Gas Holiday this Summer
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Americans don't want band-aid fixes and political pandering in the quest for votes. They want real solutions.
With respect, BS! Americans are incapable of thinking in terms of real solutions. Marc
Americans are incapable of thinking in terms of real solutions. Unfortunatly more and more I find this to be true. I think people would jump at lower gas prices regardless of how it is achieved (and it's possible future ramifications). This I believe is also true regarding most consumer products, as winessed by all the crap flooding in from China and other countries. God forbid it should be made in the US and cost $.10 more. Just my $.02
-
Americans are incapable of thinking in terms of real solutions. Unfortunatly more and more I find this to be true. I think people would jump at lower gas prices regardless of how it is achieved (and it's possible future ramifications). This I believe is also true regarding most consumer products, as winessed by all the crap flooding in from China and other countries. God forbid it should be made in the US and cost $.10 more. Just my $.02
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Americans don't want band-aid fixes and political pandering in the quest for votes. They want real solutions.
With respect, BS! Americans are incapable of thinking in terms of real solutions. Marc
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Americans don't want band-aid fixes and political pandering in the quest for votes. They want real solutions.
With respect, BS! Americans are incapable of thinking in terms of real solutions. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Americans [Humans-in-general] are incapable of [unwilling to consistently] thinking in terms of real solutions.
As witness:
John Simmons: How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
Whether or not a "gas-tax holiday" is a good idea (it isn't), Mr Simmons' idea is just another reflection of the underlying problem ... refusal to see reality as it really is -- including seeing the significant fact that government "programs" are not going to save us nor solve any important problems. Here are a few realities of which Mr Simmons seems unaware: 1) There is no such thing as "tax breaks to the oil companies." All corporations are legal fictions, they don't really exist, nor do they *ever* pay taxes. Only actual human beings pay taxes. 2) "Alternative fuels" are a bust. If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now. Throwing "government" money into "research[ing] alternative fuels" (or any other like "research") is but another way of conducting corporate welfare ... and, since corporations don't actually exist, this means subsidizing the present and future incomes of the *owners* of the corporations. 3) If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it. And it wouldn't have to be subsidized at gun-point. Nor would a free people have to be coerced to use it. The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself. Mr Simmons' idea reflects the sort of thinking that Thomas Sowell is discussing[^] in the article to which I linked earlier.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Americans [Humans-in-general] are incapable of [unwilling to consistently] thinking in terms of real solutions.
As witness:
John Simmons: How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
Whether or not a "gas-tax holiday" is a good idea (it isn't), Mr Simmons' idea is just another reflection of the underlying problem ... refusal to see reality as it really is -- including seeing the significant fact that government "programs" are not going to save us nor solve any important problems. Here are a few realities of which Mr Simmons seems unaware: 1) There is no such thing as "tax breaks to the oil companies." All corporations are legal fictions, they don't really exist, nor do they *ever* pay taxes. Only actual human beings pay taxes. 2) "Alternative fuels" are a bust. If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now. Throwing "government" money into "research[ing] alternative fuels" (or any other like "research") is but another way of conducting corporate welfare ... and, since corporations don't actually exist, this means subsidizing the present and future incomes of the *owners* of the corporations. 3) If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it. And it wouldn't have to be subsidized at gun-point. Nor would a free people have to be coerced to use it. The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself. Mr Simmons' idea reflects the sort of thinking that Thomas Sowell is discussing[^] in the article to which I linked earlier.
Ilíon wrote:
If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now.
Alternative fuels require major infrastructure changes which corporate America lobbies against.
Ilíon wrote:
and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We do want it, but again, if you look historically at why cities like LA and NYC don't have efficient mass transit, you will find corporate America sabotaging the interests of the citizens for their own profits. However, I do feel we should eliminate all subsizies, all gov't programs, etc., and let prices float to reflect their real costs and take responsibility ourselves for real solutions, rather than the all too oft heard phrase "I pay my taxes, let the gov't figure out the solution." Marc
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Americans [Humans-in-general] are incapable of [unwilling to consistently] thinking in terms of real solutions.
As witness:
John Simmons: How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
Whether or not a "gas-tax holiday" is a good idea (it isn't), Mr Simmons' idea is just another reflection of the underlying problem ... refusal to see reality as it really is -- including seeing the significant fact that government "programs" are not going to save us nor solve any important problems. Here are a few realities of which Mr Simmons seems unaware: 1) There is no such thing as "tax breaks to the oil companies." All corporations are legal fictions, they don't really exist, nor do they *ever* pay taxes. Only actual human beings pay taxes. 2) "Alternative fuels" are a bust. If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now. Throwing "government" money into "research[ing] alternative fuels" (or any other like "research") is but another way of conducting corporate welfare ... and, since corporations don't actually exist, this means subsidizing the present and future incomes of the *owners* of the corporations. 3) If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it. And it wouldn't have to be subsidized at gun-point. Nor would a free people have to be coerced to use it. The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself. Mr Simmons' idea reflects the sort of thinking that Thomas Sowell is discussing[^] in the article to which I linked earlier.
Ilíon wrote:
- If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Because as usual, the politicians are completely out of touch with reality. A gas tax holiday will have no significant impact on the price of a gallon of gas, and it's a temporary measure. Americans don't want band-aid fixes and political pandering in the quest for votes. They want real solutions. How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
use that money to research alternative fuels
Good idea, but those area of research are only related to individual transportation. Concerning mass transit, the solutions are already there. Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need. I read recently GWB wanted to build new power plants in the US as a way to reduce the foreign oil dependency.
