Gas Prices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

What are you trying to get at? Are you trying to find contradictions in what I'm saying?

I think there is a big ass difference in driving an H2 which uses 4 times as much gas as average car and using maybe 10 gallons in a year to mow your yard.

I'm not against better fuel efficiency. But who is to say what is acceptable?

We have a military pressence in the PG which is in place to protect the supply of oil. If we didn't need that oil, we woudln't be there. Those operations (and im' not talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm talking a general US preassence in the region, although the first 2 are indirectly extensions the same thing) are paid for using federal money, which comes mostly from income taxes.

So that means, Joe blow who drives a fuel efficent vehicle, is having his tax dollars go to pay for military operations that he is not as responsible for as Joe Schmoe who drives an H2.

So, people who are wellfare are taking other peoples money who won't ever use it. This is a shared cost of society. If people invade Hawaii, I'm not sure I really care, but the costs to defend it are part of my resposibility. The US would still have to have a presence in the Middle East, no matter if we all would drive Insights.

All things being equal, if Joe Blow uses 1,000 gallons of gas in a year and Joe Schmoe uses 5,000 gallons a year, they will both pay the exact same amount torwards those operations. However, because Joe Blow only used a fifth as many gallons as Schmoe, why should he pay as much?

Huh? How can they pay the same amount if they are paying a tax based on the amount of gas they use? The one who uses more pays more in taxes. Joe Blow pays 1/5 the amount of Joe Schmoe, he used 1/5 the gas.


A higher gas tax would apply the burden appropriatly to those who use the most gas, allow reduction of income taxes, and spur development away from gasoline at a faster pace.

---

If you would look at the charts I posted again, you will see just how much we are already taxed on gas. The system is already in place to promote more fuel effiecent vehicles, there is just not a lot of choices availible to the consumer at this time.

One thing that you over look when you say current vehicles are less fuel efficient than before. Today's vehicles are much less poluting than previous generations. With more and more regulations and new types of fuels, vehicles today pollute much less than before.

Quote:

---

Source: DOE (1997) and Intellichoice (1997)

Fuel efficiency is usually not an option

Automobile purchasing is a multi-attribute process, and there are 3 choices that consumers almost always make at an early stage:

* vehicle class
* price range
* transmission type

In other words, few buyers explicitly choose between a Suzuki Swift and a Ford Taurus. Rather, they would already have chosen a vehicle class -- in this case "subcompact" or "midsize".

While there are significant differences in fuel efficiency among vehicle classes, there is very little variation within class.

The chart below shows that for midsize cars with automatic transmissions and a MSRP of less than $21,000, fuel efficiency varies over only a few miles per gallon, with 90% of the models within a 5 mpg range. To consumers, the fuel efficiency of these models will seem virtually identical, particularly as the window stickers warn that the EPA mileage estimates are only accurate within a few mpg.

---

Quote:

---

Fuel is a Small Share of Total Ownership Costs

Even when gas is more expensive, it only accounts of a small share -- typically about 10% -- of total ownership costs. For example, the 5-year ownership costs of the 1997 Ford Taurus LX 4-door sedan, a midsize "family" car, are estimated by Intellichoice to be:

Depreciation $12,225
Insurance $6,969
Financing $4,706
Maintenance $3,605
Fuel $3,482
State fees $927
Repairs $805
TOTAL $32,719

Selecting the most fuel efficient car does not necessarily minimize ownership costs. For example, while the 1997 Volkswagen Passat TDI was the most fuel efficient car in its class (midsize cars with automatic transmissions and MSRP < $21,000), its total ownership costs were rated by Intellichoice as "worse than average", as the fuel savings are dampened by lower than average resale value (which increases depreciation costs), high insurance costs, and high repair costs.

The chart below shows that in general, there is little if any relationship between fuel efficiency and total costs of ownership.

