George Bush Resume

[Steel 0]

Lets see my father has two offices. (physician) One is in Northern Jersey the other is in central Jersey. He works at both of them daily (about 70 miles daily on an Escalade). So your telling me he should be forced to take a train or drive some little rice burning Japanese piece of crap? Or should he not be allowed to have two offices?
See America is the great land of the free that most people in the world want to immigrate to because of our laws controlling taxation. You don't need to look very far, pick any country you want in Europe go over there and see how much the price of gasoline is. Then inquire and you will find that usually 78% of the price will be taxation because the government figured people need to drive so they can screw them there. But don't forget to look at the entire picture. Find out what their National Debt is and then you will see that the U.S. is so so so much more fiscally responsible than any European country that it will just shock you. So their high taxes don't pay off after all. I understand that the majority of Americans will not look into this enough to get a clear understanding for the way things are. But I find it hard to believe that the Democrat politicians are all too stupid to see things the way they are. Instead I believe that their stupid fiscally irresponsible policies are simply because they don't care. Hell the country can go into another great depression and the Kennedy's are still going to live like kings in their compounds. I think the top ten richest congressman are all Democrats.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

the Kennedy's are still going to live like kings in their compounds

Totally off topic, but I've seen the Kennedy compound and quite honestly, I was not impressed.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Steel 0]

how is that off the topic? I am stating that they don't care about the fact that they know there policies will fail because regardless of the fact that their policies will fail they will be fine. All they care about is making the winers that want to hear all the take from the rich and give to the poor socialist ideas happy. This is the way they will continue to get elected and feel powerful.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,478]

>Lets see my father has two offices. (physician) One is in Northern
> Jersey the other is in central Jersey. He works at both of them daily
> (about 70 miles daily on an Escalade). So your telling me he should
> be forced to take a train or drive some little rice burning Japanese
> piece of crap? Or should he not be allowed to have two offices?

Not at all. He should be able to live where he chooses, and drive what he chooses. And he will pay through the nose for gas if he drives an SUV. That's his right. Don't you dare say, though, that since he chose to buy that monster and he chose to live where he does that he deserves a "break" on a gas tax - that someone else should pay his share of taxes because he wants to drive a big car.

And when the next oil war rolls around, I will look at him and people like him, and I will think of the friends of mine in the military. I hope their deaths won't weigh too heavily on his conscience. I doubt they will; most people could care less about the long term consequences of their actions.

>Find out what their National Debt is and then you will see that the
> U.S. is so so so much more fiscally responsible than any European
> country . . .

You're kidding, right? In 2001 the French national debt was 43.6% of its GDP, the US was 41.2%. That was 2001. In 2002 we increased spending by 163 billion and dropped revenue by 123 billion. Now we have reached record highs for the deficit; we're going to hit $300 billion soon. The fiscally responsible thing to do, of course, would be to either reduce expenditures and increase income.

As we are doing the exact opposite of that, we are doing the opposite of what is fiscally responsible. We're increasing expenditures and taking away $350 billion in income. So unless you work for Enron you couldn't get _less_ fiscally responsible.

>Instead I believe that their stupid fiscally irresponsible policies are
> simply because they don't care.

"stupid fiscally irresponsible policies" = spending only as much as you make? And spending way more than you make, and then intentionally reducing your income, is good sound financial strategy? George Orwell, look out - here comes doublespend.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

And when the next oil war rolls around, I will look at him and people like him, and I will think of the friends of mine in the military. I hope their deaths won't weigh too heavily on his conscience. I doubt they will; most people could care less about the long term consequences of their actions.

Speak for yourself. This is the most elitist and stupidest comment I have heard yet in this argument. Typical same old mantra from the radical left. This line of propaganda is getting real old.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Steel 0]

what did you do go down the list and find the country that came the closest and still you found that we were better off than them? Why don't you quote Italy's numbers, or Greece, or Portugal or even Spain. Lets not even think about Eastern Europe where the tax from the Rich and give to the poor totally destroyed all of their economies. Yes Poland, the Cech Republic, Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine and all of the former Yugoslavia are all living in third world standards.
Now back to our deficit, are you aware that more than half of our deficit is coming from Medicare. And that if you really want to cut our deficit significantly you need to cut this drastically. You can finger point all you want to military spending but the deficit did not all accumulate over the course of this year. Besides this war will pay for itself anyway.
The only way I can see that using gasoline would be causing a war would be if you said that if we didn't buy oil, then the Arabs/muslims wouldn't have any money. And if they didn't have any money then they couldn't fund terrorism. Now if they can't fund terrorism then we don't need to go over there and protect ourselves like we did. Is that what your saying? I might see some logic to that.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[wmw999 2,179]

