Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: Travelinman <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 07:24:44 -0500
In article <11gqeiaf4fqga09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Travelinman wrote:
> > In article <11gq6m58tfjnvbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > John <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Travelinman wrote:
> >>> In article <lloydparsons-3ACE85.13274024082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> While we've got a few political postings, I thought I would add
> >>>> another. Here is where I think the next US elections are headed
> >>>> and why.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is what the incumbents (regardless of party) have to answer
> >>>> for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gas: Prices through the roof, with no indication of an end in
> >>>> sight. Doesn't matter if they are still cheaper than most of the
> >>>> world.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Except for one simple problem. It doesn't appear that the
> >>> government is responsible. The major problem is drastic increases
> >>> in demand from China with no corresponding increases in production.
> >>>
> >>> Add in a little political instability, incessant American demand for
> >>> ever bigger cars, a bit of bad weather, and you've got a problem.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually you're wrong. Yet again. China has taken steps in the last
> >> few months to decrease consumption growth and demand is beginning to
> >> flatten out. The US with its glut of gas guzzling and extremely
> >
> > "has taken steps to START" and demand is "BEGINNING" to flatten out.
> >
> > Over the past few years, my statement is 100% correct. What the
> > situation will be next year remains to be seen.
> >
> >> unpatriotic SUVs has done almost nothing. If Bush was not so far in
> >> bed with the oil companies he would be out there drammaticaly
> >> increasing CAFE requirements(not like yesterdays wimp response) so
> >> growth in the future can be contained. A real President would
> >> provide 14 Billion in
> >
> > I agree that CAFE standards should be increased - and specifically
> > mentioned that. The previous administrations failed to take any
> > action, but the current administration is finally increasing the CAFE
> > standards for trucks.
> >
> >> additional tax incentives to get people into efficient hybrid
> >> vehicles rather than giving that money to oil companies who are now
> >> enjoying
> >
> > Actually, there ARE substantial tax benefits for hybrid vehicles in
> > the recent package.
> >
> >> record profits. The passage of the incompetent Bushs energy bill a
> >> couple of weeks ago sent the wrong signal to the oil markets. And
> >> as a result we will soon be seeing 70 buck a barrel oil.
> >
> > Yet the current administration is doing the two things you cited -
> > increasing CAFE standards and giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles.
>
>
> They should be giving LARGER tax credits for hybrids and ZERO to oil
> companies. The CAFE standards increase is very minor and thanks to the
> wimpy response the price of oil set a record today.
One could argue that CAFE should be higher and tax credits for oil
companies would be lower.
But what does that have to do with you being flat out wrong in saying
that the government isn't giving credits to hybrids and isn't changing
the CAFE standards?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: ZnU
- Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- References:
- OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: Lloyd Parsons
- Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: Travelinman
- Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: John
- Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: Travelinman
- Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- From: John
- OT: 2006 US Elections
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- Next by Date: Re: MacMini and Unix
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- Next by thread: Re: OT: 2006 US Elections
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|