We can afford it because we use our military, and our oil reserves to lower the price. This topic began because of the gas prices, and my original contention was that I welcome the end of gas prices that have been artificially lowered by the use of our military and our tapping of the national oil reserves. When those government controls can't help anymore (which, by nature are very non-capitalistic), the market will do it's job and the people who do not truly need it will not be able to justify spending the extra money just in case they want to someday carry the entire girl scout troop in one car.
Yes, I took advantage of that March VPP deal at Grubbs. While I am down there, I am going to watch the KU Big 12 game as well.
dholly-
In my post, I singled out those who buy huge vehicles who are not in need of them. If you need it, then I bet you would justify the costs of it. Just as the farmer would justify the costs of owning a tractor, even though those don't get great mileage either. My point still holds true because I believe that the number of people who need these giant cars is far below the number of people who buy them.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sav505
I say If you can afford to drive a huge SUV around, then no one should tell you that you can't. I don't know what label I would get for that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Why that would make you libertarian! Kind of.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by reaves
We can afford it because we use our military, and our oil reserves to lower the price.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
True, which is part of what I meant when I said we can afford it. We, as a country, can afford to support such a military.
Although I think it would be much cheaper to NOT have a war that costs us close to $100B and instead pay higher gas prices (that's $400 for every man, woman and child in the US; if I put my $400 into a year's worth of gas, I could afford almost double the current price).
So yes, I personally don't support using our military to secure cheaper oil, but I think our country can "afford" to, even though it's pretty indirect.
Hey reaves, are you going to the American Airlines Center to watch the KU game? Did you already buy tickets? Or can you buy them at the gate? I'm thinking about going to watch the Texas Tech game with some friends of mine.
Let us know how everything goes at Grubbs. I hope you enjoy your stay in the DFW area. Oh, and if you want something to do after the game, Dallas has a great nightlife. If your intrested you can drop me an e-mail and i'll tell you some good places to go.
|03.5 G35 Coupe | 5at | Obsidian Black | Graphite | Premium | Performance | Pictures |
Yes, I took advantage of that March VPP deal at Grubbs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You gotta love the internet.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by struan87
We, as a country, can afford to support such a military.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So I have to pay higher taxes to support a military that lowers the price of the gas for some other guy's SUV? That isn't libertarian or capitalist at all. I say, end (or at least decrease) the artificial prices, and let the price rise. The people who don't need their SUVs will get rid of them. That's capitalism.
In addition to that, there are lives lost, American and other, when the military is employed. Shouldn't we reserve the usage of that military for issues of national security or human rights?
We could get into a whole thing about what Iraq is all about, and I don't want to branch off topic (again)[], but I am just saying that the idea that the publicly funded military is a device for lowering gas prices is pretty socialist.
Yeah, I totally see your point. I guess I was looking at it this way: in the world's market, we have the most "buying power" as a result of our cash, influence, military might, etc. So on a global scale, where the country is a single entity, it's capitalism since we can afford as much gas as we want.
But you're talking about inside the country, which makes more sense anyway. The government is (basically) forcing me to subsidize our gas consumption by using my taxes to artificially deflate the price. That's socialism.
I would totally love it if the government said "here's a $400 tax refund, spend it how you want, but gas prices are going to go up". Then soccer mom A could choose to get a hybrid civic or keep her Navigator, but she would face be hit more by the gas prices if she does.
reaves - I'm not interested in debating the war issue here, but I find something else you said interesting. That is, the notion our govt is tapping national oil reserves to artificially lower gas prices. That is on topic, although I'm not so sure it's true.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) exists, first and foremost, as an emergency response tool the President can use should the US be confronted with an economically-threatening disruption in oil supplies. Only once in the history of the SPR has the President ordered its use in an emergency situation. That occurred in 1991 in conjunction with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and US Operation Desert Storm. The world oil markets remained remarkably calm throughout most of the war, due largely to the swift release of SPR oil in combination with other oil response measures taken around the world.
Oil has been released from the SPR on other occasions. Twice the Administration has conducted test sales to ensure the readiness of the SPR and its personnel to carry out a Presidentially-ordered drawdown. The first took place in 1985, the second in the months immediately preceding Operation Desert Storm. Six times oil was released under exchange arrangements with private companies for the purpose of acquiring additional oil for the stockpile. Additionally, three non-emergency sales of oil from the SPR were authorized by Congress during 1996 to raise revenues.
Aside from Desert Storm, there hasn't been any market effecting SPR release since the Clinton administration. Certainly nothing that could be considered regular tapping to artificially lower prices. I suspect the mere existance of the SPR helps moderate global oil markets and, because US consumers would get first crack at any release, keeps US gasoline prices lower than other countries. It would appear deterrance does work, at least in the oil markets.
Good luck with your new coupe. It's tough to keep a light foot after break-in! The way I drive my sedan (yes, I NEED a back seat!), it delivers only about 3-4mpg more than the Yukon with my wife's dainty toes. Go figure. Thankfully, that one doesn't drink Premium...$2.02 today for 93! [bigeyes]
2004 | 6MTs | Diamond Graphite/Graphite
Upstate NY
Hello Dholly (sorry couldn't resist).If you can fit the g35 in the back of your truck and drive both at the same time you'll really be saving gas!
I don't want to hear any Americans complaining about high taxes!Isn't your top income tax rate 35% and you guys don't pay GST on virtually every purchase just so your govt. can fund its cronies' businesses. Whine , whine.Question though, how much of your gas prices are made up of taxes. The tax on gas up here is so high that gas stations post a breakdown of the price to let you know most of it is tax. Right now it seems our gas fluctuate daily to hourly from about 64 cents a litre to 80 cents a litre.
Reaves, what kind of mileage do you get on the jet ( or am I assuming). If you are green please post a pic . but seriously aren't you conservative guys supposed to tow the line and get behind Bush the younger's policies.I'm confused.
It seems that higher gas prices are not affecting the sale/use of SUVs. Even if prices reach $3/gallon, I doubt you'll see much of a change....
Also, what is worse: Someone buying a 10 mpg Hummer that drives 7000 miles per year or someone with an 20 mpg G35 that drives 14000 miles per year? See the point? Just because someone is driving a gas hog doesn't necessarily make them any more/less wasteful than someone else. Total consumption is the key.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
], but I am just saying that the idea that the publicly funded military is a device for lowering gas prices is pretty socialist.