Quote

Now back to our deficit, are you aware that more than half of our deficit is coming from Medicare

That could be said about any significant government expense. We had medicare when we had a surplus the past few years. You could also say the deficit comes from spending for the military, Congressional pay, and a whole lot of other things.

If someone spends more than they earn, it's everything they spent that puts them over the top. They have to cut what's less important. The job of Congress, the President, and all the analysts and voters is to help decide what's most important.

If I spend on mortgage, clothing, and food, and don't have enough, which put me over the top? Which is the "cause?" They're all necessary. It might be my choice of where to live, my choice , or my choice of clothing. Or it might just be that I don't make enough to live.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Schroeder 0]

well he's speaking for me. Why shouldn't people be responsible for their actions? For the choices they make?

[billvon 2,478]

>Speak for yourself.

I always do!

>This is the most elitist and stupidest comment I have heard yet in this argument.

Saving oil might help prevent another oil war is an elitist comment? Planning for the future is stupid? Using as much of a polluting, finite resource as fast as we can is smart? To each his own.

[Steel 0]

I want to draw attention to the National Debt!

May 27, 2003 NOTE: Today a bill was signed that increases the Debt limit to a new high of $7.4 Trillion dollars. Just prior to the singing, the Debt was $6.4 Trillion and immediately jumped up $82 Billion. I wonder how long it will take "your" elected representatives in Congress to "borrow" a additional Trillion dollars?

The debt increases because the U.S. Government spends more than it collects in taxes. This is called deficit spending. We have such a large debt because Congress has consistently spent more than it has collected for the past 20 years!

If we had a balanced budget TODAY, the debt would continue to increase slightly due to interest and overhead. We would still have the current debt of over $6.5 Trillion.

We have to start developing a budget "surplus" to begin to pay off the debt.

DO WE HAVE A SURPLUS NOW?
Yes! No! Sometimes! Some days we do, and other days we don't! Some days the Debt goes up, and other days it goes down! Let me explain.

First; don't confuse a budget surplus or budget deficit with the "actual spending"! Every day the Government has to (by law) pay off some of the Debt by retiring certain Debt Instruments (such as T-Bills, CD's, etc.) as they come due. Then, every day, the Government may decide to create more new debt!

If we create more new Debt than we pay of, in a given day, the National Debt increases. However, if we pay off more than we cerate new, then the National Debt decreases. It is just that simple! And just that complicated!

During the first week of January 2003, as we were preparing for war, and while the Democrats were whining about defense spending, the National Debt actually went down; from $$6.40 Trillion on Dec. 31, 2002 to $6.38 Trillion on Jan. 8, 2003. That's a $20 Billion payoff of the Debt while the economy is not the best and while we are in the middle of the War on Terrorism! How did G. W. Bush do that?

Why, under a Democrat controlled Whitehouse and Congress (Clinton Years) and booming economic times, did the National Debt always go up? Answer; too much SPENDING!

want to learn more http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,478]

>what did you do go down the list and find the country that came the closest . . .

No, I just used the country everyone here disses on all the time. Feel free to provide your own data.

>Yes Poland, the Cech Republic, Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine and all of the former Yugoslavia are all living in third world standards.

Poland: 44%
Russia: 40% as of 3/26/03

(remember, US is 41.2% - still gonna claim that we're so much more fiscally responsible than these countries?)

Feel free to post some more stats if you have them.

>Now back to our deficit, are you aware that more than half of our
>deficit is coming from Medicare.

Yep.

>And that if you really want to cut our deficit significantly you need to
> cut this drastically. You can finger point all you want to military
>spending . . .

I don't think we should cut military spending significantly (i.e. more than 10%.) We can't cut it much and still keep a strong military, and having a strong military to defend our country is one of the most basic functions of government.

