By on September 13, 2008

Infowars.com reveals the startling news that the Democrats are considering adding “gas stamps” to the pre-election last minute pork for votes economic stimulus package. “It’s certainly under consideration,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told The Hill on Thursday afternoon. “It would be like food stamps for those people who need help.” We’re talking $500 for unleaded (not ethanol?) for any documented American (I hope) earning up to $31,200, or a family of four earning up to $63,600. Nancy Pelosi is kinda sorta maybe lining-up behind the idea, in case it gains political traction. “McDermott [(D-Wash.), chairman of the House Income Security and Family Support subcommittee] who introduced the idea before the August recess, said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made favorable mention of gas stamps Wednesday during an afternoon caucus meeting on a pending energy bill.” Republicans scoffed. ““We don’t need a top-down government program, we need to unleash the potential of the American people by allowing increased production of American energy,” said Michael Steel, spokesman to House Republican leader John Boehner (Ohio). “This is a classic example of top-down, centralized bureaucracy that Washington represents.” Over to you Barack and John… [thanks to Ms. X for the link]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

57 Comments on “Democrats Propose Gas Stamps. No, Really....”


  • avatar

    Are you serious? Infowars? Come on, Farago! You can do better than that. Find a credible source.

  • avatar
    TonyTiger

    Can u say “Income Redistribution”?

    Can u say “Socialism”?

    Can u say “Reparations in disguise”?

    Can u say “Saul Alinsky? William Ayers? Rev Wright?”

    Can u say “Goodbye America”?

  • avatar
    TonyTiger

    So Scott, you don’t believe the story? Because it’s from a web site you dont find credible? But the story is true. So what’s your point then?

    http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp080730.shtml

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    I’m not familiar with InfoWars. However, I agree with Scott Johnson questioning the credibility of this source, simply based upon the first line of the article: “As the U.S. economy teeters on the brink of recession…”

    Many credible economists agree that we’re not “on the brink of recession;” we entered into one at some point during the last several months.

  • avatar

    @BuzzDog: Actually, real economists would point you to the facts on the economy that state that we’re not in a recession. In fact, the GDP has been increasing so far this year. Sure, it seems like we’re in a recession, but the facts say otherwise.

    But back to the topic at hand. Alex Jones (of InfoWars) is a known conspiracy theorist. The article linked to cites no sources and has no links to any sources. Until I see a credible source here, I call BS.

  • avatar
    TonyTiger

    OK, I’m just saying the story is true. I went to mcdermott’s web site and there’s a speech/story about it there.
    I tried to post a link to it here, but TTAC marked as spam. Just google Jim McDermott or ‘traitor’ :) and you’ll see link to his speech on his home page.

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    Out there in the real world people are struggling with rising gas prices. Some don’t have the ability to drive much less. This goes for both individuals and organizations. For example, nonprofit social services have been particularly hard hit in covering the transportation costs of their social workers who need to do a lot of driving to help clients. The typical result: Per diem rates aren’t keeping up, so employees who are already poorly paid are having to dig into their own pockets to fully cover on-the-job transportation expenses. Is that fair — particularly when we are talking about protecting the young, frail and elderly?

    I haven’t studied this issue enough to offer an opinion as to whether gas stamps make sense. (I’m not among those who would argue that food stamps represent evil socialism.) However, it is important to squarely face the very real consequences of higher gas prices.

  • avatar

    Thanks, Tony, for posting a decent source. Here’s a link: http://is.gd/2zs4

  • avatar
    Pch101

    In fact, the GDP has been increasing so far this year. Sure, it seems like we’re in a recession, but the facts say otherwise.

    If you look at the details of the GDP figures, growth during the last two quarters came largely from government spending, and the rising cost of food, gasoline, utilities and medical care. That is not indicative of economic growth as we typically think of it, but of the impacts of inflation rippling through the system, even after supposed adjustments for the CPI.

    Meanwhile, the trend of business investment has been negative, and the types of expenses associated with prosperity such as durable goods purchases and entertainment are either shrinking or else growing much more slowly.

    Whether or not it’s officially a recession is irrelevant. Regardless, consumers have had to tighten their budgets, and businesses are pulling back because they don’t see markets that justify their investment.

    If people aren’t spending and businesses are punting, then higher unemployment is in our future and you’ll get the official decline that you’re asking for. The basis of it is already well underway and the effects are being felt right here, right now.

