We need higher gas taxes?

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: babylon5
America has been spoiled by having the cheapest gasoline price in the world.

A lower price than the government subsidized gas in India and China?

umm what? we pay more for gas than you do. (India)

 

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: babylon5
America has been spoiled by having the cheapest gasoline price in the world.

A lower price than the government subsidized gas in India and China?

Gas in India costs $4.5 a Gallon.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
There is no way to guarantee it will be spent on roads and stuff, so don't do it. Its just going to be wasted by Obama and this democrat congress of thieves and criminals.

If it pisses you off, I'm all for it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
There is no way to guarantee it will be spent on roads and stuff, so don't do it. Its just going to be wasted by Obama and this democrat congress of thieves and criminals.

If it pisses you off, I'm all for it.

Are you sure only feralkid is for it? Or is your other account for it too?

 

[bctbct]

If you want to raise gas taxes do it on commercial vehicles. That way everyone pays for the roads that are avail. to them.

Of course everything you buy will cost more.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm totally for it, have been for 20 years, but of course the Saudi lobby and right wing in this country will have no part of it.

If we'd done 25 cents a year 20 years ago we'd all be driving silent electric cars breathing clean air and Saudis can pound sand instead of funding global jihad.

Really? you sure about that?

How do you think the electricity would be generated to pay for said vehicles?

More electricity required=more production required=more coal burning= dirty air.

You talk like these are absolutes. That "more" coal equates to "more" gas. How much more coal (or nuclear) will have to be burned to offset the gas savings?

well when you introduce large consumers of electricity such as cars that does put a heavy burden on the system...these aren't blenders or toasters.

So yeah...the power companies are going to have to produce more.

Sure...nuclear would be nice....but thanks to environmentalists back in the 70's and 80's along with Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, nuclear power has this stigma about it and no one wants one in their back yard.

Then again no one want s new coal burning plant either....so with all these large consumers of electricity already on a questionable power grid (remember 2003?)
how exactly do we provide enough power for these fancy new cars?

Do we have to:

A) create more electricity
B) create less
C) maintain the same levels?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Wheezer


Then again no one want s new coal burning plant either....so with all these large consumers of electricity already on a questionable power grid (remember 2003?)
how exactly do we provide enough power for these fancy new cars?

Maybe already in the works. Several (kind of clean coal powered) power plants are currently being built in mexico. We have rail infrastructure (BNSF & UPRR) that is now ready to deliver reliable supplies of coal to them from the powder river basin mines in Wyoming. Expanded Mine loadings and rail infrastructure is nearing completion. Transmission line towers are cheap. WE will be importing electricity, & WE will feel all warm and fuzzy inside because WE aren't polluting the air. Its the american way!

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Wheezer


Then again no one want s new coal burning plant either....so with all these large consumers of electricity already on a questionable power grid (remember 2003?)
how exactly do we provide enough power for these fancy new cars?

Maybe already in the works. Several (kind of clean coal powered) power plants are currently being built in mexico. We have rail infrastructure (BNSF & UPRR) that is now ready to deliver reliable supplies of coal to them from the powder river basin mines in Wyoming. Expanded Mine loadings and rail infrastructure is nearing completion. Transmission line towers are cheap. WE will be importing electricity, & WE will feel all warm and fuzzy inside because WE aren't polluting the air. Its the american way!

'Clean Coal' requires pumping CO2 back into the earth which is just a concept and decades away. "kind of clean coal powered" is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Wheezer


Then again no one want s new coal burning plant either....so with all these large consumers of electricity already on a questionable power grid (remember 2003?)
how exactly do we provide enough power for these fancy new cars?

Maybe already in the works. Several (kind of clean coal powered) power plants are currently being built in mexico. We have rail infrastructure (BNSF & UPRR) that is now ready to deliver reliable supplies of coal to them from the powder river basin mines in Wyoming. Expanded Mine loadings and rail infrastructure is nearing completion. Transmission line towers are cheap. WE will be importing electricity, & WE will feel all warm and fuzzy inside because WE aren't polluting the air. Its the american way!

'Clean Coal' requires pumping CO2 back into the earth which is just a concept and decades away. "kind of clean coal powered" is a figment of your imagination.

Well if it isn't in my backyard and I can't see it, it's kind of clean!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm totally for it, have been for 20 years, but of course the Saudi lobby and right wing in this country will have no part of it.

If we'd done 25 cents a year 20 years ago we'd all be driving silent electric cars breathing clean air and Saudis can pound sand instead of funding global jihad.

Really? you sure about that?

How do you think the electricity would be generated to pay for said vehicles?

More electricity required=more production required=more coal burning= dirty air.

not to mention a revamp of the electrical grid to compensate for the additional demands of people plugging in their cars every night.

