This thread was inspired by the following article (no, it's not a propaganda piece).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119099903267842827.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

Basically, my quesiton is this: Why don't people support increasing fuel economy standards? It's a very basic step toward helping a number of problems, from pollution and public health, global warming, highway safety, national security, and energy independence.

It would be so easy to do this through taxation and/or regulation. To me, the best solution would be a substantial fuel tax increase (offset by tax decreases in another area) of about 2 dollars a gallon. Afterall, if people want to use their luxuries to cause problems for our society, shouldn't they have to pay to alleviate some of those problems?

I think that as a rule people do support increased CAFE standards. And people are not as dumb as ft and drama think they are. There is no free lunch and those increases come at a price, people just aren't clear on what that price is and that's why you don't anything more than notional support for the idea.

Ive noticed in the UK that increased fuel tax hasnt improved the fuel economy much,theres the danger of Government using this ploy to increase their revenue nothing more.

Wasn't all that long ago that virtually every vehicle made in the U.S. came with a V8 of 300 cubic inches or more. Like we all needed those, but gas was cheap.
Why the 'big 3' can't use more technology from their European lines is baffling.
In the short term, diesel is the way to go. The Germans have done pretty well making small diesel engines, now the Japanese are gearing up to introduce them here as well. Hybrids are really starting to catch on, but I've a notion they'll not deliver as hoped.

My car has an Isuzu1.7 Turbo Diesel Engine,and it can shift as good as a petrol.

My brother had an Isuzu pickup truck with a diesel, he put nearly 300,000 miles on it before the body just rusted away. Some farmer bought the remains & put the little diesel engine to work on some piece of farm equipment.

Easily the best diesel engine out there.

Mandatory increase to fleet efficiency was one of the legislative initiatives after the first gas crisis in the 70's (along with 55mph limits). It really did help. But American auto manufacturers has always hated these laws and have lobbied hard for loopholes to them - to allow them to make huge luxury SUVs. Ironically, our love affair with these vehicles is a major factor in driving up global demand for oil - and enriching the OPEC producers like Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, etc. "Evil" countries with tyrants and dictators. But Congress will never act to reform the efficiency laws because they are being paid so much NOT to act by the auto lobby. So, we're doomed.

Ive noticed in the UK that increased fuel tax hasnt improved the fuel economy muchI bet UK fuel economy is much better than US. What does a gallon of petrol cost over there?

I bet UK fuel economy is much better than US. What does a gallon of petrol cost over there?A gallon,it got that expensive they converted the pumps from Imperial to Metric.

A litre of petrol today was 99p, its due to rise to £1:02 next week.

Mandatory increase to fleet efficiency was one of the legislative initiatives after the first gas crisis in the 70's (along with 55mph limits). It really did help. But American auto manufacturers has always hated these laws and have lobbied hard for loopholes to them - to allow them to make huge luxury SUVs. Ironically, our love affair with these vehicles is a major factor in driving up global demand for oil - and enriching the OPEC producers like Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, etc. "Evil" countries with tyrants and dictators. But Congress will never act to reform the efficiency laws because they are being paid so much NOT to act by the auto lobby. So, we're doomed.
So agreed. We really need to do something before our dependence on oil becomes a disaster.

When the "soccer mom's" and the "keep up with the Jones'" group is convinced that economy is the way to go... then it will go that way. This is a consumer driven society...and today many people want big honkin' SUV's. They feel safer in them and can haul all the kids to school (and Starbucks afterwards for a quick java with their friends).

Same as with these McMansions mentioned in the article. Who really needs 5,000 square feet of home for 3 or 4 people? Want drives most Americans, not responsibility or need.

Blame big oil, blame the automakers, hell... blame the government, but it's the consumers that drive this boat.

Mandatory increase to fleet efficiency was one of the legislative initiatives after the first gas crisis in the 70's (along with 55mph limits). It really did help. But American auto manufacturers has always hated these laws and have lobbied hard for loopholes to them - to allow them to make huge luxury SUVs. Ironically, our love affair with these vehicles is a major factor in driving up global demand for oil - and enriching the OPEC producers like Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, etc. "Evil" countries with tyrants and dictators. But Congress will never act to reform the efficiency laws because they are being paid so much NOT to act by the auto lobby. So, we're doomed.