-
Ilíon wrote:
- If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
That was then, and this is now. And mass transit then was efficient only in comparison to the alternatives: walking or animal-drawn carriages.
And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country...
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
-
Ilíon wrote:
If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now.
Alternative fuels require major infrastructure changes which corporate America lobbies against.
Ilíon wrote:
and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We do want it, but again, if you look historically at why cities like LA and NYC don't have efficient mass transit, you will find corporate America sabotaging the interests of the citizens for their own profits. However, I do feel we should eliminate all subsizies, all gov't programs, etc., and let prices float to reflect their real costs and take responsibility ourselves for real solutions, rather than the all too oft heard phrase "I pay my taxes, let the gov't figure out the solution." Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Ilíon wrote:
and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We do want it, but again, if you look historically at why cities like LA and NYC don't have efficient mass transit, you will find corporate America sabotaging the interests of the citizens for their own profits.
It's not quite that simple, although that's part of it (for example, here in the DC area, the conglomerate that owns the Dulles Greenway is continually raising the toll while at the same time lobbying HARD against expansion of the Washington Metro - and of course they only care because all expansion efforts are into the exact same area where the Greenway services). The other part of it is that America has alot more sprawl than your token European nation. European nations were built before cars could carry you long distances, so landmarks, roads, etc. are all built with short distance travel in mind - the perfect environment for mass transit. Much of America's growth, on the other hand, has been fueled by the automobile, making sprawling suburbs possible to feed growing cities. It's simply not reasonable (in the short or near-term) to build mass transit over a distance of 50+ miles. That's probably the biggest problem America faces - we're too spread out, and we have the car to thank for it.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
use that money to research alternative fuels
Good idea, but those area of research are only related to individual transportation. Concerning mass transit, the solutions are already there. Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need. I read recently GWB wanted to build new power plants in the US as a way to reduce the foreign oil dependency.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
-
Shog9 wrote:
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
That was then, and this is now. And mass transit then was efficient only in comparison to the alternatives: walking or animal-drawn carriages.
And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country...
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
-
Shog9 wrote:
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
That was then, and this is now. And mass transit then was efficient only in comparison to the alternatives: walking or animal-drawn carriages.
And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country...
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
Ilíon wrote:
That was then, and this is now.
So... what? Then we cared about getting around efficiently, now we'll pay through the nose? I've got news for you - plenty of people walking today because they can't afford automobiles and don't have access to any other form of transportation. There is a point where public transportation becomes a no-brainer; not saying we're there yet, but we are headed in that direction. Closing your eyes and wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
And you clearly don't want to read. Frankly, i'm disappointed - i expected you to know your history. Let's try a few other examples, actual quotes this time, stop me if i hit one you recognize:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." "640K ought to be enough for anybody" "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
:-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
I'd guess that Shog puts more thought in one of his average posts that you have in sum of all of yours. :rolleyes:
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with".
Drop it into the sun, it'll never be noticed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Americans [Humans-in-general] are incapable of [unwilling to consistently] thinking in terms of real solutions.
As witness:
John Simmons: How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
Whether or not a "gas-tax holiday" is a good idea (it isn't), Mr Simmons' idea is just another reflection of the underlying problem ... refusal to see reality as it really is -- including seeing the significant fact that government "programs" are not going to save us nor solve any important problems. Here are a few realities of which Mr Simmons seems unaware: 1) There is no such thing as "tax breaks to the oil companies." All corporations are legal fictions, they don't really exist, nor do they *ever* pay taxes. Only actual human beings pay taxes. 2) "Alternative fuels" are a bust. If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now. Throwing "government" money into "research[ing] alternative fuels" (or any other like "research") is but another way of conducting corporate welfare ... and, since corporations don't actually exist, this means subsidizing the present and future incomes of the *owners* of the corporations. 3) If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it. And it wouldn't have to be subsidized at gun-point. Nor would a free people have to be coerced to use it. The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself. Mr Simmons' idea reflects the sort of thinking that Thomas Sowell is discussing[^] in the article to which I linked earlier.
Ilíon wrote:
The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself.
Are you under the impression that automobile travel is not heavily subsidized in the U.S??? Could you possibly be unaware that the various levels of government have built and maintained one system of transportation above all others? That special taxes have been levied for no other purpose that to create a road network that is "efficient" only because it is so heavily subsidized???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Getting it there safely is the trick.
Equally true when it's shipped through major cities on its way to one of the burial grounds. I will admit that launching rockets with a lot of nuclear material aboard might have Putin pissing in his pants. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
I'd guess that Shog puts more thought in one of his average posts that you have in sum of all of yours. :rolleyes:
-
Ilíon wrote:
That was then, and this is now.
So... what? Then we cared about getting around efficiently, now we'll pay through the nose? I've got news for you - plenty of people walking today because they can't afford automobiles and don't have access to any other form of transportation. There is a point where public transportation becomes a no-brainer; not saying we're there yet, but we are headed in that direction. Closing your eyes and wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
And you clearly don't want to read. Frankly, i'm disappointed - i expected you to know your history. Let's try a few other examples, actual quotes this time, stop me if i hit one you recognize:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." "640K ought to be enough for anybody" "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
:-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
And you clearly don't want to read.
I read -- and responded to -- exactly what you wrote. Your response to what I'd written[^] was: "And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country..." and now you want to whine because I responded to *that* just as it deserved.
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:30 PM