Debunking fuel conservation myths...

[STC]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

If the US Government was serious about conservation and forced Americans to pay $8 a gallon, you would see some conservation with those who get it, but unfortunately most others would gripe and then happily dish out money and further place themselves in debt, never changing their selfish narcissistic habits. Oh, and meanwhile the US Government would probably create a program to entitle gas credits to middle a lower income classes to further place people to suck on the hind tit of government (financial dependence/modern serfdom) and keep them spending just as much for gas when gas was under $4! LOL! Hypocricy at its best...

And where would the tax money go if this was the case? To strengthen the economy? create industry? infrastructure? Nope to the corporate pluto/crimeocacy of wealth and privelage...

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by STC

If the US Government was serious about conservation and forced Americans to pay $8 a gallon, you would see some conservation with those who get it, but unfortunately most others would gripe and then happily dish out money and further place themselves in debt, never changing their selfish narcissistic habits. Oh, and meanwhile the US Government would probably create a program to entitle gas credits to middle a lower income classes to further place people to suck on the hind tit of government (financial dependence/modern serfdom) and keep them spending just as much for gas when gas was under $4! LOL! Hypocricy at its best...

And where would the tax money go if this was the case? To strengthen the economy? create industry? infrastructure? Nope to the corporate pluto/crimeocacy of wealth and privelage...

You sound like you are against freedom of choice. There is not reason to conserve. There is enough oil and gas for many decades to come. If someone wants to drive a big truck, power to them. It isn't governments place to raise the price of something just to impose some inane ideology that a bunch of ivy league nerds want.

[STC]

Originally Posted by daf62757

You sound like you are against freedom of choice. There is not reason to conserve. There is enough oil and gas for many decades to come. If someone wants to drive a big truck, power to them. It isn't governments place to raise the price of something just to impose some inane ideology that a bunch of ivy league nerds want.

Actually, I'm all about 'Freedom of Choice', including limited economic government dealings and of course limited personal intrusion. I'm a Libertarian... I'm not the commercialized libertarian in what we are seeing in establishment entertainment media politics of so called libertarians. I was just saying "if" government is to... then this is what would happen. That is all that I was saying.

Government is broken and gridlocked. There is actually a relationship between Capital (Private) and Government (Public) that actually serves the special interest groups, not the people. Government for the corporations and by the corporations... a Corporatocracy. And the political dichotomy benefits keeping the left and right strong... the illusion. Both Left and Right, albeit a small difference are actually the same... ... The false political dichotomy with corruption!

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by STC

Actually, I'm all about 'Freedom of Choice', including limited economic government dealings and of course limited personal intrusion. I'm a Libertarian... I'm not the commercialized libertarian in what we are seeing in establishment entertainment media politics of so called libertarians. I was just saying "if" government is to... then this is what would happen. That is all that I was saying.

Government is broken and gridlocked. There is actually a relationship between Capital (Private) and Government (Public) that actually serves the special interest groups, not the people. Government for the corporations and by the corporations... a Corporatocracy. And the political dichotomy benefits keeping the left and right strong... the illusion. Both Left and Right, albeit a small difference are actually the same... ... The false political dichotomy with corruption!

Good post....and excellent Yaris color!

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by daf62757

It isn't governments place to raise the price of something just to impose some inane ideology that a bunch of ivy league nerds want.

Cognitive dissonance, try it sometime. How can thoughts derived by intellectuals be inane?

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

Cognitive dissonance, try it sometime. How can thoughts derived by intellectuals be inane?

Don't confuse intelligence with wisdom! That is why our country is in such a mess. Because we have so many intelligent idiots in charge!

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

If it weren't for government intervention, we would be paying about a dollar or so less for gas. That is my theory. The cost is artificially inflated and the government is encouraging it because they are owned by the special interests. That is my theory. Just to make sure you aren't misinterpreting my theory and attempting to blow my theory out of context!

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Makes me laugh... The US pays less for fuel than just about any country on the planet! If the US was serious about conservation, they would charge the same for fuel as they do in the UK, or even Canada. (Which kind of blows Big Dave's theory about cheaper fuel; sorry Dave) Pay $8 a gallon, then watch conservation in action!

In general if the US had the public policy of the UK, Canada and the rest of the developed world we'd be better off.

[mryaris]

The reason gas is higher in Canada & Britain has more to do with taxes than anyting else. Thank your socialist government for that one!

Oil would have to be over $200/barrel for it to hit $8/gallon. While I understand your thinking, if the US taxed gas to the extent that other countries do then our economy would fall apart and one heck of a world wide recession would happen.....one vastly worse than what we're experiencing right now. Nobody wants that, so while raising gas prices would certainly reduce consumption it would have such a bad effect on the economy that the total cost to society would be too high. In effect, it is cheaper and better in the long run not to conserve oil/gas.

[fmicle]

I agree with PhotoDu.de on the last two items.

We need a certain degree of government control and intervention, it's not as easy as "if someone wants to do something, the government should let them do it". I, for one, would like to pee on the street, why is the government forbidding me to do that? I'm hoping you'll get the idea.