However, there are a lot of other ways to reduce our expenditures. We pay 360 billion a year interest on the national debt. If we reduce that, interest goes down. (Of course this takes good financial planning over the course of a few years.) Reduce everything else across the boards, from administrative overhead (205 billion) to NASA (15 billion) to transportation (61 billion.) Across the board cut, 6%, including military and medicare. That way we balance the burden and get rid of the deficit, and we don't have to raise taxes. Once the debt is cut in half, we save so much on interest that we can put that money back into all those programs.

There are also ways to increase our income without raising individual taxes. Get rid of the $2 billion a year tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies. Charge timber companies for the logging roads we build for them.

>but the deficit did not all accumulate over the course of this
> year.

Yes it did. In 2001 we had a surplus of 127 billion. In 2002 we had a deficiet of 157 billion.

>Besides this war will pay for itself anyway . . .

Because of the oil we will take as our rightful spoils? Or did you mean something else?

[billvon 2,478]

>That's a $20 Billion payoff of the Debt while the economy is not the
> best and while we are in the middle of the War on Terrorism! How
> did G. W. Bush do that?

Uh, same way Enron did. He cooked the books. The government's been doing that for about six months to try to stay under the debt limit; changing how they report the debt is the easiest way (politically) to do that. At some point, though, you run out of ways to change how the deficit is reported.

The fact is that we are now at a record high national debt. This means that for every man, woman and child in the US, there is $32,000 in outstanding debt. No matter how you cook the books, that's money that YOU will have to pay back. Fiscal responsibility means starting that soon, so you don't also have to pay the interest on that $32,000.

Let's say you get a credit card. You max it out. You're going bankrupt paying the interest on it. Is your best bet:

-apply for a higher credit limit and keep spending or
-do whatever you have to to start paying it off?

Think carefully, although it's really not a trick question.

[AggieDave 6]

*picks up 10ft pole, pokes thread, runs away before being brought into another political debate*

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

I disagree. You can get a car that gets 50mpg and thus pay very little for gas. You can take the train. You can take the bus. You can live close to work.

Bill that is totally untenable. New cars cost $$ a lot of folks just don't have. So does moving closer to where you work (often impossible) and commuter trains and busses are NOT an option for most of America.

Quote

Well:

a) _Energy_ is a neccessary evil, whether it's in the form of diesel/biodiesel for trucks, gasoline for cars, electricity or diesel for trains, JP4 for aircraft etc. If the price of energy goes up people use less of it to compensate. In that way it's like any other commodity. And like any other commodity, if gasoline prices go up, more people will buy efficient cars or diesels or take the train.

Again, cars cost $$ and a lot of people don't have them. Trains are not available everywhere, not by a long shot.

Quote

b) I agree that lower gas prices might help the economy. So would lower housing prices (more home ownership means more work for contractors) lower prices on durable goods (Home Depot makes more money and employs more people) lower prices on hotel rooms (more tourism) etc etc. And if you add all those tax breaks in, you get a tax code sorta like what we have now, with every special interest group clamoring for their very own tax break "to help the economy."

Real estate, durable goods, and gasoline are three different commodities with different pressures affecting the price of each. The tax code is filled with tax breaks and hotel tax is atrocious. Many of said tax breaks would be un-neccesary if the tax code were reformed at all.

Quote

I think a fairer way to do it is a flat sales tax with only things you need to live excepted. You simply don't need gasoline to live - belonging to the drive-up culture is not, as of yet, neccessary for human survival.

We disagree. I say it is necessary for millions of us. Not everyone lives in a metropolitan area. Rural America still exists and isn't going away anytime soon.

Quote

>The greater the cost of gas, the greater the cost of transport, be it
> by plane, car, van, truck, or what have you.

Hmm. Gas prices doubled here and I still spend a lot less on gas than I did two years ago. Gas prices went up and now I spend _less_ on gas, so your theorem doesn't always hold.