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    @ScottJohnson: Some feel that GDP growth is due to inventory accumulation that is occurring because sales are down. The economists I work with are third-party consultants to industry, and their viewpoint may not always be the same as that of economists working for academy or media.

    Let’s just “agree to disagree” on the recession point, and share a common distrust for Alex Jones…

  • avatar

    The basis of it is already well underway and the effects are being felt right here, right now.
    I couldn’t agree more.

  • avatar
    TonyTiger

    Thanks for posting the link Scott.

    THis idea is brought to you by the same people whowould nationalize the oil industry, if they could think of the word.

    I have an idea, Dems – drill for more American oil and watch the price at the pump drop. As it has since Bush just threatened to drill. Down under $100/barrel yesterday.

  • avatar
    Michael Ayoub

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  • avatar
    Qwerty

    Did anyone go out and look at the infowars website? It appears to be news for nuts. If you live in fear of the New World Order taking over the United States and giving rise to the Fourth Reich then infowars is for you. This is koo koo for Coconuts stuff.

    Here is a great book that is featured on the site:

    Discover the Hellish Power Behind the Reigns of the Fourth Reich
    Save $5 instantly when you get Jim Marrs’ new book Rise of the Fourth Reich and Alex Jones’ incredible documentary DVD Martial Law 9/11 which both delve deeply into the New World Order’s terrifying and dark empire of war and tyranny. These two empowering info-bombs detail the global elite’s occult roots reaching back to the dawn of human history through the rise of the Nazi’s and the continuation of their power in the development in the Fourth Reich poised to take control of the United States of America.

  • avatar
    mpc220

    I have an idea, Dems – drill for more American oil and watch the price at the pump drop. As it has since Bush just threatened to drill. Down under $100/barrel yesterday.

    Hahaha. People actually believe this?

  • avatar
    Jordan Tenenbaum

    I could really use that $500.

  • avatar
    Happy_Endings

    Since Infowars is now considered a reliable source, how much longer are we going to wait until the Onion is credible? When will there be a blog about GM’s Instant Win Airbag Promotion from 12 years ago? It at least would be a good April Fool’s Day prank.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30400

  • avatar
    chuckR

    Happy_Endings – the McDermott link refers to a Democratic Congressman who proposed this dubious idea. You don’t need to go near infowars or the onion.

    Even up near the $61K limit, there are families who don’t pay much income tax – after personal exemptions and state/local tax and mortgage deductions. This is a great way to stroke them some vote-for-me bribe money and add another strand to the web binding them into dependency on government largess.

    ps – yes I know they do pay a large amount/percentage of federal taxes – those are payroll taxes supposedly for retirement income and insurance against destitution should things in your life go all pear-shaped. Younger workers will have to see how that works out.

  • avatar

    Is this really any different than a specific version of the stimulus checks? Oh wait, its proposed by a Dem, so it must be part of a perverse Socialist agenda.

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    Funny that people find it so incredible, and yet the whole “tax cut” proposed by Obama is in reality just a welfare handout, and has nothing to do with a tax cut.

    Whether we elect the marxists this year or not, it’s just a matter of time. The demographics is changing, and sooner or later we will have a marxist government, run by Obama or someone else. It is inevitable.

  • avatar
    taxman100

    Hmmm, a centrally planned economies where the productive members are heavily taxed, and rewards given to those that contribute little or nothing to the treasury.

    Isn’t that the 1st Admendment to the United States Constitution? Or, is it just the new value system taught in the government schools of this great, socialist society?

  • avatar
    chuckR

    boredlawstudent

    Some of these comments won’t seem so nutty after you have been a boredlawdrone for a decade or more. Every 4/15, you’ll see how big a gouge is taken by all taxes when you review your Schedule A state/local tax deductions and 1040 tax schedule – and include the 7.625% in payroll tax that is also taxed as income – tax on what is in reality already a tax that is unlikely to pay very well after four decades + of work for a young pup starting out now. Make sure to toss in phone/internet taxes, sales taxes, various municipal services fees, etc, etc. It is little wonder that families at $61K income would welcome some relief.

  • avatar

    I’m all for moving election day to April 15th.

