Why should we tow the boat we also can carry it with a car
Regards,
Hans
First, sorry to anyone reading this thread looking for hints on what to pull their cat with <img src=
alt=
/> But the different view points are quite interesting to me and I’d be happy to move this to a new thread.
Paul
Point well taken and understood. To make a point, I was being extreme by mentioning the “R” word. Economies don’t just gravitate towards a recession and once in one, barring extreme circumstances (war, etc), the general economy will naturally come out of it and stabilize (even it the “new” economy is based on trade).
Europeans are generally being taxed at what we consider obscene and downright criminal rates. Unlike the generally socialist nature of Europe, we like having direct control over where our money is spent. Over there, apparently you think that government knows best how to spend your earned income. Over here, government is the LAST place I'd want to put the trust of my money. Adding a tax to something as critical as fuel prices to further an agenda that I think is bogus to begin with isn't something I can exactly stand behind.
Agreed. I don’t want the government to force me to run my company efficiently, I want the apartment owner across the street to force me to be efficient… or in my case, because I am a numbers guy and keep a close handle on my buildings, I am generally able to undercut the apartments around me while offering better services. I stay 90-100% full, when others are complaining about 50-60% occupancy rate. Why should the government dictate how I get materials from one building to another. Should they also force me to use a specific plumber or appliance repairman too?
My main point is that if only market forces are allowed to affect gas prices then given the limited production/refining the cost will change drastically- which would be worse than if it were brought up slowly.
Later,
lets go sailing...
surcharge
for the extra money companies have to spend to get crap from a-b.
But you're not just adding the fuel surcharge to the people who can afford to pay for a vehicle that gets 12 mpg. Even the person who rides his bicycle to work is going to be forced to pay more for his plumber when they need work done.
blockp: will you be my running mate?
Paul R. Nelson can be our campaign real estate agent <img src=
alt=
/>
Later,
lets go sailing...
Oh, here we go, picking on the underprivileged again <img src=
alt=
/> Just because it's all nice and warm down in florida, doesn't mean it's that way in Wisconsin <img src=
alt=
/>
I'd love to go sailing, but I just covered and stored my boat until it thaws out again. So, when do you want company <img src=
alt=
/>
Paul R. Nelson can be our campaign real estate agent <img src=
alt=
/>
Oh, I could never... you know, I really don't like to become involved in any sort of politically charged conversations and such <img src=
alt=
/>
Well, I'm admittedly very extreme on the matters of governmental involvement.
We've actually got more in common than you'd think. I'm generally in favour of reducing the size of our civil service because I believe that such
public
institutions are a fabulously inefficient way of doing things.
But the fact is that the government is going to tax you, and if you believe that they won't be devicive in how and where they tax you, you're kidding yourself. Right now in Europe, taxing petrol is looking like more of a vote winner than the traditional game of taxing the rich.
Increasing tax on gas doesn't necessarily mean an increase in the overall tax burden. If your politicians are anything like ours it probably will do, but that's a separate issue... <img src=
alt=
/>
In general, I agree with you, and I'd like to see less government involvement. Free capitalism solves many problems well, but not all: and unless you'd advocate zero taxation, I think you'd agree with me.
catch-up
, or have we really got it all wrong? Time will tell, I guess.
You say this as if you believe that socialist style taxation is an evolution of government, whereas I see it as a deficiency.
Not at all. A cultural shift on environmental issues doesn't have to imply a change to government involvement. It could just as well happen through capitalism if consumers were to start demanding
greener
products. Of course, if that happened your government would try to cash in with its own
green
products (i.e. green taxes). Contributions to this thread suggest that this shift isn't going to happen any time soon.
And European voters are increasingly saying that they don't trust capitalism to sort it out fast enough.
obscene consumption
well I'm offended at the
obscene elitist attitude
that is drooled down upon us
ignorant
Americans on an almost daily basis.
I'm not sure how to respond to that constructively. Have I said or even implied that Americans are ignorant?
