If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Roger wrote: We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption. This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not really cheap). -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Larry Dighera posted:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 01:01:36 -0400, Roger wrote in :: People went back to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started building them and why not. Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates. Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks. So, now our infrastructure is in serious decline and our resources are being drained. For this kind of wanking of the common good, I can only blame the sleazebags that we've put in office over the last 40 years. That is to say, we can only blame ourselves. Neil |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gould wrote:
Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks. Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there, though. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote in message ... Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977. The sad part is we had a really good start on conserving energy. People were moving to smaller cars, better mileage, learning to conserve, car pool... and a whole list of things. We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. The result was gas became cheap(relatively speaking) and plentiful. Ah, Roger...conservation maybe contributed 2% to the price reductions in fuel prices. Increased production contributed the other 98%. In 1977, average fuel economy was, what?, 18-20 MPG? Today, even with SUV's ,etc, it's much higher. http://www.geohive.com (Pew Research data) People went back to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started building them and why not. We wanted them and they make more money on them. Car pooling was too inconvenient, as were most of the other methods of conserving and ... here we are and for that we can't blame the government. Now if, instead of conserving they build subsidized refineries to increase the output... What refineries are those? None have been built in the US in something like 20 years. Then we can blame the government.. Roger, you're babbling. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , Roger wrote: We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption. This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not really cheap). What would you define "really cheap" as being? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... So, now our infrastructure is in serious decline and our resources are being drained. For this kind of wanking of the common good, I can only blame the sleazebags that we've put in office over the last 40 years. That is to say, we can only blame ourselves. "It must be remembered that, in a democracy, the whores are us" -- PJ O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_ IIRC, in the 1950's it cost $300K per mile to build the interstate highways. This past year, in a town near here, a quarter mile lane resurfacing project cost, $2.1 million and took ten months to complete. The vast majority of taxes that are supposed to go into road construction and maintenance actually wind up in the general fund. Actual highways projects are paid for by bond issues or special sales taxes. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, George Patterson posted:
Neil Gould wrote: Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks. Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there, though. Good points. I wonder how effective this scaling has been? For example, is there a different rate for vehicles licensed as "trucks" than for those rated as "cars" in such states as NJ (which has some of the worst infrastructure, btw)? Neil |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote: We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption. This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not really cheap). What would you define "really cheap" as being? Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right? -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption. This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not really cheap). What would you define "really cheap" as being? Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right? "Cheap" to me means "poor quality"; we could have cheap gas by watering it down. :~) $.35 a gallon is what gas was going for in 1971; in todays $$$'s that something like $3.25. There's just no pleasing some people!! :~( Want to calculate how much the price reductions were attrbutable to conservations reducing demand versus deregulations vastly increasing supply? (Americans want varying forms of socialism (particularly regarding their "jobs"), but want to consume an abundance of inexpensive goods like free market capitalists.) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Yep in Georgia my huge 83 Bronco was registered as "truck" , here in TN. my
big truck is registered as "truck", just costs alot less here due to Georgia's ad valorem taxes. I don't know if the wannabe SUV's are registered as trucks or cars however. I got specialty plates this year so I think they costed all of 50 bucks or so. Patrick student SPL aircraft structural mech "George Patterson" wrote in message news:mbGke.3$2b.1@trndny05... Neil Gould wrote: Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks. Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there, though. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fabricating Terror | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | August 4th 04 10:28 AM |
The Terror of September 18th | X98 | Military Aviation | 0 | May 27th 04 11:17 AM |
Pope C-130s Supply Beans and Bullets to Terror War, By Donna Miles | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | April 26th 04 11:21 PM |
No End to War | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 04:20 AM |
MS Flight Sim enquiry raises terror alert | Mark Thompson | Simulators | 0 | January 11th 04 01:29 AM |