Actuallly they have mandated increases in CAFE standards just recently. Expect the price of your next car to rise accordingly.

When the "soccer mom's" and the "keep up with the Jones'" group is convinced that economy is the way to go... then it will go that way. This is a consumer driven society...and today many people want big honkin' SUV's. They feel safer in them and can haul all the kids to school (and Starbucks afterwards for a quick java with their friends).

Same as with these McMansions mentioned in the article. Who really needs 5,000 square feet of home for 3 or 4 people? Want drives most Americans, not responsibility or need.

Blame big oil, blame the automakers, hell... blame the government, but it's the consumers that drive this boat.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent post. It's a product of the market, period, and I'd hesitate to impose any top-heavy legislature that would tax our fuel at a higher rate (or encroach on big business in any way, for that matter) because it would absolutely MURDER GM, Ford, and our economy in general. 'All in good time' is the name of the game here. Their production managers see where it's going, and market forces will inevitably make them change their game plan.

'All in good time' is the name of the game here.

"All in good time" is not a satisfactory answer when it comes to pollution, safety, global warming, and national security, IMO.

In the meantime, your economic concerns could be counterbalanced with tax cuts in the right places.

In the meantime, your economic concerns could be counterbalanced with tax cuts in the right places.
Not that I'm disagreeing (far from it, actually), but like where, for example?

Not that I'm disagreeing (far from it, actually), but like where, for example?


Well, we can start with foreign aid, all of it. Then of course there are the nickle and dime grants given to any body who wants to study some obscure phenomenon. Then we can closely examine every penny given to States and Cities, to support/build/repair something that is solely a local item.
With very little thought major dollars can be made available, without neglecting anything nearly as important.

Well, we can start with foreign aid, all of it. Then of course there are the nickle and dime grants given to any body who wants to study some obscure phenomenon. Then we can closely examine every penny given to States and Cities, to support/build/repair something that is solely a local item.
With very little thought major dollars can be made available, without neglecting anything nearly as important.

Interesting that you don't mention repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich. :rolleyes:

According to the White House, in fiscal 2004 the three Bush tax cuts will cost the United States Treasury about $241 billion in revenues, which is about two per cent of the gross domestic product. (The Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan, puts the 2004 cost of the tax cuts at closer to three hundred billion dollars.)

The lost revenue has wreaked havoc with the budget. In 1999, the federal government had a surplus of $125.6 billion; this year, according to the latest official forecast, it will have a deficit of about $450 billion. The 2001 recession and the jump in spending on defense and homeland security since 9/11 are responsible for some of this reversal, but even the Bush Administration concedes that tax cuts caused about a third of it. --The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/09/06/040906fa_fact)

Not that I'm disagreeing (far from it, actually), but like where, for example?

Well, for instance, I'm sure GM and Ford pay hefty corporate taxes; you could make some favorable adjustments in that department.. Also, the American government has been known to use corporate welfare to bail out ailing corporations in the past, which would simply be reallocating gas tax money so that consumers feel the pinch of higher taxes while keeping major U.S. corporations from going bankrupt.

As for the economy in general, if you were taxing 2 dollars per gallon of gas, I imagine that would be a huge source of revenue for the government which could be used to create income tax cuts across the board.

Just for the record, I DO agree that your concern is a legitimate one, which is why I would support tax cuts to counterbalance a gas tax hike.

Interesting that you don't mention repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. I realize a tax increase is always tops on your agenda.
I didn't mention those cuts because they generated more revenue, for the government, than they cost. They enabled my company, alone, to hire five additional full time employees. Increase taxes, and those five people, will lose their jobs.

Well, for instance, I'm sure GM and Ford pay hefty corporate taxes; you could make some favorable adjustments in that department.. Also, the American government has been known to use corporate welfare to bail out ailing corporations in the past, which would simply be reallocating gas tax money so that consumers feel the pinch of higher taxes while keeping major U.S. corporations from going bankrupt.