---

One of the main reasons overall fuel economy has decreased is the recent shift from cars to larger light trucks and SUVs. It's not that vehicles today are less fuel efficient than their ancestors, it's that a larger percentage of vehicles today have lower mpg ratings than before. I think this change will even out with rising gas prices, and more manufacturers putting emphasis on fuel economy as a selling point. Remember this has happened before and I'd bet it will happen again.

As long as they don't lower the Speed Limit to 55 and start producing Dodge K cars again...

"I can't drive 55!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Useruser666

"I can't drive 55!"

---

Heard that!

Quote:

---

I'm not against better fuel efficiency. But who is to say what is acceptable?

---

The people who pay for it when they start paying the real cost of gasoline. The real cost would include the cost of securing the supplies defense.

Quote:

---

So, people who are wellfare are taking other peoples money who won't ever use it. This is a shared cost of society. If people invade Hawaii, I'm not sure I really care, but the costs to defend it are part of my resposibility. The US would still have to have a presence in the Middle East, no matter if we all would drive Insights.

---

Can you give me one good reason why we are in the middle east to begin with other than oil? Oh, I'd looooooooooooooooooooooooooove to hear the justification for this one.

No, if there was no oil there, there would be no pressence. You can argue this if you want, but I don't know of one credible source who would agree with you. The Persian Gulf is not Hawaii and the people there are not American citizens and are not our responsibility to defend, so that is also a bad comparison.

However, I guess the other comparison isn't so much of a reach. The American subsidizing of oil's defense is a form of welfare, only it's a form of welfare that doesn't provide an essential service for life. It provides it for people and companies who are more than capable of paying for it on their own. Explain to me why I should subsidize oil for a higher user?

If you can proove a society wide benefit from being on an oil based economy, I'd love to hear it. But seeing as it's the root of the wars we're now involved in and is not environmentaly friendly, I don't think you can.

[QUOTE]If you would look at the charts I posted again, you will see just how much we are already taxed on gas.
[mQUOTE]

Not high enough. It's only high enough when the money that is brought in pays for the service, which it's not doing. The money brought in by gas taxes are not enough to pay for the military presence in the gulf.

Quote:

---

The system is already in place to promote more fuel effiecent vehicles, there is just not a lot of choices availible to the consumer at this time.

---

It's not about choices. It's about the price of gas not yet being high enough to warrant an overall savings for most people with a fuel efficent vehicle.

Quote:

---

One thing that you over look when you say current vehicles are less fuel efficient than before. Today's vehicles are much less poluting than previous generations. With more and more regulations and new types of fuels, vehicles today pollute much less than before.

---

The reason the American fleet is now less fuel efficent is primarly because of the emergence of the SUV. It is not because of the type of fuel that is used. You said this yourself.

So by your own admission, the SUV has made us even more oil dependent, and forced us to protect the PG as well as risk potential harm to environmentaly fragile areas (ANWAR). Good luck on proving that societal benefit.

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]The people who pay for it when they start paying the real cost of gasoline. The real cost would include the cost of securing the supplies defense.




Can you give me one good reason why we are in the middle east to begin with other than oil? Oh, I'd looooooooooooooooooooooooooove to hear the justification for this one.

No, if there was no oil there, there would be no pressence. You can argue this if you want, but I don't know of one credible source who would agree with you. The Persian Gulf is not Hawaii and the people there are not American citizens and are not our responsibility to defend, so that is also a bad comparison.

However, I guess the other comparison isn't so much of a reach. The American subsidizing of oil's defense is a form of welfare, only it's a form of welfare that doesn't provide an essential service for life. It provides it for people and companies who are more than capable of paying for it on their own. Explain to me why I should subsidize oil for a higher user?

If you can proove a society wide benefit from being on an oil based economy, I'd love to hear it. But seeing as it's the root of the wars we're now involved in and is not environmentaly friendly, I don't think you can.

[QUOTE]If you would look at the charts I posted again, you will see just how much we are already taxed on gas.

Quote:

---

Not high enough. It's only high enough when the money that is brought in pays for the service, which it's not doing. The money brought in by gas taxes are not enough to pay for the military presence in the gulf.



