max,

no question our fuel prices are deflated. but, taxing them to reflect actual cost would no doubt worsen an already struggling economy. my company prez gave a state of the company address recently deducting that fuel prices being relatively low has helped our business.

subsidizing is necessary evil unfortunately. look at healthcare...

what is the TRUE crisis and cost? greedy insurance companies? nope. lack of doctors? nope. the TRUE cost causing a crippling crisis is the majority subsidizing the minority--illegal aliens and those that smoke, eat terribly, do not exercise etc. and that's not even touching on WAY overprescribed presription drugs.

oh, and theclencher would add...breeders are to blame! ;)

and i almost forgot to answer your question directly...

if we were able to drill more at home now, NORMAL, present tax rates could be applied towards new tech and energy. and obviously THAT would bring down the true cost.

i stopped listening to the "big oil is evil" argument. they're in business for profit. and anyone that thinks they want no part of alternative fuels has no idea how capitalism works.

So you think the answer should be all carrot and no stick? I have to ask: do you believe in global warming?

good links. got one as well...

https://clarkhoward.com/

you can call or email this guy w/ questions--i like hands on advise.

he was quoted as saying that if this president thinks spending, borrowing, and taxing is going to get us out of economic tough times "he's nuts!"

Wait a sec, I think your positions seem at odds.

You say you think the problem with healthcare is subsidizing expensive behaviors of those acting inappropriately, but then say that subsidizing people who consume a lot of energy inappropriately is OK?

Unless I misunderstood one side or the other...

what people? when did i say(infer) that?

i believe tax credits should be given to those who drive efficient vehicles. but, businesses or handicap individulas for example, should not be penalized for NEEDING a large vehicle.

but it's ugly because you get into tax per mile proposals. major metro areas have the option of NOT driving.

let me say because you're new...i'm not very well educated, so my points are not always understood. BUT, but i am an independant conservative who believes in accountability AT ALL LEVELS(individual, govt, corp, etc). and i am VERY well informed.

and no i am not convinced of GW--too much evidence on either side. to wreck an economy for a theory? i think not!

if you search GS archives for global warming, you'll find individual opinions against that argument FAR greater than my intellect. it's quite entertaining as well! :D

I wanted to make sure I understood you. It's a real problem with these very short responses that try to address complicated issues. I don't agree entirely with your explanations for the causes of our healthcare problems. To debate it, however, is way outside the scope of these forums (and this thread).

The following may make me sound like a condescending jerk, but it is unfortunately my position not to debate global warming with people. This is because I'd have to be a fool to think that if you're willing to dismiss the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion (of course there will always be dissenters) that now supports evidence of global warming that you're going to listen to anything I have to say on the subject. That's a factual argument which doesn't require my input. This seems to somewhat mirror your own position, so no one will need to put up with us arguing fruitlessly about it.

Let me instead make an observation about risk management in general. What matters is expected harm which is probability * consequences. It is not rational to argue for absolute proof before taking preventative measures, especially in the face of a trend of increasing probability estimates and increasing consequence estimates. There are a lot of options short of "wrecking" the economy.

I guess it depends on how you define "need". People with disabilities are pretty hard to argue against, but they're also not that numerous (thank goodness). Business is trickier. Let me give a simple hypothetical example. Let's say that in order to operate a business profitably you require the use of a gas guzzling vehicle of some kind (type is irrelevant). Now let's assume that without a use exemption that the business would fail. That sounds really bad, but what if there were another job option you could adopt that was viable and didn't require the huge gas guzzling vehicle? I'm not saying there aren't valid business reasons for exemption, just that it's not automatically bad for some enterprises to not be a reason for one. I'm interested in people's ideas on this.

The lack of carpooling in really busy urban areas is the thing that has me pulling my hair out.

let me finally say as we digress...

don't let things like that get you to that point. i used to be like that, but i realize now that some people will not change unless they are confronted w/ adversity. take gas consumption. $4/gal gas only hurt the poor and didn't do much to discourage driving UNTIL job losses started to mount(when gas was well below $4 BTW).

as an independant voter, it frustrates me that many politicians put party AHEAD of country. one side does this more than the other AND they have the help of the biased media to mislead uninformed voters.

take global warming, climate change, or whatever it will be called next week or year...if we could focus on pollution we could find some middle ground, but NO!, voters are given a distraction so the real issues do not surface and the knuckleheads get voted out!

anyone that does not see the US moving away from what the founding fathers made it to be, irrespective of GW, healthcare, or any other political agenda, i truly feel for them.

no one will EVER change my mind about core, fundamental avenues to success. they are...

accountability, integrity, love for humanity, and good stewardship. we are moving FAR away from these principles. w/out sounding religious, 'cause i'm not, these can be found in one book(the most popular in history).

BTW, for your "factual" argument...facts, stats, and studies can ALL be manipulated for $$$. "site your source" is another repulsive statement to me. my source is personal experience and/or studying both sides of an issue.

said it before...

you saw an inconvenient truth, then read an inconvenient book; you saw fahrenheit 9/11, then see fahrenhype 9/11; you read the new york times, then read the washington post; you watch NBC, ABC, and CBS, then watch FOX(CNN is getting a little better tho); you listen to Oberman, then also hear Hannity(i like Glenn Beck myself); if you're a democrat, listen to what republicans have to say.

I don't know if loosing one's job (and not having funds) makes people drive less because they don't have the $. I think you drive less because you're not driving to work every day.

-Jay