As for the economy in general, if you were taxing 2 dollars per gallon of gas, I imagine that would be a huge source of revenue for the government which could be used to create income tax cuts across the board.

Just for the record, I DO agree that your concern is a legitimate one, which is why I would support tax cuts to counterbalance a gas tax hike.
That seems pretty reasonable. Thanks.

Roll your eyes all you want. I realize a tax increase is always tops on your agenda.
I didn't mention those cuts because they generated more revenue, for the government, than they cost. They enabled my company, alone, to hire five additional full time employees. Increase taxes, and those five people, will lose their jobs.
You're a business owner - you understand. Thank god.

Mod,when you say cancel foreign aid,does funds for food and education programmes come under that heading?

Personally, the world has spoken loudly enough, IMHO. They hate us. Therefore, fuck 'em; I wouldn't give 'em a penny. Not one red cent. For anything.

Mod,when you say cancel foreign aid,does funds for food and education programmes come under that heading?


Yes, it does Paul. We have been pouring money and food into some of these countries since WW2. All we have accomplished, it to make them dependent upon the handouts. Its time for them to sink, swim, or find a new sucker.

Well said.

or find a new sucker.
Maybe China will care as much as the "evil" US did.

Yes, it does Paul. We have been pouring money and food into some of these countries since WW2. All we have accomplished, it to make them dependent upon the handouts. Its time for them to sink, swim, or find a new sucker.Well all that means is that the funds have been spent unwisely.

Im thinking here of poor people in Latin America and Africa,not the countries and armed militias that the Pentagon or Langley support.

Well said.You must have sat on the same seat on the same bus this morning.

Well all that means is that the funds have been spent unwisely.

Im thinking here of poor people in Latin America and Africa,not the countries and armed militias that the Pentagon or Langley support.


Thats who I'm talking about, too, Paul. Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia. I don't care how much more money you pour into them, they will never support their population. A great deal of money has been misspent, providing more is not going to change a damn thing.
South American countries are a different matter. They would be able to support their people, if the corruption were eliminated. Providing additional aid, and food, won't solve that problem, either.
Do I have the solutions to those problems? No, but tossing them more aid hasn't worked.

Maybe China will care as much as the "evil" US did.

Don't hold your breath.

Well all that means is that the funds have been spent unwisely.
The whole point is, it's being spent unwisely NOW. We're enabling these people, and for what? Why are we doing it? So we can curry favor with 'em? No way, Paul – in the long run, they'll wind up hating us anyway (as the whole of Europe has already demonstrated. LOUDLY.). I mean, seriously - why waste our money!? The world can get a new sugar daddy, as far as I'm concerned. It's high time we start spending money on our "crumbling infrastructure", right?

You have no idea how pissed off most of us are.
Im thinking here of poor people in Latin America and Africa....
Well, that all seems noble and good, but all we're doing is enabling 'em. In a dog eat dog world, it's either sink or swim, and as far as I'm concerned, we should be DONE throwing out life rafts. We get NO THANKS from ANYONE.

In short, Buh-bye.

I didn't mention those cuts because they generated more revenue, for the government, than they cost.Voodoo economics again. Please substantiate how slashing revenues actually increases revenues.

Getting back to the point, the problem, for the GOP, is that any sort of solution which involves a tax hike is off the table. As the saying goes: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts looking like a nail." The only tool the GOP has is tax cuts (thus the 9 trillion in national debt). But creating a coherent energy policy is going to take some manipulation of the tax code. Some taxes have to go up so that others can go down.

Prae, you claim that Europe hates America,which is simply NOT TRUE.
What some Americans fail to understand,is that most Europeans dislike US Foreign Policy,not just this Administrations either.

In America,you support your President,whether you agree with him or not,because hes President,that tye of loyalty dosent exist in Europe.