It's not about choices. It's about the price of gas not yet being high enough to warrant an overall savings for most people with a fuel efficent vehicle.



The reason the American fleet is now less fuel efficent is primarly because of the emergence of the SUV. It is not because of the type of fuel that is used. You said this yourself.

So by your own admission, the SUV has made us even more oil dependent, and forced us to protect the PG as well as risk potential harm to environmentaly fragile areas (ANWAR). Good luck on proving that societal benefit.

---

Manny, I never said that our presence in the Middle East is not because of oil. But even if we cut the amount of gas that we use by HALF, we will still need to import oil from that area of the world. We will still have to maintain a presence there. So that is really a mute point. Even if every vehicle in the US got 60 mpg, we still would be importing oil.

Sure it's more enviromentally friendly to use less oil. I would love to use less gas. But there is simply not the alternative out there available to me. If there were an option, I'd be certainly open to it. But there isn't.

I did say that the SUV is a major factor in our increase in gas consumption. I also said that history will repeat it self with the coming of more efficient vehicles as demand for them grows. Manufacturers are already changing to meet these strategies as we speak. I also believe that this is a very similar situation as what happened in the '70s with the emergence of forgien cars that had better fuel economy. Things are coming around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Useruser666

Manny, I never said that our presence in the Middle East is not because of oil. But even if we cut the amount of gas that we use by HALF, we will still need to import oil from that area of the world. We will still have to maintain a presence there. So that is really a mute point. Even if every vehicle in the US got 60 mpg, we still would be importing oil.

---

Lets go on the assumption that you're right. For the record, I don't believe your are, and I'm currently looking for the stats to find out what the actual amount of imported oil from the middle east is in order to show you why you are wrong.

But lets say you are right.

Then, the people who use more gas, still deserve to pay more for the that presence there. We're not talking about food stamps. We're talking about people paying for a commidity that is being subsidized by every American regardless of their level of use.

Quote:

---

Sure it's more enviromentally friendly to use less oil. I would love to use less gas. But there is simply not the alternative out there available to me. If there were an option, I'd be certainly open to it. But there isn't.

---

Then by all means, use gas. Most people will have to. But as much bitching as people do about the prices today, the amount of driving in this country is going up. It's far from a hardship to the average American at these prices, and needs to go higher in order for it to become such.

Quote:

---

I did say that the SUV is a major factor in our increase in gas consumption. I also said that history will repeat it self with the coming of more efficient vehicles as demand for them grows. Manufacturers are already changing to meet these strategies as we speak. I also believe that this is a very similar situation as what happened in the '70s with the emergence of forgien cars that had better fuel economy. Things are coming around.

---

Yes, well, it's not happening nearly fast enough. And in the meantime, those of us who don't consume as much oil as people in an H2 are still taxed unevenly. Also, the dependence of on foreign oil simply keeps us in a very bad situation national security wise.

You can debate all of this, but the fact is that it's pretty acknowledged. There are plenty of congressmen and people in the government on both sides of the aisle who love to talk about lowering dependency on foreign oil, but they never act.

The American people don't want a gas tax. And their "leaders" aren't going to stick their elected neck out and call for one, even if it would benefit the country much more in the long run, because it's a political third rail.

I'll post some figures countering what you said above after the game. I'm looking right now but I don't think I'll have them all ready by then.

manny, we were in bosnia for 10 years.. and we are still in kosovo.. why are we there? they don't have shit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clandestino

manny, we were in bosnia for 10 years.. and we are still in kosovo.. why are we there? they don't have shit...

---

Regional security of NATO allies. Continent wide wars have started in the Balkans, it's not known as a powder keg without good reason. Com'on, YOU of all people should know this.

We generaly have strong ties to Europe but....

Also, it's a lot easier to sell involvement in saving white people to the American people when compared to saving poor brown folks. See: Rwanda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Regional security of NATO allies. Continent wide wars have started in the Balkans, it's not known as a powder keg without good reason. Com'on, YOU of all people should know this.