Paul
Is that picture from the Netherlands, Hans? Norwegian police would go bonkers if they encountered something like that on the road <img src=
alt=
/>
Tad, I understood that the last line of the post that made this thread ignite was an attempt at humour. But I did not think it was especially funny. Growing up with the Soviet Union in your backyard during the cold war, serving three years in a first line armoured unit and later working together with people from eastern Germany and other USSR countries tend to give you a bit of perspective on communism. First post and later argumentation comes across as a blind eyed justification for keeping your lifestyle. Knowing that we both are going to see large changes in our environment due to global heating and increasing amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere is not much fun. What you say sounds very much like the typical hardcore right-wing PR I see in american media daily.
We europeans dont want to force you to change your lifestyle, but the free market and clima changes will. We are just now beginning to see the effects of market economy and consumer demand in China. India is coming online as well, and other contries are following suit. The oil market is growing every day, and we have perhaps already seen peak oil (I dont know about peak oil, I think those theories are too radical). Either we come up with some new ways to fuel our cars, or transportation will become very expensive in a while. Methanole is one way around it, as is bio-oil. Here in scandinavia we have lots of woods, so they are researching ways to quickly produce methanole and ethanole from wood. This might be a good solution for a densely populated area with economic cars like scandinavia, but you in the U.S have a real problem coming with your car pool and mentality. Efficiency is good, both in cars and boats.
It will be a sorry day when we can't get our oil based mylar sails anymore and must go back to flax or cotton. (this was for you Robi <img src=
alt=
/> )
That last line, to me, read like
American's need to catch up to Europeans
which is what I referenced as the elitist attitude.
Nope - there was another option. Either we have a serious environmental crisis looming, in which case I think it is the case that America is behind Europe in dealing with it (just take the average of engine sizes mentioned in this thread). Or Europeans are over-reacting.
I can't believe how much of a tree-hugger I sound like...
Paul
The US gas tax is essentially a
user fee
for the highway system. Revenues from the federal tax go into the
highway trust fund
and every five years (or whenever congress gets off its lazy butt) congress passes a
highway bill
(now known by cool acronyms like ISETEA, TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU) which allocates those funds to State DOTs and pork-barrel projects (like the famous
bridge to nowhere
in Alaska).
The point being that the US gas tax was not intended for environmental purposes or to change behavior. It's a way to fund transportation projects.
Maybe the european taxes had a different purpose, or european voters have accepted a gradual change in scope more willingly than US voters.
Ok, I've sat, I've watched the train wreck.... now... guess I'll jump back in.
I personally drive my guzzler b/c I have three horses weighing 1,350, 1,100 and 1,200 (still growing) lbs. If I didn't, I wouldn't own the thing. I like being one of the biggest vehicles on the road, but... The real problem is all the
soccer moms
who drive them as status symbols. I actually need my truck, most ppl don't.
Next, Maug if you think that fuel taxes are such a waste, realize that the majority of that money goes to two things. Infrastructure (roads) and cleanup for fuel related incidents. If you go to most gas stations, there is a sticker that tells you how much tax was put on your fuel and breaks it down between fed and state. The state gov gets HUGE quantities of money for road projects from the federal gov. That is part of the reason that we have the speed limits we do. If a state wants to set it's own at 90mph, they can, however they forfeit all the fed subsides for their road maintenance. Also, the cleanup of fuel spills is big business and much needed. If you knew what was sitting under the ground of the majority of gas stations in the US, you would be SHOCKED. Personally what pisses me off is social security and welfare, they can tax the gas. I would MUCH rather see that money go into my 401k to support me latter than into a bottomless hole where I will never see it again. Also, I have heard rumors of taxing hybrids at a higher rate b/c they are not
paying for their use
of the roads like the rest of us.
Last, REAL hot button issue. I work for a HUGE defense contractor, we make environmental software for the DoD. I do nothing but air emissions work now. You want to get some people riled up my office, bring up global warming. Let me sum it up, man-made global warming is a CROCK OF SH*T!!!. If you believe in it, explain to me how a gas that makes up ~2.5% of the total
greenhouse
effect has caused the change that we see? Let's also consider that humans only emit ~3.4% of the TOTAL CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. A good link that sums a lot of data up.
http:/
It's not us that is causing this.
Off my soap box.
American's need to catch up to Europeans
which is what I referenced as the elitist attitude.