Government can influence, or should I say, steer or guide certain public habits, through sensible policy, such as encourage good healthy habits and discourage destructive behavior, even though it is legal and allowed.

Look at how Sweden, for instance, has brought alcoholism under control, by imposing high taxes on alcohol. You can still have a beer, but they brought one big problem under control and the entire society benefited from the results: increased productivity, lower mortality, etc.

[zachryboles]

Originally Posted by fmicle

You can still have a beer, but they brought one big problem under control and the entire society benefited from the results: increased productivity, lower mortality, etc.

: laugh:
oh i rofl at the amount of fail that libs have to think that the government should dictate my habits outside of not killing people or showing my dick in the street.................. if i want to poison myself with booze, marijuana, cigs and the like then so be it..... if i want to use a car that is under 15 mpg then so be it...... its not a moral issue to use "fossil fuels" good to know that controlling people lowered mortality but seriously i doubt random drunkenness was the main cause of death in that country..... multiple sets of numbers from scientists or it didn't fucking happen.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by zachryboles

: laugh:
oh i rofl at the amount of fail that libs have to think that the government should dictate my habits outside of not killing people or showing my dick in the street.................. if i want to poison myself with booze, marijuana, cigs and the like then so be it..... if i want to use a car that is under 15 mpg then so be it...... its not a moral issue to use "fossil fuels" good to know that controlling people lowered mortality but seriously i doubt random drunkenness was the main cause of death in that country..... multiple sets of numbers from scientists or it didn't fucking happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/833483.stm
http://people.su.se/~totto/downloadable_publications/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol...ages_in_Sweden

Try proper punctuation and grammar next time. It will make you look like somebody with an intelligent thought and not like a high school girl sending a text message.

Also, you have full right to do those things, you just need to pay for the cost of the negative side effects of those things. Seems only fair.

[daf62757]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/833483.stm
http://people.su.se/~totto/downloadable_publications/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol...ages_in_Sweden

Try proper punctuation and grammar next time. It will make you look like somebody with an intelligent thought and not like a high school girl sending a text message.

Also, you have full right to do those things, you just need to pay for the cost of the negative side effects of those things. Seems only fair.

Should liberals have to pay for all the damage they are doing to our individual rights? Seems to me that is where the more serious damage is occurring.

[Astroman]

Originally Posted by daf62757

Should liberals have to pay for all the damage they are doing to our individual rights? Seems to me that is where the more serious damage is occurring.

Bush was the one who suspended habeas corpus, remember? Try watching something other than fox news, it may surprise you.

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by daf62757

Should liberals have to pay for all the damage they are doing to our individual rights? Seems to me that is where the more serious damage is occurring.

I am not a big fan of liberals, but if you do just a little bit of homework, just a bit, not too much, so your brain doesn't overheat or something, you'll see that most of our rights that we enjoy today were fought for by liberals...

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by zachryboles

: laugh:
oh i rofl at the amount of fail that libs have to think that the government should dictate my habits outside of not killing people or showing my dick in the street.................. if i want to poison myself with booze, marijuana, cigs and the like then so be it..... if i want to use a car that is under 15 mpg then so be it...... its not a moral issue to use "fossil fuels" good to know that controlling people lowered mortality but seriously i doubt random drunkenness was the main cause of death in that country..... multiple sets of numbers from scientists or it didn't fucking happen.

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and not just scan the keywords. I never said anything about government "dictating" your habits. I said that government can and should encourage proper behavior. It's common sense. Something you should try exercising as well sometimes.

If you want to drown in booze and sniff marijuana, go ahead and be my guest, but when you get cancer, or otherwise end up in the hospital, don't ask me to pay for it. Usually, those who do push these bad habits to the extreme, more often than not, do not have insurance and us taxpayers end up footing the bill. How messed up is that?

It does become a moral issue when people die so that you can keep driving your 15 mpg truck. And I'm not saying you should not be allowed to do it. All I'm saying is that you should be paying a little more than those who drive 30 mpg cars. Just like flying 1st class, you know? Common sense.

Oh, and just FYI, plenty of guys can pee discreetly without showing their dick, so obviously you still have a lot to learn...

[mryaris]

Originally Posted by fmicle

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and not just scan the keywords. I never said anything about government "dictating" your habits. I said that government can and should encourage proper behavior. It's common sense. Something you should try exercising as well sometimes.

I believe he was paraphrasing. You advocate government intervention into the private lives of its citizens to "encourage good healthy habits and discourage destructive behavior, even though it is legal and allowed", but then say that you never said anything about having the government dictate your habits. What's the difference between dictating and "encouraging" through policy?

If you want to drown in booze and sniff marijuana, go ahead and be my guest, but when you get cancer, or otherwise end up in the hospital, don't ask me to pay for it. Usually, those who do push these bad habits to the extreme, more often than not, do not have insurance and us taxpayers end up footing the bill. How messed up is that?