This was in reference to the cost of company A to bring its goods from company B to market. your analogy is to yourself, not companies. Companies do not have the option of not transporting their merchandise to where it can be sold/distributed and the increased gasoline price makes this transport more expensive.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Steel 0]

Bush cooked the books? Not Clinton right, he was too honest a man for that, Yeah Riight!
In any case we can agree so far as to say that the answer is to cut spending. But what you don't seem to understand is that raising taxes results, as it always has, in less federal revenue. This is due to companies going bankrupt or just making cut backs to deal with higher expenditures. Those cut backs typically are real people like me and 78,000 others from Nortel alone.
Its funny that you mentioned Russia. I know that often the Russian government simply does not pay their Military people when they don't have enough money. That is an interesting strategy when you don't have money to pay you can avoid deficit just by not paying the people you owe. I don't know enough Polish people to give you annecdotes about them. But I do know we are providing assistance to Russia or at least we were. I guess we could stop that and help bring our deficit down and let theirs go up a little, if they pay some more creditors that is.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[TheAnvil 0]

The books have been cooked for years. Deficit structure is interesting, but I don't totally understand it completely. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/bpd/bpdhome.htm provides some basic insights.

I'm libertarian, but do consider medicare a necessary thing. I think the true path to decreasing health care costs in this country is through reform of the tort system - it's disgusting.

Beers,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,478]

>Bill that is totally untenable. New cars cost $$ a lot of folks just don't
> have. So does moving closer to where you work (often impossible)
> and commuter trains and busses are NOT an option for most of
> America.

As cars don't last forever people replace them. They are not required to get a gas guzzler. They may choose to do so, but it is their choice. Also, most people are not born on the same plot of land they will spend their lives, nor are they required to. They often move, and have a choice as to where they move.

Sorry, I don't buy the standard "it's too hard to do anything different!" argument. If it's important to people to live somewhere they will live there. This is why real estate is a good market to be in. If they want a car, and can afford it, they will buy it. This is why the automotive industry sells almost 20 million cars a year - that's enough, over ten years, to give everyone in the US a new car. Will it be a Ford Expedition or a Civic Hybrid? Your choice.

>Again, cars cost $$ and a lot of people don't have them.

?? Do you mean people don't have the money? I think that, if people can afford a $40,000 SUV they can afford a $20,000 Civic. It is not the money; it is what people WANT and right now they want SUV's - even if they are more expensive and/or waste fuel. If they wanted the hybrid they would save money, so the money argument doesn't hold much weight.

>This was in reference to the cost of company A to bring its goods
> from company B to market. your analogy is to yourself, not
> companies. Companies do not have the option of not transporting
> their merchandise to where it can be sold/distributed and the
> increased gasoline price makes this transport more expensive.

Long haul trucking has seen massive improvements in fuel economy over the years with computer engine controls, air dams, speed monitoring and new kinds of engines. Aircraft are getting steadily more efficient - the 767 gets 60 pmpg, and is equally cheap to operate when it comes to moving cargo. The argument "companies can't get more efficient!" simply isn't true. It is happening. If energy prices go up it will happen faster, because the companies that spend more money on efficient transports will net more money at the end of the year. Simple economics.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

>

I don't think we should cut military spending significantly (i.e. more than 10%.) We can't cut it much and still keep a strong military, and having a strong military to defend our country is one of the most basic functions of government.

The US currently spends more on "defense" than the next 8 nations combined. What credible threat is there that needs this level of spending for defense. If you want a good offense, that's a different matter.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,478]

>Bush cooked the books? Not Clinton right, he was too honest a man
>for that, Yeah Riight!

No, Clinton did as well. The debt increased pretty steadily while he was president when you look at it in hindsight (i.e. without the accounting tricks.) During the Clinton years it went from about 4 trillion to about 5.5 trillion. Few presidents actually balanced the budget - the last president that saw a relatively balanced budget during his tenure was Carter.

>Its funny that you mentioned Russia. I know that often the Russian
> government simply does not pay their Military people when they
> don't have enough money. That is an interesting strategy when you
> don't have money to pay you can avoid deficit just by not paying the
> people you owe.

Definitely. Russia is in no way an example of "how things should be done," it's just an example of someone whose debt to GDP ratio is about the same as ours.

[billvon 2,478]

>The US currently spends more on "defense" than the next 8 nations
> combined. What credible threat is there that needs this level of
> spending for defense. If you want a good offense, that's a different
> matter.