<img src=
alt=
/> <img src=
alt=
/>
Regarding human influenced global warming being a "crock of ...” .
As a scientist, my only comment to this stupid remark, is research what you are talking about before making such a ridiculous claim.
Did you read the link? Do you know I'm an engineer? I did the research, I can't tell you the massive quantity of documentation I've read. Al Gore is a dip sh*t and the only think inconvenient a/b his movie is that it pisses me off every time I hear something a/b him or it...
So what was this thread about again? Gas? politics? SUVs SUTs? Maugan or our EU brothers?
Talk about serious sidetracking!
Al Gore may be a dip sh%%, but human induced global climate change is real. Has your research against this been published??
Read this:
http:/
Not published:
http:/
Then, mix a little of this: http:/
with some of that: http:/
This one is great, he says
If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
http:/
Oh and back on target, my 3/4 ton Chevrolet does a great job with the boat <img src=
alt=
/>
I tow with a 1994 Subaru Legacy wagon. Works better on the highway with a good tailwind, but it does what I need and handles beach sand pretty well too.
As for JunkScience.com, try getting your information from sources that involve actual science instead. Source Watch on JunkScience.com
Is this 3 in a row on topic?
93 F150 302 4x4 ex cab BLACK
You may not like junkscience.com, but he didn't create the data only grouped it in a concise way. I've read much of the underlying research from which he built his pages from. I can understand it b/c of my education, many cannot.
There is money and power in global warming, that's why it's at the forefront like it is. The only thing that we know and nobody will admit to is that we don't know the whole story. It's getting warmer and WE DON'T know why, however we do know that we are coming out of an ice age and that temperatures were much warmer in the past than they are now. A gas that makes up ~0.035% of the atmosphere is minor in comparison to water vapor when you let at the spectrograph of absorbencies of light. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the
greenhouse
effect.
And for the EU being so far ahead... As of last year, 10 of 15 were well behind on meeting their Kyoto goals with only Sweden and the UK being on track. The rest of the countries have INCREASED their CO2 emissions. Heck, Canada alone was up 23+% since Koyoto. They all talk a good game.....
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
-Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata.
-Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction)
Sorry for the OT, but... GW is a serious pet peeve of mine
96 1.8L Mazda 626. Tows the F18 fine, better downhill with a tailwind.
Replaced it wit an 07 Caliber SXT 1.8L but haven't got a hitch on it yet.
Wow! I go to a couple lousy meetings and look what this thread has turned into.
I am not well enough informed on the GH and GW issues so I am not about to get into that mess.
Seeing all of these small cars mentioned just reminded me that my brother pulled his '67 larson 18'
ski
boat with his mitsubishi spider eclipse.
Now that was a sight. We had to power up the boat to help the car pull it out of the launch <img src=
alt=
/>
2000 Subaru Legacy 2 Litre Saloon. Plenty of power for towing. AWD great for grassy camping areas, boat parks etc.
(It seems a shame to guzzle and waste our oil supplies which are finite and took millions of years to accumulate.)
Global Warming? http:/
If someone had the audacity to actually read my post, I said that I don't mind taxes that support certain things LIKE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEFENSE.
I think I'm going to go back and talk to my cat.
I would probably put a check mark in the
undecided
column when it comes to the causes of global warming. However, there is a ton of evidence that such climate swings are commonplace when you look outside our perceptual micro-time-line and beyond our modern carbon-dioxide producing capabilities. Even as recently as the middle-age there is plenty of evidence that the earth was in a Little Ice Age. Certainly it stands to reason that a similar natural change could swing us to a warming trend. I do tend to get a little suspicious when people ignore or choose to argue away such indisputable evidence when talking about global warming. Now that it's a high level political quagmire, I believe less of what I hear about it than ever before.
We still don't have a very accurate (rather...agreed upon) way of measuring
the earth's mean temperature
which makes it difficult to look at a chart showing 2 degree rise and get excited about it. Take a look at this chart (which is a little confusing since it puts the current period on the left) that goes back to about 9500 BC. Chart
Audacity <img src=
alt=
/>
play on words. Holy smokes do I have to use Oxford english around here? (pdwarren is an exception ok?)