50¢ sales tax on gasoline?

[Pineconn]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2743144220070928

So the U.S. government feels the need to impose a 50¢ sales tax on the purchase of gasoline in order to fight global warming. That's nice.

I do declare, on September 27, 2007, that our government officially hates us. But I can't speak for all of us. Do you support or oppose this proposed bill?

[Gleeok]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@#$@^#!&%#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck, just bring on the apocalypse and end this madness already.


-btw- I voted no.....

What's so bad about global warming anyway? Let the ice caps melt. Soon i'll have beachfront property. Can't argue with that.

[Freedom]

Without global warming they wouldn't have the reason for the scam to suck more money out of our.... well you get the picture.
If gore would just STFU the temps would plummet.

[DarkDragon]

Which leaves our gasoline what, only 60% cheaper than gasoline in Europe?

I for one am pleased to see the government finally being both environmentally responsible and proactive about decreasing our dependence on the Middle East. Efforts this past decade have shown that Americans will continue to do stupid things - eg buy SUVs, not carpool, ignore public transportation - unless goaded by a monetary incentive.

[Lilith]

---

[phattonez]

Gas taxes have not been raised since 1995 and public transportation right now sucks. I'll approve it as long as that money gives us new rail that this country so desperately needs.

EDIT: I hate that we need to use global warming as an excuse to get things done that needed to be done years ago. Does this sound like State of Fear to anyone?

[Gleeok]

Which leaves our gasoline what, only 60% cheaper than gasoline in Europe?

I for one am pleased to see the government finally being both environmentally responsible and proactive about decreasing our dependence on the Middle East. Efforts this past decade have shown that Americans will continue to do stupid things - eg buy SUVs, not carpool, ignore public transportation - unless goaded by a monetary incentive.

Like people don't pay enough money in taxes already? There's no reason to believe this money will really help anything, In fact, right now I am picturing monkeys pissing on American tax dollars throwing poop at eachother in a giant magical kingdom where the government does what's best for it's people. I remember those cigarette taxes a while back and how the revenue would help out this and that and BULLSHIT. In short, I have never seen any new government taxes be put to actual good use. Example: What is the current gasoline tax? Over 3 years ago it was above 40 cents a gallon. I don't know what it is currently, but i'm sure it's more than that. A portion goes to state for highway/road etc, while the government takes the rest, and a high percentage of that goes to completely unrelated topics. Actually, if anyone knows exactally where the hell that money goes, then i'd love to hear it.

In short, if there was definate proof in how this money would 100% be used to effectively solve this major problem we are confronted with and prove reasonable results are immidiately possible, and that many long-term.....ah screw it..... What am I thinking? Americans get taxed enough already, in fact i've got a giant rat up my ass 24/7 that want's to take more that 40% of my cheese. Goddamnit all...what we need are more taxes so we can build more lasers that shoot stuff from outer space.

[DarkDragon]

Like people don't pay enough money in taxes already? There's no reason to believe this money will really help anything, In fact, right now I am picturing monkeys pissing on American tax dollars throwing poop at eachother in a giant magical kingdom where the government does what's best for it's people. I remember those cigarette taxes a while back and how the revenue would help out this and that and BULLSHIT. In short, I have never seen any new government taxes be put to actual good use. Example: What is the current gasoline tax? Over 3 years ago it was above 40 cents a gallon. I don't know what it is currently, but i'm sure it's more than that. A portion goes to state for highway/road etc, while the government takes the rest, and a high percentage of that goes to completely unrelated topics. Actually, if anyone knows exactally where the hell that money goes, then i'd love to hear it.

In short, if there was definate proof in how this money would 100% be used to effectively solve this major problem we are confronted with and prove reasonable results are immidiately possible, and that many long-term.....ah screw it..... What am I thinking? Americans get taxed enough already, in fact i've got a giant rat up my ass 24/7 that want's to take more that 40% of my cheese. Goddamnit all...what we need are more taxes so we can build more lasers that shoot stuff from outer space.

Huh? Our tax burden in the US is lower than most other first-world countries: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor-total-tax-wedge-single-worker

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Which leaves our gasoline what, only 60% cheaper than gasoline in Europe?

I for one am pleased to see the government finally being both environmentally responsible and proactive about decreasing our dependence on the Middle East. Efforts this past decade have shown that Americans will continue to do stupid things - eg buy SUVs, not carpool, ignore public transportation - unless goaded by a monetary incentive.

That's a point, but why should the rest of us suffer? It's my opinion that you do not tax something that is needed by such a large portion of the population when it's already taking a big enough chunk out of everyone's wallet as it is. And the reason so many don't use public transportation, is because for so much of the country it isn't there. Some big cities don't even have it. Even the ones that do, it isn't necessarily that good.

Europe can tolerate their gas prices because their citizens tend to have grocery stores and job locations within walking distance. The only time they even use public transportation is when traveling. Driving yourself around is just a luxury.

[phattonez]

^^Which is a criticism on American Urbanism, which isn't really urbanism, it's suburbanism.

