunk of money for maintaining the bulk of the roads via incentives it does make sense to include the bulk of the roads rather than <1% of them, it's a more accurate portrayal of reality.

The fact is it isn't $500,000 per Interstate mile as the transportation budget is diluted paying for roadworks on other roads. I wish it were but rather than pretending it was I'd prefer to look at the situation objectively. Now if you wanted to say "look you take in $500,000 per Interstate mile stop wasting it on handouts to the States and you'd have plenty of money" I'd very much agree.

No. The difference is Fed gas tax vs state gas tax. It's not idealism to expect state roads to be repaired by state taxes. I've already said I have no issue w/ a gas tax. Those that use it pay for it. It makes perfect sense. I would even agree w/ some coordination of tax rates based on overall highway mileage.

As of right now though, the Fed gets half a mil per Federal highway mile and who knows how much each state gets. The Fed does not need more. We don't know if the state's do need more but we sure as hell know the Fed doesn't need its hand in the cookie jar.

If you take the average gas taxes, we pay $22k per mile of US roads including private roads (based off of your 4 million miles). What's the depreciation rate of a road? 20 years? 15? 10? 5?

Let's say 10. So that's $220,000 paid in per mile of road for upkeep... And that's being generous b/c 10 years is probably way to short a timeframe. And that's the US average. California collects 3x that - $67.5k per mile (all highway miles included) or $670,500 per 10 year period for each mile in state taxes alone; that's $870,240 including Fed taxes. (2006 data).

So is $500k diluted? Not really because including all mileage while ignoring state taxes obviuosly skews the data even more.

Shrang
01-03-2009, 23:24
No. The difference is Fed gas tax vs state gas tax. It's not idealism to expect state roads to be repaired by state taxes. I've already said I have no issue w/ a gas tax. Those that use it pay for it. It makes perfect sense. I would even agree w/ some coordination of tax rates based on overall highway mileage.

Then do you think the fed should in addition to their own tax to maintain interstate highways... set a minimum for the state gas taxes?

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 23:24
Saying that government is inefficient is irrelevant. Do you care how inefficient when you house is on fire? If they are the only ones who can put the fire out I don't give a rats ass how inefficient they are. Inefficiency is no excuse not to act.

If you really think the government is inefficient maybe you should do something about it. Run for office, educate yourself and start a company which can help in one of these areas. Do something, but ACT.

However doing nothing is far worse than acting inefficiently.

It's not irrelevant at all. If your local fire department was as inefficient as the Fed w/ our money, heads would roll.

Government has the means and power to act. They can do it w/o more money. And they can do it properly: Fed for national; State for state; County for county; City for city etc. etc. etc.

StainlessSteelRat
01-03-2009, 23:29
Then do you think the fed should in addition to their own tax to maintain interstate highways... set a minimum for the state gas taxes?

No. Each state is different and has different costs for upkeep and different consumption rates. Each state sets the rate necessary for their own maintenance.

It's infinitely easier for the people to remain in control of government at local levels. If a county road is fubared, the people of that county can pay up for maintenance as they see fit. It's why the Fed was supposed to have limited powers; it is very difficult to control.

I really don't understand how people (not refering to you btw) can't see that every dollar that the Fed collects only to filter it back down through State and local governments ends up as cents on the dollar in value to the people.

EDIT - by coordination, I was implying that the State and Fed could look at total highway miles, total interstate miles, %s etc. etc. and set rates accordingly but each would be setting their own rates. So, yes, I would be for a higher Fed tax in a state w/ more interstate miles. This might upset some people, but at least people would think twice before adding pork to a budget via new roads. Only roads needed would get built b/c your gas tax would go up. No more freebies. 100% fair? Probably not but the optimal choice.

sephff9
01-04-2009, 06:24
Ya it is. Ill try to make this simple for you.

