Oct 20, 2010 -- 11:47AM, Christianlib wrote:

I don't pretendt the middle class isn't struggling.

Neither do I pretend that the pain felt by BOTH the middle class and the lower classes isn't a direct, and probably intentional, result of neo-conservative Republican policies and programs.

And I am sure programs like this where we tax more will help the poor and middle classes?

Look, of course the middle and lower classes are struggling economically.

Some of this is due to energy costs, some of it is due to taxes, some of it is due to health care costs.

And some of it is due to the fact that under Bush, income skyrocketed for the rich and stagnated for the rest of us.  And yet, Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for millionaires, and moreover have the gall to hold  tax cuts for the rest of us hostage to this position!!!  Where is the outrage among these struggling middle class people over that???  People are idiots.  The Tea Party and their GOP fellow travellers have to be the first populist movement in history which caters to the wealthy!

Anyhow: part of the driver for escalating enegy costs is demand. Dwindling resources aside, demand, particularly in growing economies such as China's, is what fueled the steep energy cost runup in the middle of the last decade.  Stands to reason, reducing demand is one way to mitigate this. But this means reduced demand on a national scale.  

In fact, what we should be doing as a nation is working and investing in order to be the world's technology leader in alternate energy technologies as well as conservation. This will provide jobs, and some much-needed economic stimulation.  Problem is, until you factor in those hidden energy costs, American business with their short-term P&L focus will never get there; my own company will not invest in energy projects with a 3-4 year payback because that does not meet the corporate "hurdle rate" for capital investing; if corporations with their resources do not do this on their own accord,  how can we expect  ordinary citizens to do this? 

Yes, of course we can muddle through and let the free market economy deal with things in its own sweet time. The problem is this: if you are not willing to spend $20 more for a more efficient microwave, how in the world are you possibly going to be able pay the $1000 increase in your home heating bill which will assuredly happen one of these years?  Worst comes to worst, you can eat cold sandwiches, and trade in your Yukon for a Civic: but what are you going to do to heat your house?    

Oct 20, 2010 -- 1:27PM, Erey wrote:

 If you taxed all non-hybrid cars you would stiffle all innovation outside of hybrid fuel efficency and probably stiffle further innovation within hybrid cars.

For once, we agree!

I don't think taxes should be based on certain technologies.  But I have no problem with a tax based on results: fuel economy.  Greater than 40 MPG you pay nothing.  Less than 25 MPG you pay a 20% surtax. And so on down. Something like that.   Whatever the type of vehicle. 

But, of course, once you get to all-electric vehicles it becomes more difficult.  Electric cars still need energy- and what if you live in an area with a coal or gas-fired power plant?  So how do you figure in the equivalence?

Oct 20, 2010 -- 10:35AM, Erey wrote:

How can a corporation make all our decisions for us when the average american has so many options and so many different corporations?????

OK, if you can't spot the logical snapper in that sentence, I really can't help you.

You are being bombastic and hyperbolic.

Guilty as charged.

You are not this outraged about some proposed tax on efficent appliances.  You have some other issue you are carrying into this conversation.

I have lots of issues, you'd need a forklift to carry my baggage. On this occasion, I get outraged by the ridiculous assumption that a European society that has come to a sensible compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the state is "letting government make all your decisions for you".

Oct 21, 2010 -- 10:05AM, Ebon wrote:

I have lots of issues, you'd need a forklift to carry my baggage. On this occasion, I get outraged by the ridiculous assumption that a European society that has come to a sensible compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the state is "letting government make all your decisions for you".

Well, Ebon.

I hear what Erey says about free markets and so on.  But then I see that in general western European countries have something like 60% of the per capita energy use we have in the US.  And I hear the argument that America is more affluent, or has a different lifestyle, or whatever, so we can afford to do this. But then I hear people complain about the  costs of heating their houses or driving their cars, so increasingly, it seems obvious that we cannot afford this.

So why would we think "more of the same" in terms of energy policy will change one damn thing?