[Gleeok]

^^Cmon, don't you live in LA county too. There is little public transportation here. In fact wasn't it just voted the worst in the U.S.?



Huh? Our tax burden in the US is lower than most other first-world countries:

The gaint rat inside my ass begs to differ. :p What about all the extra money we pay for necessities that our tax dollars do not cover? It's not that the idea to do anything about global warming or dependance on foreign oil is bad, just that I am uncertain even a $2.00 tax increase will hold up against the weight of broken promises and money mismanagement.

[phattonez]

^^Far from it. It's one of the best in the country for what it is. We need more money in order for it to expand. Our bus system is one of the best if not the best system in the US. There are so many preconceptions about LA that aren't true. I can tell you the truth about them. The truth is, LA has a pretty good system, but it needs to expand, and the major problem is money. Gas tax has been left alone for years: that needs to change.

[MottZilla]

Taxing gasoline further is ridiculus. No matter what our country requires transportation that public transportation will never cover and so we need cheap fuel. So what if it causes global warming. You're going to die anyway, and the planet shifts from colder and warmer periods normally. Just do what everyone else does and hope you're dead before shit really hits the fan.

You should realize affordable services are all that's stopping us from breaking down and raping and pillaging everything. Anyway, it's also the problem that there is little guarentee that this tax money wouldn't be spent on other things like those special interest groups want, or that it would be spent wisely and not wastefully to line someone's pockets.

[AtmaWeapon]

I vote an emphatic yes because I am a successful individual with lots of disposable income and I understand a key fact about how things work.

The more the government taxes gasoline, the more pissed off the everyman gets. Once the general populace is pissed off enough things happen. America is upset about gas prices but still giving preferential treatment to cars that are flashy and sporty as opposed to fuel-efficient. Hybrid cars aren't really the answer because from what I understand their batteries cause more damage to the environment than if you'd stop hugging trees and buy something that gets high 30s on the highway. So while America is whining and complaining, we aren't really upset enough to do something about it.

What I'd like to see is oil companies worried. Philip Morris owns Kraft, Nabisco, and I want to say Betty Crocker as well. If Wackypedia is to be believed they actually make more money off of these companies than they do off of tobacco sales in North America. I don't believe they acquired these companies by coincidence. In my opinion, once they started realizing the facts about smoking would get out they were pretty eager to get their foot in the door of another industry. While among most of the people I know smoking is very much out of vogue, eating is never going to be unpopular. In my opinion, once the revolution comes, the only oil company that will remain will be the one that had the foresight to invest heavily in alternative fuels. So far none of them seem to be doing so, and that makes me willing to bet you'd take a $0.50 tax increase with gnashing of teeth but ultimately do nothing about it.

So I vote yes because so far every price increase has made us whine and complain and put our foot down and then use our cars no differently than we did before. Every tax increase brings us closer to the day when we whine, complain, put our feet down, and stage an unruly protest that makes some oil baron fear for his life and property. I mean, peaceful protest works over time but setting stuff on fire gets results fast.

[Archibaldo]

I vote an emphatic yes because I am a successful individual with lots of disposable income and I understand a key fact about how things work.



I voted yes because I'm Canadian...

[Masamune]

Drop beats, not bombs. :(

[copsgotguns]

why are people surprised whenever gas prices are raised? fossil fuels are a finite resource which WILL dry up in my lifetime. add to that american auto makers refuse to raise fuel standards on their cars because "we lack the political will". then they wonder why their companies lose money and companies like toyota cant sell cars fast enough. china's cars are 50mpg and they just got cars. why cant we keep up? isnt america "#1", "the best country IN THE WORLD!", are we going to let the 'commies' beat us? what would reagan do?!?

</sarcasm>

[phattonez]

Fossil fuels will not run out in our life time, but cheap fossil fuel will, and that is coming soon. Let's stop wasting that gas on cars, save it for things that do need it, and get something out of the oil that is still so easily available.

Archibaldo, this would be great for a DotW.

[AtmaWeapon]

copsgotguns despite the sarcasm tag you really made some pretty good points, and if I choose to apply the sarcasm part to the tinfoil hat peak oil nonsense then for once I don't find myself trying to remember how the ignore function works.

I'm not so sure whether Chinese cars get 50mpg or not but I do know they typically get 1-star safety ratings because the system doesn't allow 0. Generally the head-on 40mph collision is fatal; most American cars manage "minor injuries". Honestly if given the choice between safety and efficiency I'm choosing safety. There are few excuses, however, to drive a car that gets less than 30mpg on the highway.

Some people haul (literally) tons of lumber in a month. I forgive these guys for driving around in 18mpg gigantic trucks, because their everyday usage would turn a Civic into scrap. Other people have too many children and require a car that can seat more than 5 passengers. While the thought of them securing their kids to a luggage rack is entertaining I'm afraid I can't support that behavior. Single white female does not need a Suburban. It's a vehicle that was made to occupy a lot of space in parking lots, destroy compact cars on collision, and either seat about 8 people or haul small enough loads that you wish you'd have just bought a pickup instead. There's really no reason for some of these vehicles to exist.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

I vote an emphatic yes because I am a successful individual with lots of disposable income and I understand a key fact about how things work.