we burn stuff (gas, coal, etc.)
\/
The Byproduct of burning is CO2.
\/
The CO2 rises into the air being hotter and less dense.
\/
The CO2 being a proven greenhouse gas holds in more heat reflecting from the surface than its supposed to.
\/
The atmosphere heats up.
\/
Icecaps melt
\/
The antartic ice cap is a very important piece in the water ecosystem. The underlying currentsare propelled by the condensing and sinking of hotter water from the equator, The water around the antartic cools and sinks, which flows back to the equator and gets warmed up and starts all over again.
\/
This current moves plankton (lowest on the food chain) around and helps them gather food.
\/
But when the antartic ice cap melts the water currents stop.
\/
Plankton die off becuase of no movement to new food becuase of lack of currents
\/
The lack of plankton starve the food chain just above it, which continues through the entire ocean food chain.
\/
lack of fish starve fishing villages, and fishing birds die off
\/
wild cats that eat fishing birds die off
\/
since cats die off, the vermin (squirrels and chipmunks) population fly through the roof
\/
They eat the tree seeds, that coupled with lumberjacking kills off all the major trees
\/
all the woodforest animals die off from lack of shelter. and CO2 levels once again skyrocket due to a lack of plant life recycling CO2
\/
Bees die off becuase of higher temperatures (it's already happening)
\/
Flowers don't pollinate as much
\/
Massive human starvation due too low amounts of crop production
\/
Eventually the human race dies off due to a combination off Heat, not enough crops, and disease due to the little amounts of phermone injected meat we eat.

Human race dies.


CHAOS THEORY BITCHES!

Even Gore wont call it global warming anymore. The temperature of the earth DROPPED within the last year. You're an idiot if you believe in global warming.


EDIT: Sauce of Proof:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=307234476244126&secure=1&show=1&rss=1

You are blind as fuck.

TheVillageIdiot
01-09-2009, 15:32
Even Gore wont call it global warming anymore. The temperature of the earth DROPPED within the last year. You're an idiot if you believe in global warming.


EDIT: Sauce of Proof:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=307234476244126&secure=1&show=1&rss=1

You are blind as fuck.

An article on someones option is no substitute for a scientific study.

The science on this matter has been in for over a decade so I will give you a challenge:


Find one peer reviewed scientific study which counters global warming. This study must include background DATA and references.

Last I checked there was exactly 2. The first study was erroneous as has been corrected by a number of other studies. The 2nd study is based on conclusions from the first flawed study. But I will give you a challenge because even those 2 studies are very difficult to find. Since you apparently don't scientific articles at all this should be a good exercise for you.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed academic studies which show global warming is not only true, it is far worse than previously believed. If you think that one years average temperature has any relevance to global warming you really need to a) read up on the subject, b) take a course in statistics.

Global warming is science, not politics.

Rourke
01-09-2009, 15:37
Nothing will help the environment so long as the human population continues to grow. So MAYBE they cut back enough pollution by 2%, what use would that be if the population will grow by 5% withing the next 10 years? You can't stop pollution, you can marginally slow it down. Its the same end result so why does it matter. the benefit is not worth the economic cost.


I normally hate you...but here...you are dead-on.

Humans SUCK...I don;t care if you ride a fucking bag of air to work...you part of the problem, by just living.

We need to somehow STOP breeding for like 50 years. I stay sterilize the masses for 5 decades, and only let a few breed. I'm sure that idea will go over well. :D

Ziegler
01-09-2009, 16:01
Now let's compare it to another one of my friends. The bicycle. It can go longer than 30 miles. If you're not a fat slob it can go 16 quite well. It costs less. It's better for you, the environment, and you can park its much easier to park.

and can go much faster than 25 mph.

sephff9
01-10-2009, 03:03
However there is unfortunately one place where the bicycle falls short for civil transportation.

Anyone want to take a guess? Here's a hint, it's white and fluffy.

Yeah, you guessed it...snow! Bikes are not good snow vehicles.

sephff9
01-10-2009, 03:14
An article on someones option is no substitute for a scientific study.

The science on this matter has been in for over a decade so I will give you a challenge:

Find one peer reviewed scientific study which counters global warming. This study must include background DATA and references.Last I checked there was exactly 2. The first study was erroneous as has been corrected by a number of other studies. The 2nd study is based on conclusions from the first flawed study. But I will give you a challenge because even those 2 studies are very difficult to find. Since you apparently don't scientific articles at all this should be a good exercise for you.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed academic studies which show global warming is not only true, it is far worse than previously believed. If you think that one years average temperature has any relevance to global warming you really need to a) read up on the subject, b) take a course in statistics.

Global warming is science, not politics.

So...

It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth's temperature, including NASA's Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
THAT is not a fact? Why don't you cross check the damn information yourself.

Drake Whitewood
01-10-2009, 04:14
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/gas_tax



Awesome, so now that I no longer have to pay 5$ a gallon they want to push it back up either way. You just LOOOVEEE my money Gov, don't you.

CHANGE 08

HOPE 08

"Change you can believe in?" "YES WE CAN!"