Thats who I'm talking about, too, Paul. Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia. I don't care how much more money you pour into them, they will never support their population. A great deal of money has been misspent, providing more is not going to change a damn thing.Yes,I understand that,but thats why how the funds are spent needs reviewed and changed,not stopped.[/QUOTE]

South American countries are a different matter. They would be able to support their people, if the corruption were eliminated. Providing additional aid, and food, won't solve that problem, either.
Do I have the solutions to those problems? No, but tossing them more aid hasn't worked.Yes even the poorest S.American countries have a political structure in place,so easier to support.

What some Americans fail to understand,is that most Europeans dislike US Foreign Policy,not just this Administrations either.
Well, Paul, that may be true, but sometimes, comments like that (if you read between the lines, and actually LISTEN to what's being said) make it appear as if you're talking outta both sides of your mouth.

Our people are being treated like shit ALL OVER EUROPE (eg., they're denied tables at restaurants, are verbally assaulted, etc.), and why? Because of OPEC? Because of poor investments? WHY!? What have we done to you people?

Yes,I understand that,but thats why how the funds are spent needs reviewed and changed,not stopped.
Yes even the poorest S.American countries have a political structure in place,so easier to support.


Paul, nothing has changed in 60 years. Its time to stop the handouts. If you want to continue wasting your money, feel free, but I'm sick of wasting mine on ungrateful never-do-wells, and will continue to lobby Congress in order to stop it.

I refuse to speak about MY diesel again.

Ah tables at restaurants,this indeed is a major problem,I believe there was an EU Directive sent out to deny all gringos a table at the front of the show,this is due I think,because at the moment US Dollars are like monopoly money,not worth the paper they are printed on.
If the dollar increases in value,things will change,I promise.

Paul, nothing has changed in 60 years. Its time to stop the handouts. If you want to continue wasting your money, feel free, but I'm sick of wasting mine on ungrateful never-do-wells, and will continue to lobby Congress in order to stop it.Mod,what does it matter if these people are grateful or not,its fucking food,water shelter and then education your giving them,not idealology.

There are 2 charities I admire.
Trocaire and Medecins san Frontieres.
The first,an Irish Charity go to Africa and spend the money on projects,rather than hand it over to some military leader so he can buy a new lear jet.

The second,a French Charity,who send doctors and medical staff to war zones around the world,the forgotten wars and shit holes that never make the headlines.

If the dollar increases in value,things will change,I promise.
No it won't. It never has in the past.

Oh, and the directive doesn't surprise me in the least.

The second,a French Charity,who send doctors and medical staff to war zones around the world,the forgotten wars and shit holes that never make the headlines.
Well, I guess that's one way to get a Frenchman to travel to a war zone.

In all honesty, it's probably at the behest of major French Pharmaceutical companies to test new drugs on war-torn Ugandans.

But the Europeans would never do that.

Is this a French thing.

No it won't. It never has in the past.
Well maybe your just going to the wrong eating houses,you should come here,the service is shit for everyone.

Oh, and the directive doesn't surprise me in the least.JOKE.

Mod,what does it matter if these people are grateful or not,its fucking food,water shelter and then education your giving them,not idealology.
Maybe so, but if you can't muster up a simple thank you, then fuck you.

Didn't your parents teach you to be grateful when you're given something?

JOKE.
I realize that, Paul - I was being sarcastic myself. ;)

Is this a French thing.
Mostly, yes.

I realize that, Paul - I was being sarcastic myself. ;)Oh ok,sorry.

Mostly, yes.They say French women make great lovers,but then again,you wouldnt know.

Mod,what does it matter if these people are grateful or not,its fucking food,water shelter and then education your giving them,not idealology.

There are 2 charities I admire.
Trocaire and Medecins san Frontieres.
The first,an Irish Charity go to Africa and spend the money on projects,rather than hand it over to some military leader so he can buy a new lear jet.

The second,a French Charity,who send doctors and medical staff to war zones around the world,the forgotten wars and shit holes that never make the headlines.


Paul, you and I appear to be talking about two different things.

I'm talking about federal, taxpayer, funded aid, while you are talking about individual charitable contributions.