As you yourself said, you have lots of disposable income. Try being okay with it and poor at the same time, you won't, because it will take out such a large portion of your wallet and that's not good when you're already crunching your finances to get by. And no, poor people can't always take the bus and walk, I know this from personal experience.


The more the government taxes gasoline, the more pissed off the everyman gets. Once the general populace is pissed off enough things happen. America is upset about gas prices but still giving preferential treatment to cars that are flashy and sporty as opposed to fuel-efficient.

Touche, but on the other hand I own a 2003 hundai accent(anything but a gas guzzler), walk all I can, am very vocal every time the subject surfaces about the tyranny of gas prices, and when I get out of college, I'm saving up for a tesla car (http://www.teslamotors.com). Not only that, but I hope I will also try to use my degree(electrical engineering) to get into designing similar but cheaper cars that common people can hopefully afford. Not everyone by any means does what you are saying, just the ones that stand out.


Hybrid cars aren't really the answer because from what I understand their batteries cause more damage to the environment than if you'd stop hugging trees and buy something that gets high 30s on the highway.

Agreed.


In my opinion, once the revolution comes, the only oil company that will remain will be the one that had the foresight to invest heavily in alternative fuels. So far none of them seem to be doing so, and that makes me willing to bet you'd take a $0.50 tax increase with gnashing of teeth but ultimately do nothing about it.

So why increase it then? If all people are going to do is gnash their teeth and ultimately do nothing what's the point? You yourself said that you hope to see this make people do something about it, but if you have doubts then why? What if all it does is rob us of 50 cents per gallon and your doubts were proven right?


So I vote yes because so far every price increase has made us whine and complain and put our foot down and then use our cars no differently than we did before. Every tax increase brings us closer to the day when we whine, complain, put our feet down, and stage an unruly protest that makes some oil baron fear for his life and property. I mean, peaceful protest works over time but setting stuff on fire gets results fast.

It won't though. Doing this is just going to hurt poor people. Hurting poor people's wallets is more likely to make them commit theft than to make them to a stance against the man. I mean, have you ever seen anything get done about any price, of anything? I haven't.

[AtmaWeapon]

Oh man you really like to quote my posts but you are no Beldaran.

I kind of addressed poor people by pointing out that the everyman is hurt; when the cost of living goes up the lower class is hit the hardest; if their productivity drops then the companies they work for experience ill effects and there's a ripple effect throughout every industry. It is unfortunate but there is not going to be a change in our fuel industry until people are dying because they can't afford their energy bills. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just looking at what has historically been the stimulus that drives the government to force change upon huge industries.

I don't care if you or even if a lot of like-minded individuals are energy-conscious. Right now America is being told that the size of your car is an important status symbol and that means that you are a minority. I applaud your noble acts but your good actions do not invalidate my point that the majority favors "will it make my neighbors jealous" over "would a different car use half the gas". On one hand this is good; the more people drive low-efficiency cars the less prices have to increase to hit the critical point. On another hand it sucks because it's horrible for the environment.

With respect to whether I am contradicting myself, allow me to explain because if you aren't thinking my plan through it does seem like I'm going against my "If it doesn't solve the problem I don't want it implemented" stance from the weed thread.

First, let me state the problem I want solved: I wish to see us either rely on more environmentally-friendly and renewable sources of fuel for our vehicles OR begin to prefer more fuel-efficient vehicles so we have more time to reach the first solution.

I feel there are many approaches to solve this problem, but the most likely situation follows the same pattern as child labor reform following the Industrial Revolution. I feel like the oil industry is deeply entrenched in our economy and government and will not allow moves towards either of these goals because it is against what they feel like is their best interests. They are foolish and act as if fossil fuels are infinite. The only way the government will ignore their influence is if a very significant portion of the population places pressure on them. The lobbyists can get them tickets to the Super Bowl; angry mobs can firebomb their houses. When the poor cannot afford gas and are turning to crime, those that can afford the gas fear for their property. They correctly link the increase in crime to the higher gas prices, and begin to get upset. Once the movement has spread far enough, the politicians must either listen or face landslide losses and threats on their personal safety. This reduces the influence of lobbyists and is how the changes will be made. New laws will either mandate strict fuel usage requirements on new cars or place tax incentives on research towards alternative fuel sources.

I'm probably wrong because I am a very disgruntled pessimist on this issue, but this is the chain of events that I feel is most likely. Increased gas taxes are a good thing for this plan, because every extra cent brings us closer to that critical point where the people say "No more!". $0.50 might not do the trick, but the next $0.50 could be the last straw.

[Freedom]

I have to question anyones sanity that willingly, for any reason, agrees to fork over more of their hard earned dollars to a government that has shown time and time again they can't be trusted to spend it wisely.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

I kind of addressed poor people by pointing out that the everyman is hurt;

Even so, you yourself have said that you are not. It's easy for you to sit there saying stuff about a class you do not fit into, but the point stands. You are not poor, and I doubt you would be for this if you were. And without knowing what the poor would go through, you can not claim by any means to know the measure of how they will suffer, and thus not claim to know if their suffering is worth you cause, even if it does happen to play out as you think it will. You can sit there looking at numbers, but that is not the same as living it.


when the cost of living goes up the lower class is hit the hardest; if their productivity drops then the companies they work for experience ill effects and there's a ripple effect throughout every industry.