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. We need to spend enough on defense to adequately outfit our troops, provide weapons, allow money for training etc. You can't just cut that money; in many cases it ends up causing massive problems (i.e. weapons projects cancelled 99% of the way through.)

You CAN decide to not use the military as much, and then it doesn't cost as much. But you have to make that decision first. You can't decide to use the military more and allocate less money for it. As you are probably aware, I am in favor of using them less. But I would not cut their funding solely because I think they _should_ be used less.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

As cars don't last forever people replace them. They are not required to get a gas guzzler. They may choose to do so, but it is their choice. Also, most people are not born on the same plot of land they will spend their lives, nor are they required to. They often move, and have a choice as to where they move.

Sorry, I don't buy the standard "it's too hard to do anything different!" argument. If it's important to people to live somewhere they will live there. This is why real estate is a good market to be in. If they want a car, and can afford it, they will buy it. This is why the automotive industry sells almost 20 million cars a year - that's enough, over ten years, to give everyone in the US a new car. Will it be a Ford Expedition or a Civic Hybrid? Your choice.

And you saw no used cars on the road today, eh? Perhaps we drive on different highways. Many people drive older cars because they cannot afford newer ones. Many more can't afford new cars but buy them anyway on credit like idiots and have them repossessed.

You completely dodge my point that Rural America is not going away and the posession of an automobile is necessary for many there. Gasoline IS a necessity and any NRST should exempt it.

Quote

?? Do you mean people don't have the money? I think that, if people can afford a $40,000 SUV they can afford a $20,000 Civic. It is not the money; it is what people WANT and right now they want SUV's - even if they are more expensive and/or waste fuel. If they wanted the hybrid they would save money, so the money argument doesn't hold much weight.

In the case where a person is purchasing a new auto, your statement stands...otherwise, no way.

Quote

Long haul trucking has seen massive improvements in fuel economy over the years with computer engine controls, air dams, speed monitoring and new kinds of engines. Aircraft are getting steadily more efficient - the 767 gets 60 pmpg, and is equally cheap to operate when it comes to moving cargo. The argument "companies can't get more efficient!" simply isn't true. It is happening. If energy prices go up it will happen faster, because the companies that spend more money on efficient transports will net more money at the end of the year. Simple economics.

No way dude, you're not getting by with a dodge here either. Companies can't get more efficient are your words, not mine. Yes, all those nice efficiency things are true. Lovely, and I hope I get better.

IF a company were stupid enough to purchase a vehicle with a higher efficiency in place of one they already have equity in, your argument would hold. They don't (there's a reason for it) and the rise in gas price that would make such a purchase economically feasible would be on the order of US$100/gallon, I'd wager. The NPV or IRR would differ with the amount of equity in the vehicle, the $$ of the new vehicle, and several other factors, but he point remains the same. Purchasing new delivery vehicles just to offset the price increase induced by higher gasoline prices is NOT an option for business owners. No way in hell. Nada. Your position is untenable.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

I think Putin just signed a flat tax, didn't he?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,478]

>And you saw no used cars on the road today, eh?

And you've never seen a used Honda CRX?

>You completely dodge my point that Rural America is not going away
> and the posession of an automobile is necessary for many there.
> Gasoline IS a necessity and any NRST should exempt it.

We have different definition of "necessary" then. I define it as something you need to live. You define it as something you usually need to be gainfully employed. If you want to use that definition, you also have to exempt business suits, uniforms, cars, that percentage of your home used as a home office, tolls, business lunches, airfares etc. You'd also need sole-proprietorship deductions; heck, if you won a company, almost everything you do is necessary for your business. And we will end up with a tax code that's as byzantine as the one we have now. No change.

As I've said before, I would prefer a flat tax. No exceptions beyond what you need to _live_.

>In the case where a person is purchasing a new auto, your statement
>stands...otherwise, no way.

As I mentioned above, people buy both used SUV's and used Civics. Exactly the same choice applies.

>IF a company were stupid enough to purchase a vehicle with a higher
> efficiency in place of one they already have equity in, your argument
> would hold.

And if vehicles lasted forever, _your_ argument would hold. We make truck tracking systems; average lifetime of a long-haul diesel tractor is around 3-4 years, or about half a million miles. Then they have to either buy a new one or replace the engine. If diesel is expensive they will buy a more efficient vehicle. If it's cheap, or if you remove taxes on diesel, they will buy a less efficient one, because its lifetime cost will be less. This is basic economics.

