Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
If the oil revenues were trickling down to the masses, it might be a factor. I think it would mean the Saudi royal family (and other regimes) would have less money.

Right, but less control over the country as well. Which would mean that there could be a vacuum for other bad types to step in. I think this would be, in state department speak, very destablizing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't know about you guys, but I think this is exactly what the Cheney Energy Policy Planning sessions were about.

Ok, so you were saying Halliburton. Thanks for clarifying.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but less control over the country as well. Which would mean that there could be a vacuum for other bad types to step in. I think this would be, in state department speak, very destablizing.

That is one possibility. Another possibility is that the Saudi royal family will hoard less wealth and become less oppressive to help to reduce the chances they will be overthrown.

I think if it is done quickly, your scenario is more likely, but if it is done more gradually, my scenario is more likely. I do think that if we are going to do it gradually, we need to start doing something now. I would start with modest increases in the gas tax, on the order of 25 cents, and modest increases in the CAFE for cars/trucks and reclassification of SUVs as cars (with a few years of lead time for the manufacturers to be able to do it, of course), removal of the perverse tax incentives and addition of tax incentives for fuel efficient cars.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If Ty's actually on your side on this, and isn't simply pulling my chain, I'll concede. I remember the Alamo.

I wasn't even thinking of CAFE. I was thinking about used cars, and other purchasers of gasoline -- e.g., buses. I didn't think that you were proposing that used cars be taxed to encourage fuel efficiency, although there's no reason we can't do that too. If you think that there are externalities not captured in the cost of gasoline, then even relatively efficient users, like mass transit, should pay more.

eta: The parable of the Berkeley parking meters. Who says the SF Chronicle isn't worth 25 cents a day?

[Gin Rummy]

Is it just me or do the rest of you realize the ongoing nightmare of reality that leftists in our nation and the communistified media have conspired to bury the memory of 911 beneath the sands of time by blurring the threat posed to our nation by pretending that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and that the Islamofacists of al qaeda and the House of Saud & Wahabbi are not out to destroy us??

None of our so-called leaders or talking heads on TV (except for fair and balanced FOXNews) have the cojones to admit that we are in a clash of civilisations that will determine the future of freedom on the planet and as part of such clash to acknowledge that the nations of Islam are the enemies.

Or is it just a coincidence that all the terrorists are Islamicists and all of the major conflicts currently being waged against Western civilization have their roots in Islamic terror fronts?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you think that there are externalities not captured in the cost of gasoline, then even relatively efficient users, like mass transit, should pay more.

I don't know --- it sounds like robbing Peter to pay Peter. Presumably, public transit would have a political incentive to be the best stewards of public resources like budgeted expenses and the environment. We don't allow punitive damages against public entities or allow them to be sued for discretionary acts because the legal system, like a tax-implemented policy, is a machete where a scalpel might suffice.

If a consumption tax on transit simply raises the cost of moving person A from point B to point C, it's going to be passed through to the end user because nearly every transit system is expected to make up almost 100% of operation costs from fares. So you're gonna be raising fares on a guy who doesn't really have a practical say in whether his train is diesel-electric, or just electric.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...320EDT0636.DTL

How fitting, the leftists in kookoofornia decry a pair of panties on a terrorists head but celebrate neo-natal infanticidism. And the sun continues to set on the gloriously shining city on the hill that was America. Even without the Islamofacist onslaught its doubtful that the USA can survive much more than another decade before its collapses beneath the weight of its slovenous immorality as propagated by the tyranny of the leftwing fifth columnists in the media and judiciary.

Our only hope may be that there are patriots among us who still believe in the Second Amendment and remedies it affords us not merely to sport hunt deer, rodents and other vermin but to ensure that our liberties and freedom are safeguarded from the jackboot of mutinous pretenders to the crown.

Perhaps President Ronald W. Reagan said it best when he said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't know --- it sounds like robbing Peter to pay Peter. Presumably, public transit would have a political incentive to be the best stewards of public resources like budgeted expenses and the environment. We don't allow punitive damages against public entities or allow them to be sued for discretionary acts because the legal system, like a tax-implemented policy, is a machete where a scalpel might suffice.

If a consumption tax on transit simply raises the cost of moving person A from point B to point C, it's going to be passed through to the end user because nearly every transit system is expected to make up almost 100% of operation costs from fares. So you're gonna be raising fares on a guy who doesn't really have a practical say in whether his train is diesel-electric, or just electric.

You are more focused on shifting people from inefficient transport to efficient transport than you are with discouraging consumption (or ensuring that consumption falls to where it would be if the prices reflected the true costs). Arguably, we are subsidizing gasoline consumption -- including both people driving SUVs and people riding buses -- by covering some of the costs thereof through the DoD's budget, etc. If you increase the price of gas across the board, people who are price-sensitive will stop driving SUVs and start riding the bus -- efficient modes of transport will have more of a relative advantage.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Presumably, public transit would have a political incentive to be the best stewards of public resources like budgeted expenses and the environment.

Laugh of the day!

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch If a consumption tax on transit simply raises the cost of moving person A from point B to point C, it's going to be passed through to the end user because nearly every transit system is expected to make up almost 100% of operation costs from fares. So you're gonna be raising fares on a guy who doesn't really have a practical say in whether his train is diesel-electric, or just electric.

Not quite. All major transit systems operate at a deficit and are subsidized.

eft

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are more focused on shifting people from inefficient transport to efficient transport than you are with discouraging consumption (or ensuring that consumption falls to where it would be if the prices reflected the true costs). Arguably, we are subsidizing gasoline consumption -- including both people driving SUVs and people riding buses -- by covering some of the costs thereof through the DoD's budget, etc. If you increase the price of gas across the board, people who are price-sensitive will stop driving SUVs and start riding the bus -- efficient modes of transport will have more of a relative advantage.

The point you two liberal intellectoids fail to get is that thanks to W's tax cuts, the economy is RED-hot and freedom loving patriots are happy to fork over a small portion of that extra cashola to roughride their 4x4s (and in my case an H2) over your leftwing socialist sensibilities in their efforts to get from here to there or wherever they want to go, rather than rubbing elbows with the marxist masses on the stupid bus or BART train or wherever you lefties would have us travelling. Hell, some of the staff people at my shop are avowed democrat partyers and the couple of them with IQs higher than a 60 watt-light bulb understand the fallacy of socialism better than the libs on this board when you start screeching for a 50 cent a gallon gas tax on gas to forcibly pervert the market and illegitimately induce conservation. I have to believe that the only bouyancy keeping JFKerry afloat is insanely diehard screwballs.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
Perhaps President Ronald W. Reagan said it best when he said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Technically, I believe Peggy Noonan said it first and Reagan repeated it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
All major transit systems operate at a deficit and are subsidized.

So are cars. Someone is paying for all those roads.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
when you start screeching for a 50 cent a gallon gas tax on gas to forcibly pervert the market and illegitimately induce conservation

It's only getting play because some people on your side are kicking it around. Call David Ignatius up and get him to stick to your talking points, and you won't need any more pictures of Hummer limos.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Arguably, we are subsidizing gasoline consumption -- including both people driving SUVs and people riding buses -- by covering some of the costs thereof through the DoD's budget

The first time you said it, I thought you were just trying to be funny. Now I see you really believe we invaded Iraq for the oil. May I ask if you believe Oliver Stone's version of the JFK assasination, too?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's only getting play because some people on your side are kicking it around.

I don't think it is fair for you to say I am on his side. I have views that diverge from conservatives and libertarians. You cannot put a label on my politics because I take the side that makes the most sense to me. I vote Rep because more of my ideas are endorsed by the Rep party.