When their productivity suffers, they get fired. Not everyone is going to let it hurt their productivity and when you have workers who continue to work hard, it's certainly no excuse that you're mad about a new gas tax when your boss and co-workers drive cars too. Even in plants full of workers who let it effect them, they can just get unemployed people in to replace them, and employers are not stupid enough to overlook this fact.


It is unfortunate but there is not going to be a change in our fuel industry until people are dying because they can't afford their energy bills. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just looking at what has historically been the stimulus that drives the government to force change upon huge industries.

Woah there buddy, you are actually okay with watching people die to achieve your end? That's not good. As for "history" what has or hasn't happened with economies in periods which we did not live is trivial at best. Even if it weren't, times such as depressions stick out a lot more than normal economic inclines and declines. You'd likely know a lot more about them anyway because they are more interesting to read and learn about than regular economic activities. There is by no means enough evidence to support that your way is the only way for things to change.


I don't care if you or even if a lot of like-minded individuals are energy-conscious. Right now America is being told that the size of your car is an important status symbol and that means that you are a minority. I applaud your noble acts but your good actions do not invalidate my point that the majority favors "will it make my neighbors jealous" over "would a different car use half the gas". On one hand this is good; the more people drive low-efficiency cars the less prices have to increase to hit the critical point. On another hand it sucks because it's horrible for the environment.

No it doesn't make me a minority, hence:


Not everyone by any means does what you are saying, just the ones that stand out.

You can not claim, based on here-say from everyday conversations and the media, that the majority of people do things that way. Statistical data I might accept(depending on which source and how many people were surveyed), but just saying something is not enough. Now I will say that yes, some people could lose their gas guzzling vehicles, but it is not as though they fit the whole picture.



First, let me state the problem I want solved: I wish to see us either rely on more environmentally-friendly and renewable sources of fuel for our vehicles OR begin to prefer more fuel-efficient vehicles so we have more time to reach the first solution.

Here I agree.


I feel there are many approaches to solve this problem, but the most likely situation follows the same pattern as child labor reform following the Industrial Revolution. I feel like the oil industry is deeply entrenched in our economy and government and will not allow moves towards either of these goals because it is against what they feel like is their best interests. They are foolish and act as if fossil fuels are infinite.

Still agree.


The only way the government will ignore their influence is if a very significant portion of the population places pressure on them. The lobbyists can get them tickets to the Super Bowl; angry mobs can firebomb their houses.

K, let's stay away from violent solutions. I'm all for them in some cases, but oil tycoons need to be beaten in the market, not violently attacked. Imagine the agony they will suffer knowing one day they used to rule a powerful industry, but now they are nothing. That hurts more than it sounds like.

You may be thinking this is impossible but it is not. Nobody wants to even pay our current prices on gas. If given a cheaper solution they will almost certainly take it and out they go. The tesla car for instance, would be that solution if only it were cheaper. If these advances keep up, the oil industry might just slowly die. And electricity is not the only possible solution that is slowly creeping up on oil.


When the poor cannot afford gas and are turning to crime, those that can afford the gas fear for their property. They correctly link the increase in crime to the higher gas prices, and begin to get upset. Once the movement has spread far enough, the politicians must either listen or face landslide losses and threats on their personal safety. This reduces the influence of lobbyists and is how the changes will be made. New laws will either mandate strict fuel usage requirements on new cars or place tax incentives on research towards alternative fuel sources.

Even if this plays out the way you idealize it(which is highly unlikely), that still means living with high crime and poverty. That isn't the way. What's more, it probably won't go that way. Poor people turning more to crime is likely(though not certain), but more than likely their victims would just call for more cops and stricter laws. You have to remember that most people wont even see the pattern emerging, of those that do, not all will speak out, and still some will regard it as no excuse. Some may get through, draw the link to gas, and ask politicians to do something about it. Even if that happens they will likely be shouted down by people who will argue that 50 cents per gallon is not a reason to be destructive.

[Gleeok]

It is true that people will make stupid decisions and buy gas guzzlers that get 15mpg, but these are the same people that have extra money to thow away. I really can't see much of these bastards doing much to change anything. It is the poor that will suffer. Unfortunately the argument of increasing fuel-efficent vehicles, which I used to agree with, is not going to help us much as the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy), is a joke.

As far as i'm concerned a 50 cent gas tax isn't going to change anything exept for American willingness to put thier dicks between thier legs. Which brings up another problem with my rationalizations, the consequences of not doing anything.

Can the threat of an increase in gas prices spark a protest in the current dependancy of foreign oil, fuel efficeincy standards, and alternate fuel sources in a way that an actual gas tax would?

