Quote:
Originally Posted by goober
So you are suggesting that national energy policy should be based on the need to transport bricks?
|
How about on the need to transport anything having a lot of weight and volume? And how about letting the people decide if they want to conserve energy that THEY BUY or not.
Quote:
|
If $10/gallon reduces the number of trucks on the road, it will be because local producers gain a pricing advantage, and because long haul freight transport goes by rail again.
|
And if you raise the price to $500,000,000, you'll likely cut it down to nothing. The problem is that you're shitting on people who run a good, honest business transporting supplies.
Quote:
$10/gallon doesn't have much impact on the cost of a building, the major cost of bricks in place will still be brick masons.
It will have an impact on the balance of payments, it will have an impact on CO2 production, and it will have an impact on National Security.
Maybe instead of blindly repeating the talking points of the Party of No, you might want to think the problem through.
|
Says the guy who can't think of any uses for trucks besides brick transportation.
Quote:
Why should petroleum use be subsidized by income taxes and sales taxes?
If you are the president of Texaco, getting your product subsidized by income tax payers makes sense.
|
It shouldn't be subsidized by them. I don't have a particular problem with the cost of gasoline going up due to market forces, even if I find it unpleasant.
Quote:
|
But you are a taxpayer, not an oil executive, so why are you clamoring to subsidize petroleum use?
|
Where did I clamor to subsidize petroleum use?