ICCs are controlled much better, and generally go directly to the people in need. State sponsored aid always goes from government to government. That is the aid that is most abused and needs to be stopped.

I have no desire to restrict or control any money given by individuals, as charitable contributions.

Paul, you and I appear to be talking about two different things.

I'm talking about federal, taxpayer, funded aid, while you are talking about individual charitable contributions.

ICCs are controlled much better, and generally go directly to the people in need. State sponsored aid always goes from government to government. That is the aid that is most abused and needs to be stopped.

I have no desire to restrict or control any money given by individuals, as charitable contributions.Glad to hear we were on two different floors mod,it just didnt seem in your character to say those things.

Yes Gov aid dosent work.agreed.

There are 2 charities I admire.
Trocaire and Medecins san Frontieres.
The first,an Irish Charity go to Africa and spend the money on projects,rather than hand it over to some military leader so he can buy a new lear jet.

The second,a French Charity,who send doctors and medical staff to war zones around the world,the forgotten wars and shit holes that never make the headlines.

All charities based on lack of foresight.

What's the point of helping population that can't help itself? So, you provide medicine, food, shelter, etc. Great, so they survive on your provisions and reproduce further. Now your dependant population has grown, so more charity is required. The cycle goes on until the charitable population runs into trouble of its own (e.g. inevitably the Nazis invade, economic depression, revolution, epidemic, etc), at which point a humanitarian disaster ensues among the dependent population. The dependent population kills itself and the land around it in order to scrape enough food together to survive. In the end, the dependent population is worse off than before the charity began.

So do you think us in the 'first world',should sit back and watch these people die,or do something positive about it.

Some countries DO benefit from foreign aid. For example, Costa Rica is a country that is under the protection of the U.S. They have no military. They also get quite a bit of money from us. However, it's a mutually beneficial situation. Costa Rica has been the most stable democracy in Latin America for almost 60 years. Because of this, the U.S. has a valuable trade partner (Costa Rica has many factories that produce electronic components and medical supplies, as well as its huge agricultural segment), and a partner in the war on drug trafficking. Costa Rican authorities have been a huge help in tracking down shipments of cocaine and heroin from Colombia and Panama that come through their land or waters on the way to North America.

By the way, Costa Rica has by far the highest standard of living, the highest average education level, and the highest literacy rate of any country in South America, Central America, or the Caribbean.

So do you think us in the 'first world',should sit back and watch these people die,or do something positive about it.
It's Darwinian law, nothing more, nothing less. I say let 'em die. Nature would.

Voodoo economics....
Ben Stein, is that you?

They say French women make great lovers,but then again,you wouldnt know.LOL, we never did hear again about the French woman he was going to marry.

Prae, you want to tell us about it?

Ben Stein, is that you?
Ben Stein rocks.

LOL, we never did hear again about the French woman he was going to marry.

Prae, you want to tell us about it?
I can't believe you remember that!

I partied my ass off with her, got her good and drunk (amongst other things - that chick was a fiend, BTW), I had a great conversation with her (we talked for about 12 hours straight), I made out with her in a million dollar condo overlooking the Chicago skyline @ 7 am (43rd floor), and we exchanged numbers. (I didn't get lucky enough to have sex, but then again, it's not like I could turn my friend's kitchen countertop into a bed. That's tacky by even my standards, but if it makes you feel any better, I DID think about it.)

I called her 2 weeks later, got her voicemail, left her a message, and the bitch never called me back. She did say that I was overly nationalistic and somewhat arrogant before we parted company. Maybe that had something to do with it. Oh, and about the message I left - it was, well, sweet by my standards, but I'll never call twice (it's a personal rule, and I'll never break it, no matter how hot the chick was).

Ether way, she was French, so Paul, I guess you're right. That said, do I get points for a sticky finger?

She said you were nationalistic and somewhat arrogant.

I cant believe that,who you.

As for the finger,zero points for a frenc fancy,you can go wash it now.

you can go wash it now.
LOLOL! :D

So do you think us in the 'first world',should sit back and watch these people die,or do something positive about it.