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Can the threat of an increase in gas prices spark a protest in the current dependancy of foreign oil, fuel efficeincy standards, and alternate fuel sources in a way that an actual gas tax would?

Threats in and of themselves rarely, if ever accomplish anything. The truth is though that it's not likely the 50 cents tax would do it either, you would probably have to pretty much force people to find jobs and grocery stores within walking distance to do it.

[AtmaWeapon]

OK, you challenged me to produce statistics on what cars are being purchased, and honestly I have nothing more than observational evidence. As I drive around, I tend to see a fairly large proportion of new SUV-type vehicles compared to the number of new compact cars I see, which leads me to believe that people are still purchasing SUVs at a high rate.

Unfortunately for this observation a career move means I don't drive through the ghetto every day so I can't comment on the current ratio of Escalades and rust heaps as compared to new fuel-efficient compact cars to address Gleeok's suggestion that people who have less money are purchasing based on fuel-efficiency. When I last checked, the first two categories covered 80&#37; of the homes, and in general the other 20% was 90s-model Impalas and Monte Carlos. None of these are very fuel efficient, and all of the purchases seem consistent with (1) What can I buy on a 7-year finance to impress my neighbors? (2) What can I buy for less than $2000? (3) What will look fly after I spend $14,000 putting a lift kit, rims, paint, sound system, and ground lights on it? All decisions are consistent with buying based on price, rather than cost of operation.

Also I am not implying I think it is right that people will die before change is brought about, but I look at the influence that the oil companies have on the government and I see no other way. I hope I'm wrong, but generally it takes tragedy to provide the force necessary to overcome America's inertia towards action.

Of course, if the poor would preemptively join together and rally I am certain they'd have the numbers to bring about change. Unfortunately, the last time I paid attention to state politics they were still voting based on "Is he a Democrat? Democrats help out the poor man." Indeed. The Democratic candidates tended to increase welfare and medicaid benefits at the cost of higher taxes, which led to layoffs and hour cuts to business owners. Once again, the problem is planning for the now instead of the future.

[Icey]

I don't think a hike in gas prices (via tax, or any other method) is really going to produce much change. We have the last couple years especially as evidence that the demand for gasoline is incredibly inelastic (meaning the change in quantity demanded is less than 1% for every 1% increase in price, and in the case of gasoline, probably far, far less than 1%). It would probably have to rise to the equivalent of European gas prices or above before any major response could occur. And even then I don't see any uprising or innovation coming from it, as the most rational, easiest, and less costly thing for a large part of the population would be to do nothing and just accept the higher prices. The poor will get screwed, and there's potential for small riots and such if the prices go high enough, but I don't really see any coordinated, sizable effort at changing policy or the current car culture while the middle and upper classes can essentially absorb the price changes by purchasing less of some other goods. The middle and upper classes will continue to complain a lot about gas prices, but unless the prices are so high that they literally can't afford basic necessities, then it appears likely that they actually take action.


^^Far from it. It's one of the best in the country for what it is. We need more money in order for it to expand. Our bus system is one of the best if not the best system in the US. There are so many preconceptions about LA that aren't true. I can tell you the truth about them. The truth is, LA has a pretty good system, but it needs to expand, and the major problem is money.

Sorry, a fair part of that could be right, but your description of LA's current public transporation system is so far from truth I have to interject. We in Los Angeles may have one of the better systems in the country (I don't have enough experience to say), but we certainly don't have a "pretty good system", or even a "good system". I've had to travel by bus a lot in LA, from long distances to short ones, and it's always a huge pain in the ass. It's not very efficient and it's very time consuming; of course, since it's not in very high demand and not well funded right now, that makes sense. Could it get better with more money? Probably. But it still sucks right now.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

OK, you challenged me to produce statistics on what cars are being purchased, and honestly I have nothing more than observational evidence. As I drive around, I tend to see a fairly large proportion of new SUV-type vehicles compared to the number of new compact cars I see, which leads me to believe that people are still purchasing SUVs at a high rate.

Unfortunately for this observation a career move means I don't drive through the ghetto every day so I can't comment on the current ratio of Escalades and rust heaps as compared to new fuel-efficient compact cars to address Gleeok's suggestion that people who have less money are purchasing based on fuel-efficiency. When I last checked, the first two categories covered 80% of the homes, and in general the other 20% was 90s-model Impalas and Monte Carlos. None of these are very fuel efficient, and all of the purchases seem consistent with (1) What can I buy on a 7-year finance to impress my neighbors? (2) What can I buy for less than $2000? (3) What will look fly after I spend $14,000 putting a lift kit, rims, paint, sound system, and ground lights on it? All decisions are consistent with buying based on price, rather than cost of operation.

Well I am seeing a few myself, but no where near those percentages. Truth be told, a search for a census on what kinds of cars people drive/purchase only lead to dead ends, so we're just going to have to leave it at that. I will say that if we could convince people with jobs in auto-marketing who hate the price of gas to start using their pull to influence the market, it would be at least a help.


Also I am not implying I think it is right that people will die before change is brought about, but I look at the influence that the oil companies have on the government and I see no other way. I hope I'm wrong, but generally it takes tragedy to provide the force necessary to overcome America's inertia towards action.