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    chuckR: McDermott is one of the most militant leftists in Congress. He also has relatively little power within Democratic leadership. I would be very surprised to see this proposal go anywhere.

    boredlawstudent: The automotive press (at least here in the US) has always been a bastion of political conservatism. With the establishment magazines this primarily reflects their dependence upon auto industry ad revenue. The blogosphere has a bit more political diversity but still tends to be well to the right of the general public.

    I personally enjoy a good policy debate, but it’s pretty much impossible to have a productive one when basic facts are ignored. For example, Obama isn’t anything close to a Marxist, as one commenter argues above. Obama’s a fairly centrist, pro-business Democrat in the same vein as Bill Clinton. All of the major Democratic presidential candidates during the primaries were well to the right of Democratic liberals of yesteryear such as LBJ or FDR. Even our most liberal Democratic presidents were not in the same league as post-WWII, western European-style democratic socialism (think Germany, France and Great Britain), let alone full-fledged Marxism. For example, in the US we’ve never come close to creating a single-payer health insurance system –unlike most other industrialized nations.

  • avatar
    AG

    Somebody tell Tony the price of Gas is still going up, even though the price of oil has fallen back to the pre-commodities bubble price of 100 dollars/barrel.

    More domestic drilling? What’s the matter, do the Republicans in charge of collecting royalties need more beer/condom money?

  • avatar
    chuckR

    Dr. Lemming – hope you are right about McDermott’s ineffectiveness. He certainly ought to be radioactive. Just for fun, google ‘James McDermott Congress illegal phone tap’. Yeah, he’s that one.

    AG “More domestic drilling? What’s the matter, do the Republicans in charge of collecting royalties need more beer/condom money?”

    You say that like its a bad thing.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    I quipped here once that ‘Mortgage’ stamps would be on the way for brainstems who didn’t understand the phrase ‘adjustable rate’.

    Yeah, Infowars is a weird site. But Mr Farrago also cites The Hill newspaper for Representative Steny Hoyer’s quote that pimps this idiocy hard.

    Dr Lemming:
    Obama’s a fairly centrist, pro-business Democrat in the same vein as Bill Clinton. All of the major Democratic presidential candidates during the primaries were well to the right of Democratic liberals of yesteryear such as LBJ or FDR.

    By many political metrics, Obama is easily in the top 5-10 liberal Senators. If Obama is a ‘centrist, pro-business Democrat, then Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad and (candidate) Bill Clinton must be/have been closet libertarian, Wall Street Journal reading, Chicago school economists.

  • avatar

    Uh, the “No Really” part of the headline was one of those post-modern irony deals, calling attention to the dubiousness of the source.

    Anyway, true stort. And I WILL link to The Onion, now.

  • avatar

    Makes about as much sense as Gordon Brown talking about reducing CO2 emissions by 20% while simultaneously pushing for new coal-fired power plants.

  • avatar
    luscious

    You don’t have to like the messenger. You don’t even have to like his messages…but you owe it to yourself to investigate things on your own.

    Yes, use your own tools…you have tons of them at your disposal…and yes, investigate 9/11 and who really committed the acts of murder. Hint, it wasn’t a box-cutting Arab who inserted false radar blips on NORADS radar screens that morning.

    So…when he posts an article on gas-stamps…please…DON’T believe him or anyone else. YOU do the nose-grinding work and see if it is true.

    Yes, it is.

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    ihatetrees: I’m curious as to which litmus test(s) you draw upon to come up with the conclusion that Obama is so liberal. During the primaries Obama’s policy stances were very similar to Hillary Clinton’s and more centrist than those of John Edwards.

    Do a google of Obama’s economic advisors and you’ll find a roster of some pretty mainstream economists — some of whom the left really doesn’t like. For example, his economic policy director is Jason Furman, a former Clinton administration official who has clashed with those critical of Walmart’s stinginess with its workforce. Obama has also drawn upon Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago Business School professor who is viewed as a pragmatic centrist.

    Noam Scheiber of The New Republic compared Obama’s brain trust with that of the Clintons. “The Clintonites were moderates, but they were also ideological. They explicitly rejected the liberalism of the 1970s and ’80s. The Obamanauts are decidedly non-ideological. They occasionally reach out to progressive think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute, but they also come from a world– academic economics–whose inhabitants generally lean right. (And economists at the University of Chicago lean righter than most.) As a result, they tend to be just as comfortable with ideological diversity as the candidate they advise.”

  • avatar
    luscious

    PS, in the name of honesty, at one time this was a GREAT link:

    “Done.