You can try to teach them how to be independent, but I think that's the only way to truly help. Typical charitable efforts (e.g. hand out food and medicine) just stave off and aggravate the inevitable.

I'll never call twice (it's a personal rule, and I'll never break it, no matter how hot the chick was).


Good rule. No reason to ever break that unless you have very little offer yourself, in which case you're going to have to live life as an ass-kisser to get by.

Exactly right.

I think handouts are more limited to emergency situations these days.
Self sufficient is maybe what you mean,yes.
Eradicate Hunger.
Were possable,educate people to feed themselves.Fresh drinking water.
Combat HIV/AIDS and malaria.
Education.

I think handouts are more limited to emergency situations these days.
Not in our country.

I think handouts are more limited to emergency situations these days.


I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, I can respect that sort of charity. Such charity makes sense in the case of temporary relief in the face of an unexpected disaster.

Well here the situation is that if unemployed you have to be,whats called,
'actively seeking work'.The welfare office give welfare recipiants a booklet that a perspective employer stamps when you go for an interview,even if your unsuccessful getting the job.You need 3 stamps per week,or your money is stopped.

Yes, it does Paul. We have been pouring money and food into some of these countries since WW2. All we have accomplished, it to make them dependent upon the handouts. Its time for them to sink, swim, or find a new sucker. Including Israel? Interesting....

Well here the situation is that if unemployed you have to be,whats called,
'actively seeking work'.
I've never been on welfare, but I assume it's somewhat similar here. Given that's it provided "conditionally", I still think it's milked. Construction workers are the worst when it comes to abusing the system here.

Including Israel? Interesting....
I'd say that's a valid question. Despite the fact that their neighbors are batshit loons bent on their ultimate destruction, I believe we've given Israel enough to defend themselves, so yes, we should cut our spending there as well.

I've never been on welfare, but I assume it's somewhat similar here. Given that's it provided "conditionally", I still think it's milked. Construction workers are the worst when it comes to abusing the system here.
My father has been in construction/landscaping/carpentry/masonry all his life, and he has never once been on welfare, even though he has intermittent drug problems that have caused him to lose everything he has more than once.

I'd say that's a valid question. Despite the fact that their neighbors are batshit loons bent on their ultimate destruction, I believe we've given Israel enough to defend themselves, so yes, we should cut our spending there as well.
I agree. They're not a third-world country or anywhere near it; they don't need any more help at the moment.

Despite the fact that [Isreal's] neighbors are batshit loons bent on their ultimate destruction.

I know I'm nitpicking, but I have a lot of respect for Jordan's current government. Egypt really has come around as well. As for Lebanon and Syria....well, I can't say I would debate the discriptive reference of "batshit loons."

What is it that Egypt has come around to ?

If I'm not mistaken, they were one of the first countries to sign a peace accord with them after they attacked in the 60's.

They're (Israel) not a third-world country or anywhere near it...
The reason: they played western ball, that's why.

They were the first,in 76 I think it was.OK the egyptian have had enough of the Israelites kicking their ass,granted,but Egypt is notorious for breaching human rights,and denying Christians religious freedom,I wouldnt worry about the religion stuff too much,but the hman rights.Mubarack most be in office a long time now,its like Ive said about other Arab countries,ya just cant westernise them,pure and simple.

its like Ive said about other Arab countries,ya just cant westernise them,pure and simple.
I disagree, but if you're in fact correct - then we should eradicate them, "pure and simple". Our formula works, theirs doesn't. Do the math.

You disagree,name me one westernised Muslim country,one that uses Democracy,Freedom of speech,that sort of thing,like us.

You name one North African country that builds a car. Does that mean they don't wanna drive?

Yeah,the roads here are gridlocked,apart from deLorean,name me a car made here?
You know as well as I do,if the region didnt have the natural resourses the west wants,it would be a giant Darfur,ringed off and gassed.

You know as well as I do,if the region didnt have the natural resourses the west wants,it would be a giant Darfur,ringed off and gassed.
Given their politics, I'd gladly welcome it.