Not necessarily, saturating the areas of influence with people who dislike what is going on is another way, if only said people had the will to saturate it. It is slowly happening, but that's just how it is. Oil will not die out overnight, it will die a slow death, slow to the point it won't even be conscious of it until one day, it's dead.


Of course, if the poor would preemptively join together and rally I am certain they'd have the numbers to bring about change. Unfortunately, the last time I paid attention to state politics they were still voting based on "Is he a Democrat? Democrats help out the poor man." Indeed. The Democratic candidates tended to increase welfare and medicaid benefits at the cost of higher taxes, which led to layoffs and hour cuts to business owners. Once again, the problem is planning for the now instead of the future.

Agreed, poor people need to stop turning to crime and begging the government for help. In the end, they only make their problems worse.

[AtmaWeapon]

Don't we all though?

The problems in the lower class in my opinion aren't often the result of biology; I have always felt that if you swapped the children of a poor family and a rich family at birth, neither would be the wiser. Intelligence is somewhat determined by genetics, but genetics can be notoriously unreliable when it comes to mysterious traits. Furthermore, all the intelligence in the world cannot overcome the socioeconomic circumstances in which one is born. Poor children live in areas that typically have poor schools, so while the intelligent poor child has a theoretically equal chance at scholarship as the pampered rich child, the quality of their eduction is typically low enough to deny them that opportunity.

There's numerous other environmental influences as well. The situation is that yes, the poor do tend to make poor decisions that worsen their situation, but it's not necessarily their fault. If the upper class were investing more money in the education system than cars that cost more than a small house, then perhaps the increased quality of education among the poor could lead to drastic changes within a few generations. There's scattered success stories now but honestly it seems to me that it's really hard to pull oneself out of the ghetto. Even when one succeeds, the "rewards" of the lower middle class are often exhausting work in emotionally hostile environments. I've worked in an office and I've worked in a warehouse, and I can honestly say that there were a lot of benefits to the warehouse job that can almost make it seem worth going back. The thing I liked most was having my thoughts to myself; putting doors on a truck didn't require me to think much, so I could spend the whole day thinking about whatever was interesting to me. I'd come home hungry and tired, but I'd be ready to just kick back and read some books or play some games. Now, at work my thoughts have to be focused on the problems I am trying to solve; at the end of the day I come home and I don't even feel like cooking supper, let alone reading books with complicated themes.

So it's no real surprise to me that there's very few people capable of getting out, and also that an even fewer number look at the effort/rewards and follow through. It's really a task that pays off for your grandkids, and people are naturally selfish.

My point was really that these people are also subject to America's cultural desire to flaunt one's wealth, and it seems pretty logical that if you have very little wealth to flaunt you'd jump at the chance to appear as if you do. Unfortunately, most of these people aren't informed of the pitfalls of extended financing and end up in worse shape; honestly the auto makers are fairly sleazy for taking advantage of them. The other group is so poor that they are more worried about how to get groceries than whether the neighbors think they are poor, and this also leads to car purchases that do not target fuel efficiency.

Personally I believe that increased fuel prices put the wealthy in more danger of harm than the poor; a lot of the people that would be placed in mortal danger by higher fuel prices are already walking, biking, or carpooling to work because the critical point for them was reached long ago, or a car is simply an expense they cannot justify. The single factory in my old town that is located quite far away from the ghetto actually runs buses to pick people up to help absorb that cost. The problem is the people who are just on the edge of the bottom of the lower class and have managed to pull themselves out of these kinds of factory jobs into something a little better; they still have to drive to work and they represent a portion of the employee body the employer doesn't care about. I've alongside a lot of people like this and often getting a job that is geographically closer or moving is a financial impossibility. They are low-skilled workers that can only perform certain menial tasks, and job opportunities tend to be slim for this kind of person. If they turn to crime to help pay for their gas, the crime will happen at the pumps and for the most part the wealthy will be the victims of the crime. The Escalade takes quite a long time to fill up and suggests that you have the money to afford it; this makes you a pretty satisfactory target for a mugger.

Please don't think I hold a disdain for the lower-class in general; I worked side-by-side with some of the poorest people I've ever met for about 6 years in a hardware warehouse. Most of them had more class and a better sense of morality than the moderately wealthy people I've been able to work with, and if I had my pick between sitting next to a random rich dude or one of them on a long train ride I'd tell the rich dude to go on. The wealthy have a responsibility to help these kinds of people, and the fact that there's a large portion of the lower class that has given up on honest work entirely seems to suggest this bargain is not being met.

I like your idea of getting people that want to make a change into positions of power, but I am such a cynic I'm not certain if it would work. Power and wealth have a tendency to corrupt people, and to climb very far up the corporate ladder one cannot rock the boat too much. Reforming the oil industry in this way would be a long, slow process, and I'm not sure our society or the environment can afford such a wait.

[copsgotguns]

i also believe america's obesity problem contributes to the kind of cars we purchase. im not overweight but even riding in a regular sized sedan with 2 or more people in the back is unconfortable for me because im always the one having to sit on someones lap!