    GREAT link. Thanks!

    RF”

    Don’t be shy in sticking up for the TRUTH…after all, the Truth Shall Set You Free.

    Lies, on the other hand, bring falsehood, deceit, disingenuous propaganda, false wars, and murder of US and innocent foreign citizens.

    ’nuff said.

  • avatar

    luscious :

    PS, in the name of honesty, at one time this was a GREAT link:

    Did I say it was a bad link? It is a great link!

    The establishment media has no monopoly on the truth. Just ask John Edwards.

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    Credible story. Likely the Dems aren’t so dumb as to propose it in Congress. How about 18 gallons of gasoline per car per month? WWII A sticker ration. Solve the gasoline problem real quick.

  • avatar
    Orian

    Yeah, drilling in the Atlantic makes tons of sense – gas hit $4.17 here on Ike – it would be well over $5 if there were more platforms out there for a hurricane to rip up.

  • avatar
    Cody

    Sweet! I was wondering how the family down the street that bought an SUV they couldn’t afford would make it to work. Looks like it’s under control now.
    Maybe since the government is saving their asses on the ARM they got on their McMansion, they can afford another new subsidized American SUV!

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    I see where this is going if it goes anywhere:

    Hand out free gas coupons. Hmmm…that ironically kind of subsidizes the Evil Exxon Combine.

    So, in this kind of mindset, the natural thing to do is levy some punishing tax on the Evil Exxon Combine, to pay for the subsidization of the free gas handout.

    Its a zero-sum game for the government tax-wise, but it will compel the Evil Exxon Combine to raise prices just a little-teeny bit to offset the new punishing tax.

    So, the handouts buying-power is diluted, it doesn’t buy as much gas. Everyone who actually pays retail for the gas will be paying more than otherwise, and the government will not be making any money. Heck, it will probably lose money in the paperwork sh*tstorm that will be the bureaucracy that hands out the gas stamps.

    I hate socialism.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    The article talks about “gas stamps” akin to food stamps – a transfer payment. As far as I can tell, it is one legislator proposing it, not “Democrats” as a party.

    Getting that out of the way, gas rationing COULD BE more rational than our current policy towards gasoline. Let’s contrast rationing with CAFE – corporate average fuel economy. Even if you take out the loopholes of trucks vs. cars, yada yada, you still have a problem that changing the miles that each car gets per gallon doesn’t change the money that consumers can allocate to gasoline, the result is that people travel more. Commutes get longer. Total gas consumption barely changes.

    If what you want to do is to cap national gasoline consumption, wouldn’t it be better to CAP gasoline consumption? The most direct way to do that is with a rationing plan, where each person gets a per capita share of the budget. By making the ration shares freely tradable, the rations can get to the people that value them the most, and you remove the incentive for “black market” trading. The cap can even be a “soft cap” with “supershares” available directly from the government.

    Under a rationing system, all of the economic profits would not go to the oil companies. The oil companies would get their share, but people who conserve and use less than their share would also be rewarded.

    I don’t like the government telling me how much I can drive, but our national addiction to foreign oil is not an optimal situation either. I personally think global warming is a reality, and major action will be necessary to combat the problem. I don’t see how we are going to be able to address this situation without rationing.

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    Iran rations gas. Everything’s tip-top there.

  • avatar
    folkdancer

    The Republicans who claim we would get instant relief by drilling off our coasts are wrong – if we drilled now it would still be 5 years at least before we got any oil and by that time probably only the Chinese could afford to buy it.

    The Democrats who want to provide gas stamps are wrong – too complicated.

    CAFE is wrong.

    We need to RAISE the gas tax to encourage new technologies, to rebuild our infrastructure, and to stop sending large sums of money to other countries.

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    folkdancer wrote:
    The Republicans who claim we would get instant relief by drilling off our coasts are wrong – if we drilled now it would still be 5 years at least before we got any oil and by that time probably only the Chinese could afford to buy it.

    1. No one claims you could get instant relief.
    2. So if it takes 5 years, and as you are projecting without drilling that gas will go up even higher in 5 years, you are saying we shouldn’t drill?

  • avatar
    97escort

    We need at least a dollar a gallon gas tax now to encourage conservation and alternative fuels. Gas stamps go in the opposite direction and would increase the problem not solve it.