>Purchasing new delivery vehicles just to offset the price increase
> induced by higher gasoline prices is NOT an option for business
> owners.

Business owners have no option other than to purchase new vehicles when the old ones break. And they always break eventually.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

And you saw no used cars on the road today, eh? Perhaps we drive on different highways. Many people drive older cars because they cannot afford newer ones. Many more can't afford new cars but buy them anyway on credit like idiots and have them repossessed.

Robert Pritzker, billionaire owner of (among other things) the Hyatt hotel chain and the Marmon Group (a conglomerate) is one of our trustees, and several years back I invited him to give a talk to our freshmen. I met him outside on the street where he parked. He drove himself in a 6 year old beat-up Ford Taurus.

Then two weeks later Bob Galvin, former chairman of Motorola, gave a talk. I met him too; he arrived in a stretch limo.

Diffrnt strokes for diffrnt folks, I guess.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

We have different definition of "necessary" then. I define it as something you need to live. You define it as something you usually need to be gainfully employed. If you want to use that definition, you also have to exempt business suits, uniforms, cars, that percentage of your home used as a home office, tolls, business lunches, airfares etc. You'd also need sole-proprietorship deductions; heck, if you won a company, almost everything you do is necessary for your business. And we will end up with a tax code that's as byzantine as the one we have now. No change.

Earning $$ is necessary for living unless you want to depend on the government and others for everything. Means of transport is necessary for viable employment - everything else you listed is optional, not included in my list of proposed NRST exemptions, and utterly beside the point. Fact of life: there are areas of this country with no mass transit system where auto-ownership is a necessity. Your comparison of exempting gasoline from a retail sales tax that would be imposed on top of already existing excise taxes with exemptions for business suits, uniforms, cars, and etc (none of which I support or proposed) is tenuous at best and laughable at worst.

Saying 'no change' is utterly incorrect. Revenues would be collected on basis of consumption of goods OTHER THAN gasoline/groceries and the travesty of so few carrying the greater portion of the tax burden would be corrected.

Quote

As I've said before, I would prefer a flat tax. No exceptions beyond what you need to _live_.

And you don't need a job in order to pay for food, shelter, clothing, etc? Amazing.

Quote

As I mentioned above, people buy both used SUV's and used Civics. Exactly the same choice applies.

And regardless of what vehicle they drive, the act of driving is a necessity of many to work. Are they stupid if they're single with no kids and buy a used SUV? Absolutely! And they'll pay more in gas cost - why pay more in the form of NRST?

I like this following one:

Quote

And if vehicles lasted forever, _your_ argument would hold. We make truck tracking systems; average lifetime of a long-haul diesel tractor is around 3-4 years, or about half a million miles. Then they have to either buy a new one or replace the engine. If diesel is expensive they will buy a more efficient vehicle. If it's cheap, or if you remove taxes on diesel, they will buy a less efficient one, because its lifetime cost will be less. This is basic economics.

Until the diesel breaks and/or is replaced by a model efficient enough to offset its more expensive fuel, the company/trucker suffers increased operational costs due to the increased cost of gasoline, as I stated. SWIIIISH!!!!!! The short guy dunks and the crowds go wild!!!!! Your diatribe refers only to truckers hauling rigs with commodities and does nothing to prove your point. My general point refers to any form of operating cost a business incurs from any gasoline engine, be it for construction, power generation, farming, transport of goods, what have you. The time to replacement is only tangentially relevant to the point at hand. Ne'er once did I imply that vehicles do not break or need replacement - I'm an engineer dammit!

Quote

Business owners have no option other than to purchase new vehicles when the old ones break. And they always break eventually.

Other than repair they do have no other option. And until they break beyond repair AND sufficient technology exists to buy a more efficient vehicle, the increased cost of gasoline increases the cost of transporting products. Even should the technology become available there is no guarantee that the new, efficient type of vehicle's cost could mandate its purchase over a vehicle based on older technology. The NPV/IRR will differ from corporation to corporation and with every instance.

Popcorn and tabasco sauce,

Vinny

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!