[AtmaWeapon]

Does this only happen when you ride with your uncle Jim? At work we frequently fit 5 people in an older-model Civic and while it's kind of crowded it's because I don't think any car manufacturer really intends for the middle seat to get used.

[Rainman]

I have to disagree with the tax, because of this:


I have to question anyones sanity that willingly, for any reason, agrees to fork over more of their hard earned dollars to a government that has shown time and time again they can't be trusted to spend it wisely.

I do support, however, any non-coercive methods to solve the problem of global warming.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Don't we all though?

The problems in the lower class in my opinion aren't often the result of biology; I have always felt that if you swapped the children of a poor family and a rich family at birth, neither would be the wiser. Intelligence is somewhat determined by genetics, but genetics can be notoriously unreliable when it comes to mysterious traits. Furthermore, all the intelligence in the world cannot overcome the socioeconomic circumstances in which one is born. Poor children live in areas that typically have poor schools, so while the intelligent poor child has a theoretically equal chance at scholarship as the pampered rich child, the quality of their eduction is typically low enough to deny them that opportunity.

This is true, although I don't see what it has to do with the topic. My opinion on why there's so many more unintelligent poor though, is it isn't just cus they get themselves poor because of stupidity, but because dumb people are less likely to control their reproduction. Having less income per child due to having too many children, as well as genetic influence from said dumb parents, is also a cause for this.

Although again, this has little, if anything, to do with the topic.


There's numerous other environmental influences as well. The situation is that yes, the poor do tend to make poor decisions that worsen their situation, but it's not necessarily their fault. If the upper class were investing more money in the education system than cars that cost more than a small house, then perhaps the increased quality of education among the poor could lead to drastic changes within a few generations. There's scattered success stories now but honestly it seems to me that it's really hard to pull oneself out of the ghetto. Even when one succeeds, the "rewards" of the lower middle class are often exhausting work in emotionally hostile environments. I've worked in an office and I've worked in a warehouse, and I can honestly say that there were a lot of benefits to the warehouse job that can almost make it seem worth going back. The thing I liked most was having my thoughts to myself; putting doors on a truck didn't require me to think much, so I could spend the whole day thinking about whatever was interesting to me. I'd come home hungry and tired, but I'd be ready to just kick back and read some books or play some games. Now, at work my thoughts have to be focused on the problems I am trying to solve; at the end of the day I come home and I don't even feel like cooking supper, let alone reading books with complicated themes.

Well first, on your education problem, it would help if the parents were competent enough to educate their kids themselves. You have to teach them to talk and listen before they can get into school anyway, and that, IMHO has got to be harder than any subject, no matter how complex. We're used to learning by reading and hearing words, but yet before we knew any, what did we have to go on in order to learn them? At least by the time you learn advanced calculus and astro-physics you have words to guide you. If you can teach language, you can at least teach them through the high-school level.

As for moving out of the ghetto, yeah you are correct, but it isn't as bad as everyone says it is either. Crime rate is in fact higher, but you usually won't be the victim of it insofar as you lock your doors and carry a shotgun. Believe me, the moment you are infamous for even so much as chasing someone away with one of those no one will come anywhere near you unless they are your friends. That and it's not like people get robbed every time they walk out their doors as the media would have you believe.


My point was really that these people are also subject to America's cultural desire to flaunt one's wealth, and it seems pretty logical that if you have very little wealth to flaunt you'd jump at the chance to appear as if you do. Unfortunately, most of these people aren't informed of the pitfalls of extended financing and end up in worse shape; honestly the auto makers are fairly sleazy for taking advantage of them. The other group is so poor that they are more worried about how to get groceries than whether the neighbors think they are poor, and this also leads to car purchases that do not target fuel efficiency.

If you live in a poor, ghetto-ish neighborhood, believe me, looking rich is the last thing anyone does. It's like spraying bright florescent paint all over yourself, then jumping out into a crowd, waving your arms and saying "I AM RICH, ROB ME!!!" The poor pretty much can not afford to live anywhere else, so I doubt any of them are doing that. You might see people who make $8 an hour driving dubbed up suburbans and stuff, but it's because they're married to people who make $50000+.

There are people who finance cars and put themselves into debt, but they're going to end up starving with or without a price hike.


Personally I believe that increased fuel prices put the wealthy in more danger of harm than the poor; a lot of the people that would be placed in mortal danger by higher fuel prices are already walking, biking, or carpooling to work because the critical point for them was reached long ago, or a car is simply an expense they cannot justify. The single factory in my old town that is located quite far away from the ghetto actually runs buses to pick people up to help absorb that cost.

This is far from universal however. I lived in the ghetto in arlington TX for over 2 years. You literally could work less than a mile from home, but be forced to drive because there were highways which you would have to cross, and you could not legally do so on foot. And not only did the jobs in walking distance rarely, if ever come, but there was no public transportation. As in 0, zip, nothing. No one was paying for a bus to take workers over to where they worked. Even if they wanted to they couldn't because there weren't any buses. There was an amtrak station in neighboring fort worth, but that's a loooooooong walk.