Everyone talks how great electric cars are....how many have driven one when the roads are covered in snow?

See the idea of electric cars is all nice and cute when you live in a warm climate 365 a year, but what about states where 1/2-3/4 of the year bad weather is the norm?

So this utopia of all of us driving our quiet electric cars gives a nice warm fuzzy feeling...in reality, it is impractical for a majority of the people.

Nuclear power is pollution free unless you think Yucca Mountain will leak.

As far as cost the car cost would not just sneak up on people. Gas prices would rise 25 cents a year and people would buy electrics or Hydrogen fuel cell cars as replacements once their gas car got old or uneconomical to use.

Again you whole response fails to account for slowly, but definitly known rises in gas prices which would change the business of powering that driving slowly as well. Electric grids, cars, stations all would change as it became too expensive to use oil. Course I would exempt airlines farm and heavy equipment which there is no substitute.

Warm and fuzzy has nothing to do with it, I'm not that type - it's a matter of geopolitics and re-inventing our economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Nuclear power is pollution free unless you think Yucca Mountain will leak.

As far as cost the car cost would not just sneak up on people. Gas prices would rise 25 cents a year and people would buy electrics or Hydrogen fuel cell cars as replacements once their gas car got old or uneconomical to use.

Again you whole response fails to account for slowly, but definitly known rises in gas prices which would change the business of powering that driving slowly as well. Electric grids, cars, stations all would change as it became too expensive to use oil. Course I would exempt airlines farm and heavy equipment which there is no substitute.

Warm and fuzzy has nothing to do with it, I'm not that type - it's a matter of geopolitics and re-inventing our economy.

I wouldn't say Nuclear is free but it certainly would've broken us away from the locks of sand oil thugs but alas that will never happen.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i think another .30 woudl be fair without causing an undue burden.

In the real world, millions of people are unemployed, and doing without the things they need and want. It's fair that Government programs and the people they employ are immune from that. Little shortfall, no problem, just raise the taxes.

HELL NO.

So when more bridges start falling down how do you plan on getting to work?

Typical FUD! When you can't justify a cause, then employ Fear, Uncertainty and Deception tactics!

 

[Paddington]

I wouldn't be opposed to a slight increase in the gas taxes.

Basically, the U.S. is the only country that tries to encourage fuel efficiency by mandating fuel economy of cars. This makes about as much sense as getting people to lose weight by saying the biggest size pants you can buy will have a 32 waist.

The CAFE standards do force the carmakers to comply with certain average fuel economy (except for BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Porsche, etc. who are happy to guzzle America's gas and pay fines), but they don't do much for total fuel consumption. That's because total fuel consumed is a function of how much fuel economy cars get times total miles driven. I guess it's also a function of how those cars are driven as well (should any Prius be driven at a fuel sucking 75 mph on the expressway?). Anyway, if consumers don't have an incentive to save fuel (i.e. if gasoline remains cheap), they might buy efficient cars that the industry makes, but still burn just as much gas by making unnecessary trips, living 40 miles away from work, driving fast, etc.

Politicians in Washington like to talk about "energy independence". Well, if they are serious about that then let them raise the gas tax, because that is the only thing that will actually impact it. You can build all the hybrid cars you want, but if people drive more than they should be, there's not going to be fuel savings.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Sure...nuclear would be nice....but thanks to environmentalists back in the 70's and 80's along with Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, nuclear power has this stigma about it and no one wants one in their back yard.

Then again no one want s new coal burning plant either....so with all these large consumers of electricity already on a questionable power grid (remember 2003?)
how exactly do we provide enough power for these fancy new cars?

Do what we (America) has always done: put it in the backyards of the poor folks.

 

[Paddington]

Or in Texas. You can't make Houston any worse I think.

 

[kyle xy]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: kyle xy

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need higher gas taxes even if it's not spent on roads.

Tell you what...since you are such a big fan of higher taxes why don't you just send a check directly to the IRS that way the rest of us don't have to suffer.

I will even send you a Thank you card.

As my Dad once taught me: "It's not about how much you make; it's about how much you spend." The last thing the government needs is more money. Let's teach them how to manage it before giving them more to squander...this applies to both parties!

Ah yes the completely irrationally starve the beast idea. Hasn't the last 8 years proved that doesn't work?

Seriously? You think the last 8 years have starved the beast? No wonder you're a Democrat. You're stupid.

You're not that bright are you? How many tax cuts did bush propose?

Gotta agree with Bober on this one. Yes Bush put into place tax cuts; however, he (don't forget Congress) still went hog wild on spending...he is not without guilt that is for sure.

Additionally I don't like to resort to name calling but you are either stupid, ignorant, or naive (you can pick or pair them up) if you think giving the government money is a good idea. Ever try doing something for yourself???