We generaly have strong ties to Europe but....

Also, it's a lot easier to sell involvement in saving white people to the American people when compared to saving poor brown folks. See: Rwanda.

---

so, it was about saving white people? the people we were saving were muslims...

http://img119.echo.cx/img119/513/whoneedsoil6bf.jpg :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://img88.echo.cx/img88/1387/who7gq.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clandestino

so, it was about saving white people? the people we were saving were muslims...

---

You really can't read can you?

Fuck, it's like talking to a brick wall sometimes. Here, I'll copy it for you.

Quote:

---

Regional security of NATO allies. Continent wide wars have started in the Balkans, it's not known as a powder keg without good reason. Com'on, YOU of all people should know this.

---

Riding the bus is exactly what Rumsfeld wants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You really can't read can you?

Fuck, it's like talking to a brick wall sometimes. Here, I'll copy it for you.

---

waaaay back in the day... now, they have no fucking effect on the global scene... we did it to stop the genocide bc europe wouldn't police their own backyard... it took us to take the lead...

I disagree completely and I see no indication that the United States steps up to stop Genocide anymore than any other country unless there are other security implications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I disagree completely and I see no indication that the United States steps up to stop Genocide anymore than any other country unless there are other security implications.

---

we stopped it in kosovo... protected all the poor muslims from slobo.. they have nothing and there was no threat of a world war had we not stopped them.. no incentive other than goodwill... same for bosnia

Dude, if you think there were no incentives other goodwill, I suggest do the following:

Read up on the history of the place; especialy the historical ties the people in taht region have to other places in Europe ie Serbians and Russians.

Speak with some of the Slovenians about the local politics of what was Yugoslavia.

America doesn't do shit unless it has something to gain. Shit, I bet even Yoni and AHF will agree on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clandestino

we stopped it in kosovo... protected all the poor muslims from slobo.. they have nothing and there was no threat of a world war had we not stopped them.. no incentive other than goodwill... same for bosnia

---

Sorry not true, you did it because it was on the NATO door-step and the organization had to show it is worth something. And it didn't do a very good job either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Dude, if you think there were no incentives other goodwill, I suggest do the following:

Read up on the history of the place; especialy the historical ties the people in taht region have to other places in Europe ie Serbians and Russians.

Speak with some of the Slovenians about the local politics of what was Yugoslavia.

America doesn't do shit unless it has something to gain. Shit, I bet even Yoni and AHF will agree on that one.

---

i have spoken to bosnian serbs, bosnian muslims, bosnian croats, croats, and albanians.. i used to work in that region...

what did we have to gain in that region.. i'm telling you...there isn't shit there except hot women...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Big Chicken

Sorry not true, you did it because it was on the NATO door-step and the organization had to show it is worth something. And it didn't do a very good job either.

---

basically the us and britain did... finally the other nato partners stepped in... i remember the un went it and just watched people die.. un sucks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clandestino

... i remember the un went it and just watched people die.. un sucks...

---

Are we talking about Bosnia ro Kosovo?

And UN does not suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Big Chicken

Sorry not true, you did it because it was on the NATO door-step and the organization had to show it is worth something. And it didn't do a very good job either.

---

Exactly

I don't know what else to discuss in the thread since it has been HIJACKED!

Using less gas/oil is good.

Gas prices are primarily effected by oil prices.

Manny wants either higher taxes on gas or just higher taxes on vehicles that use more.(?)

I just want the option of getting better milage for my truck at an even semi-resonable cost.

I'd actualy rather have a higher tax on gas as opposed to taxing certain vehicles more.

But just an FYI, SUV's actually do get special treatment when it comes to lower standards for fuel economy. I think that's bullshit, and would like to see that changed.

Gas is going to get progressivly more expensive over the longrun, and hopefully that will spur development torwards other fuels such as hyrdogen.