So in a nutshell, poor people just had to drive.


The problem is the people who are just on the edge of the bottom of the lower class and have managed to pull themselves out of these kinds of factory jobs into something a little better; they still have to drive to work and they represent a portion of the employee body the employer doesn't care about. I've alongside a lot of people like this and often getting a job that is geographically closer or moving is a financial impossibility. They are low-skilled workers that can only perform certain menial tasks, and job opportunities tend to be slim for this kind of person.

This is surprisingly true for the poor as well. I agree that it takes a dumb fuck to think you need 2 years experience to drive a forklift, but apparently, well, let's just say a lot of dumb fucks are in charge of hiring. Sure, a month, 2 months, or even 6 months experience for a simple task can be reasonable in order to help you perfect the task and thus make minimal mistakes, but a year? 2 years? 5 years? Well they really do ask for this kind of thing, I wish I could say I was making it up but I'm not.

It's funny too, because a lot of the poor end up unemployed for a long time because of this, and the dumb fuck hiring managers are wondering why they can't find anyone, they think that if they only hire people who have experience, that new workers will magically get it from jobs they aren't being hired for. And thus, I can assure you, that the poor have it just as bad.


If they turn to crime to help pay for their gas, the crime will happen at the pumps and for the most part the wealthy will be the victims of the crime.

Gas runs can be safe guarded against by the gas stations not being stupid and requiring people to pay up front for their gas, which they will when it becomes a huge issue(if they were, they'd do it in the first place).


The Escalade takes quite a long time to fill up and suggests that you have the money to afford it; this makes you a pretty satisfactory target for a mugger.

If people assume you are rich due to owning an escalade, it isn't because of the gas prices, it's because the escalade isn't exactly the cheapest vehicle on the market. And it's an extremely rare criminal who is actually intelligent enough to draw a line between high-gas prices and wealth. Even then, it would have to be something like $10 a gallon before people who can afford to fill up SUV's would be perceived as rich, not $3.50.


Please don't think I hold a disdain for the lower-class in general; I worked side-by-side with some of the poorest people I've ever met for about 6 years in a hardware warehouse. Most of them had more class and a better sense of morality than the moderately wealthy people I've been able to work with, and if I had my pick between sitting next to a random rich dude or one of them on a long train ride I'd tell the rich dude to go on. The wealthy have a responsibility to help these kinds of people, and the fact that there's a large portion of the lower class that has given up on honest work entirely seems to suggest this bargain is not being met.

Rich people could afford to be a little more charitable at times, but it is just as much the poor people's responcibility to help themselves as much as they can, and to not turn to doing the wrong thing(such as stealing from honest people who did them no harm).


I like your idea of getting people that want to make a change into positions of power, but I am such a cynic I'm not certain if it would work. Power and wealth have a tendency to corrupt people, and to climb very far up the corporate ladder one cannot rock the boat too much. Reforming the oil industry in this way would be a long, slow process, and I'm not sure our society or the environment can afford such a wait.

I'm a pessimist too, but think about it. Who honestly likes our gas price trend? And of them, who would continue paying if they had a choice? And of them, who would use their jobs to influence a change if they could?

The answers to those may not be 100&#37; of people, but I promise they are damned close. Especially when you consider that for the last one, they are at work anyway and it's not like that's soaking up their free time.

[biggiy05]

Efforts this past decade have shown that Americans will continue to do stupid things - eg buy SUVs, not carpool, ignore public transportation - unless goaded by a monetary incentive.

Just to point out something. SUV's like the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban or the Ford Explorer and Expedition are more or less trucks. They are built on a truck frame, get roughly the same mpg in the city and highway and they are just about the same size. Even foreign SUV's like Nissan and now Honda are building their SUV's on truck frames.

Carpooling isn't an option everywhere and while it may work in Florida or New York it might be impossible to make it work in Virgina or Kentucky. Just for example. Public transportation isn't an option everywhere either.

I'm not sure where everyone lives at but if you live in a big city or somewhere that has public transportation readily available then you aren't really looking at the big picture. I'm not trying to offend anyone here but small cars and public transportation aren't an option for some.

I live in a small town in Ohio. It's almost tripled in size in the past 10 years and more housing developers are trying to march in but it still more farms and back roads than anything. The closest place that has a well organized public transportation system is Columbus. COTA is the bus service and there are a few taxi services running around the airport and downtown area. Columbus is also almost an hour away from me.

So if you live in a well developed city that has the option of carpooling to work or taking a public transportation then go for it. It's not an option for everyone and even then it's not a viable one.


As I drive around, I tend to see a fairly large proportion of new SUV-type vehicles compared to the number of new compact cars I see, which leads me to believe that people are still purchasing SUVs at a high rate.


Ever seen a family of five or six, sometimes even seven all fit comfortably into a compact car? It's an suv or a mini van these days. Both have their pros and cons but some people feel safer in an SUV. There are hardly any cars in production that can hold a big family these days. The station wagon era is long dead.