    It is absolutely obscene that gas is taxed as low as it is while the Federal government runs huge deficits.

    Unless we change, it is not going to end well.

    The financial and energy troubles are only beginning.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    hm, if I get 17 gallons a month can I sell my excess? I use about 7-8 commuting.

    Just joking. I’d put the extra into my car so when there is a foot of snow on the ground I wouldn’t have to buy gas. I could imagine keeping premium in 5 gallon gas cans all over the garage. The wife would love me for it (actually she’d divorce me….)

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Dr Lemming:
    I’m curious as to which litmus test(s) you draw upon to come up with the conclusion that Obama is so liberal.

    Combine low ACU scores with high ADA scores, mix in his record of Chicago style gun control and sympathy to unions, and you get a classic arch-liberal record.

    During the primaries Obama’s policy stances were very similar to Hillary Clinton’s and more centrist than those of John Edwards.

    Wow. A comparison to Clinton/Edwards is the best you can do to invalidate my point (about Obama’s liberalism)?!? Heck, Edwards is no longer in office (since he’d probably have to change his state of residence to Vermont, Mass or NY to win again).

    Obama has also drawn upon Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago Business School professor who is viewed as a pragmatic centrist.

    True, and I hope he governs that way if elected. I’m concerned that congressional dems, like gas-stamp Hoyer, will push him way to the wack-job left.

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    97escort wrote:
    It is absolutely obscene that gas is taxed as low as it is while the Federal government runs huge deficits.

    No, it is absolutely obscene that the Federal government runs huge deficits.

  • avatar
    joeaverage

    The US military did (does?) this in Italy. Gas is several times more expensive than in the USA due to very high taxes to support Italian gov’t prgrams like universal healthcare. The way the military copes with this is to allow US militarty and NATO personnel to purchase gasoline at tax free prices (almost) in limited quantities each year. Each month purchased 300 liters of fuel coupons at tax free prices. Officially if we used up that amount we would have to burn spare coupons from previous months or buy it at fully-taxed Italian prices. That was nearly $5 a gallon in 1991. You guys were paying about a buck a gallon.

    Unofficially we were buying and selling coupons with other military friends. Need extra fuel for a vacation trip? Buy some from your barracks dwelling friend and a little extra for pizza and a beer.

    We generally worked hard at conserving fuel and I had to buy fuel out on the economy only once or twice. $50 to fill up a VW Rabbit that normally costed $10 to fill up was a wake up call…

    FWIW I have no problem paying a little extra tax to make our society function but I’m tired of funding our politician’s waste and fraud habits.

    Let fuel continue to rise and people will get the message that they need to change their habits. Unfortunately this may be the only way to reach those people. Talking to an SUV driving neice a few weeks ago complaining about her SUVs poor mileage she admitted that she got worse mileage because of her driving style (hard launches). She said “I just can’t help it”. The only problem is that despite my conservative driving style, I’m still paying higher prices for other people’s driving styles and choices.

  • avatar
    red60r

    The only ones who will benefit quickly from increased local drilling are the people who sell drill rigs, pipe, services, etc. I’m lookin’ at you, Halliburton.

  • avatar
    zenith

    The Bush/McCain drilling position has nothing to do with the normal approx. 33% swing in oil markets since I started noticing gasoline prices back in the’60s.

    Gas fluctuated from $.249 to $.369 back then.
    For many years(approx.1989 to approx. 2004), it fluctuated from $1.00 to $1.50.

    Oil is at or near the bottom of a 33% fluctuation that for some reason isn’t quite making it to the pump yet.

  • avatar
    folkdancer

    folkdancer wrote:
    The Republicans who claim we would get instant relief by drilling off our coasts are wrong – if we drilled now it would still be 5 years at least before we got any oil and by that time probably only the Chinese could afford to buy it.

    1. No one claims you could get instant relief.
    2. So if it takes 5 years, and as you are projecting without drilling that gas will go up even higher in 5 years, you are saying we shouldn’t drill?

    No, I am not saying we shouldn’t drill but the Republicans should stop lying about instant relief and yes they are lying about this or at least not making clear how long it will take to get some oil off our coasts and who might actually end up with it.

    I would also like to clarify my comments about the 2 or 3 (so far) Democrats who want to issue gas stamps. That is a terrible idea and I agree with the comments someone else made above that we shouldn’t be encouraging people (with our Tax Money) to buy more gas or diesel.