I'm guessing you voted Democrat and are all for the "public option" in regards to universal health coverage.....if I'm wrong about that then I apologize. That said, what's the difference if you, as a taxpayer, pay for someone's cancer treatment because he has no health insurance or because you are forced to through public policy? Meaning, if I am forced to pay for health coverage and I never use it then I am effectively paying for someone else's treatments. I have been to the doctor twice in the past 20 years and rarely get sick (maybe get a cold once every year or two) so I do not have nor need health insurance and do not want it forced upon me.

It does become a moral issue when people die so that you can keep driving your 15 mpg truck. And I'm not saying you should not be allowed to do it. All I'm saying is that you should be paying a little more than those who drive 30 mpg cars. Just like flying 1st class, you know? Common sense.

How does driving a 15 MPG vehicle kill anyone moreso than someone in a 30 MPG car? Are you saying that because it gets less miles per gallon that the truck pollutes more and therefore that extra pollution somehow will kill someone faster than if we all drove 30 MPG cars? That's a stretch. What if the guy in the 15 MPG truck drives 30 miles a day and the 30 MPG guy drives 90 miles per day? Who pollutes more?

Also, people who drive 15 MPG trucks *do* pay more than the guy driving a 30 MPG car......they pay for it at the pump and if they are OK with spending twice as much to go half as far then that's their prerogative.

You also mention how great Sweden is as well as the UK & Canada . Did you know that Sweden is the largest welfare state? Income tax rates top out at nearly 60% to pay for all the social programs there. That's for people making anything more than $75,000 US.....can you imagine paying 59.17% tax on $75000? Your take home pay would be $30,600. I take home more than that and I make just under $50K a year!

That's the max. example though.....here's the breakdown (numbers are approximate and include all municipal & national taxes):

$0-$52,000 (US) has a minimum tax rate of 28.89% and a max of 34.17%

$52,000-$74,000 has a minimum tax rate of 48.89% and a max of 54.17%

$74,000 and up has a minimum tax rate of 53.89% and a maximum of 59.17%


By comparison, right now in the US the top tier earners (those making more than $373,650 pay 35% federal tax (plus whatever your state income tax rate is)....the effective rate for both combined are generally less than 45%. This is for high income earners and depends on where you live and what you make.

Here are the websites I got my info from:

http://www.taxrates.cc/html/sweden-tax-rates.html
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://www.xe.com/ucc/


Probably more info than anyone wanted....oh well. The point is, countries like Sweden aren't some sort of ideal that we should be striving towards. If it works for them great. Have at it, but that is not what this country is all about. I don't want or need anyone telling me how to live my life. I can take care of myself thank-you very much. If anyone feels otherwise it isn't all that hard to renounce your citizenship and move to Skandinavia. I hope you like lutefisk! Yum!

That was probably the longest post I've ever made on any forum I belong to.....sorry. I just fail to grasp how anyone feels it is their duty to tell someone else what they should or should not do with their life. The beauty of living in the United States is that you have freedom of choice. If you choose to drive a 15MPG gas guzzler you can. I choose to drive a Yaris and a 50-year old British car.....it's my choice and if I later choose to drive something else I can and will.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by mryaris

What's the difference between dictating and "encouraging" through policy?

Dictating would be to make it illegal to do.

Originally Posted by mryaris

That said, what's the difference if you, as a taxpayer, pay for someone's cancer treatment because he has no health insurance or because you are forced to through public policy? Meaning, if I am forced to pay for health coverage and I never use it then I am effectively paying for someone else's treatments. I have been to the doctor twice in the past 20 years and rarely get sick (maybe get a cold once every year or two) so I do not have nor need health insurance and do not want it forced upon me.

Because thought a public option you pay for the cheaper preventative health care instead of the more expensive emergency care.
Also, you are going to need healthcare at some point. You will be old someday.

Originally Posted by mryaris

.they pay for it at the pump and if they are OK with spending twice as much to go half as far then that's their prerogative.

Right, which is why you tax the gas and not the car.

Originally Posted by mryaris

Did you know that Sweden is the largest welfare state? Income tax rates top out at nearly 60% to pay for all the social programs there.

Yes, and because of their social programs they have a higher standard of living than in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Yes they don't bring home more money, but since society takes care of so much they spend less on curtain things and effectively have more money for other things.

Originally Posted by mryaris

the point is, countries like Sweden aren't some sort of ideal that we should be striving towards. If it works for them great. Have at it, but that is not what this country is all about. I don't want or need anyone telling me how to live my life. I can take care of myself thank-you very much.

Countries like Sweden are an ideal because their government works great for them.
This country isn't about well ran government?
The Swedes aren't told how to live their lives.
Yes you do take care of yourself, except when you are on a road, or use water, or your house is burning down, or need the police, or the countless other things you need to rely on the government for.
Social services and appropriate tax structures enhance civil liberties, they do not limit them.

Originally Posted by mryaris

If anyone feels otherwise it isn't all that hard to renounce your citizenship and move to Skandinavia.

Yes it is. I don't know any nordic language nor any company that would sponsor my citizenship. That, and I'd prefer Canada.
It would just be a lot easier to change the laws here.