Originally Posted by Chance174

First of all I never said anything about the government intervening in the economy. Rate cuts and increases have been happening for years to help the economy. Just wanted to add to your list.

The issue is the government forcing people to buy certain types of goods.

This has nothing to do with saving engergy (which i think is good), but the government forcing the consumer to buy a certain good.

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

No -- that Repubs are evil racists and fascists. That's why we can't take you seriously. I just don't happen to agree (nor does the average person agree).

There have been no meaningful technological advances that will make a car get better gas mileage covering a period of at least 20-years. Cars are faster, much safer, built better, but they don't really get any better mileage. My 1988 Accord and my 2003 Accord get the same mileage. My 2003 Accord gets better mileage than my co-workers 2008 Accord.

One thing the government could do is force consumers into cars via huge gas guzzler taxes on trucks. Going from a 50/50 car-truck fleet to an 80/20 car-truck fleet would save about 7M barrels a day. But again, that seems a little too left for me. But on the other hand, it does seem wasteful for the millions of people that drive an SUV to work on freeways with a single drive (normally, a woman in my empirical observations over a period of many years).

Originally Posted by ban basketball

There have been no meaningful technological advances that will make a car get better gas mileage covering a period of at least 20-years. EXACTLY!! And in the most technologically advanced society in the world, I wonder why that is? I wonder if it also has anything to do with why the electric car is a figment of our imagination( in fact, most never even knew about it, and why folks like me seem crazy)? Trust me, an auto mechanics instructor friend of mine told me that the easiest thing in the world to do is to increase fuel efficiency; it isn't difficult. But, if it isn't mandated, car companies won't do it.

I would also add that government (Bush) giving tax breaks to business for buying big SUVs and big trucks is criminal. What was the "free market" purpose of that? And oil doesn't run this country?

Originally Posted by ban basketball

How do they do that? They have simply phased out one product with another that will change NOTHING in your life, except lower your energy bill. How is that bad?

Originally Posted by ban basketball

It's not the government's job to intervene in the economy? Really? What has government been doing for the past 200 or more years then?

Let's cut the b.s. that government shouldn't play a role in the economy, as they have an obligation to do so. If they are going to stack the deck in favor of businesses over individuals, in the form of tax breaks, corporate welfare, subsidies, laws to protet busines interests, bailouts, and etc, etc., then they can play a role in getting us to save energy. How could anyone possibly oppose saving energy?! Government plays a role on both ends.

Originally Posted by skipster

How does government have an obligation to play a role in the economy? Where is that part in our founding documents? Do you even know how the government functions in the economy?

But, again, you are showing us that narrow-minded thinking -- that us vs. them mentality with businesses against individuals. Why can't you see that businesses are made up of people and that people buy things from businesses and are employed by businesses?

You still haven't answered the question I have posed to you at least twice before: How does it help an individual when you increase cost of operation (taxes) for his employer or for the business he buys things from?

For someone who cries that the US is forcing its will on Iraq, you sure have no problem advocating that your will be forced on others.

It doesn't get any more hypocritical than that.
Don't forget to answer the question above.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

"How does government have an obligation to play a role in the economy? Where is that part in our founding documents? Do you even know how the government functions in the economy?"
As I stated before, if they are going to play a role in the economy by giving business an advantage, then they have an obligation to do the same for consumers and ordinary tax payers in some way also. If we want to play lassiez faire capitalism, then let's do so, but if not (which we are not), then all should benefit from government intervention into the economy, not just some. That is all that my point was.

"You still haven't answered the question I have posed to you at least twice before: How does it help an individual when you increase cost of operation (taxes) for his employer or for the business he buys things from?" All would be well if costs of goods and wages were not declining. I'm not necessarily for tax increses myself, but based on the old economic principle of taxation known as the ability to pay principle, taxation usually operates progressively. Again, sounds great if all else was equal, but the fact of the matter is that the bottom 40% of Americans for 30 years have seen declining wages, once inflation is figured in. So, obviously, somehow costs of goods continue to rise anyway, regardless of taxation. I would also directly answer your question by the mere fact that we all want government services, yet find it repulsive that taxes must provide those services. I'm all for ending taxes, but let's also be ready to give up important government services.

"BTW, you are showing us how much disdain you have for freedom by stating, "How can anyone possibly oppose saving energy?" Why do you haveto force your values on everyone else. If someone else wants to use the energy he paid for in an inefficient manner, why can't he? Why must you tell him what to do with the asset he purchased?" Me thinks that you ain't gettin' it. Doesn't government "impose it's will" on us all of the time? How is asking and getting us to conserve energy invasive? Sure, I could say that I "have the right" to be an energy glutton, but what harm is done to anyone by simple conservation? Aren't we all responsible for the good stewardship of our country? I'm the first one to cry foul with freedom issues (I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, for God's sake), but I ain't seein' how this invades freedom to conserve energy, even if government mandates it. Is freedom only defined by how much of a pig that we can all be with natural resources? If so, then strike me down Lord, for I have sinned: I like to conserve energy because I feel that I have an obligation to do so.

"For someone who cries that the US is forcing its will on Iraq, you sure have no problem advocating that your will be forced on others." I never spoke anything of my will.

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

4 words: Earth and government worship.

I don't understand this 'conserve at all cost' mentality? There's an unlimited supply of energy on earth. Just let us go get the energy, would you please?

You already have your progressive tax system, so all we're asking for is a little more energy so we can live a little bit cheaper.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

"An unlimited supply of energy on earth?!"

Really? I've never heard that before. All natural resources are finite.