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    I’m NOT a big fan of government bailouts, especially for people who bought vehicles they can’t afford to pay for and operate. I vehemently oppose any sort of bailouts for people who are living beyond their means.

    However, a perverse side of me is just wondering…if in fact we’d REALLY like to help people with rising fuel costs: Instead of handing out $500 per month for families to buy more gasoline, wouldn’t it help the economy MORE to subsidize the purchase of a brand-new, fuel-efficient vehicle with at least 80% U.S. content?

  • avatar
    luscious

    BuzzDog,

    Yes, I would strongly agree with you…that you have a perverse side to you.

    You see, nowhere, in any official document…be it the US Constitution or others…is there a statement which says the role of the Government is to subsidize anyone. I would argue that we are already subsidizing the medical industry quite heavily…by encouraging these welfare-recipients to drive over-sized cars/trucks…so they can refrain from any form of exercise…so they can drive through the nearest burger joint and order a “Super Size” meal to go along with their super sized waistlines. This is a direct subsidy to the medical and pharmaceutical industry. When these people are rushed to the Emergency Ward in an ambulance…guess who pays (and pays dearly) for it? We do….that is, the taxpayers.

    If you want to help these people, give them a $100 Made-in-China bicycle. You see, when you are peddling down main-street in the ice cold rain, with your 3 babies on the handlebars, along with your weeks groceries and diapers, then maybe you will reflect upon your situation in life…and hopefully get off your ass and make a change.

    Wishful thinking, I know. But certainly not perverse.

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    Yeah, luscious…I’m NOT saying I’d support a proposal like that, and was hoping that my introduction sort of set that in place. Perhaps it popped into my head more as an illustration of the ridiculous ends to which we could take this sort of subsidy.

    Okay, onto my next idea: What if we allowed people to EARN their gas subsidies by working nights to build Autobahn-quality roads throughout the U.S.? (evil grin)

  • avatar
    luscious

    Then you would be directly competing with the privately-run prison slave-labor industry.

    Google “private prison labor”…you will soon learn that it is a multi-billion dollar industry. What do you think the “War on Drugs” is all about? They (you figure it out…try googling “Mena Arkansas Drugs”)…they ship it in, profit, they arrest the users and imprison them (of which the private prisons benefit), and then they work ’em for slave wages…of which the corporations benefit.

    It’s a Win-Win-Win situation…for all but the poor fool caught w/ a bag of dope.

    Back to my original point…it’s a conflict of interest :) You can’t WORK welfare recipients.

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    Yeah, I know about the Mena thing…ironically, I’ve lived in Northwest Arkansas for a few years, due to a transfer. Nice roads, by the way, with very clean shoulders and medians. LOL

  • avatar
    luscious

    You’ve all heard of Blackwater…the private mercenary firm making money hand over fist in Iraq at this very moment. Well, maybe you should research “Wakenhut”. Let me tell you something which should (SHOULD) be quite obvious….if you are a for-profit prison industry…it is in your BEST INTEREST to incarcerate people for possessing or smoking a joint! It’s GOOD to toss someone in prison and throw away the key. Just ask Tommy Chong, who spent 8-9 months in Federal Prison for shipping a bong to I think it was Pennsylvania…and was made an “example of” under A.G. Ashcroft. No lie…

    So, in a profit-driven society such as ours, if there is a way to make a profit, it will be found.

    I suggest something quite the opposite of what you suggest…why not keep the Govt out of our business. You have the right to succeed on your own, and you have the “right” to drive 8mpg trashers if you so desire…but it is your choice. It certainly isn’t any of the taxpayers business what you drive, so why should they be penalized if you can’t pay for its operation?

    This is just another excuse to expand government …and to justify govt employees jobs. Why, we just may need to hire 8000 more Federal “Administrators” to manage all of this, right?

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    joeaverage:
    The only problem is that despite my conservative driving style, I’m still paying higher prices for other people’s driving styles and choices.

    Is there any product’s price that isn’t affected by other people’s choices?

    We live in a market economy. The price of everything from dish soap to Durangos is based on other people’s market choices. Is there another way to price things?!? (that doesn’t involve wearing a foil hat??)

  • avatar
    TonyTiger

    Interesting that some of the readers and posters here do not follow thru to understand what’s going on.

    1) Regardless of your opinion of the source cited originally, several people posted a link to the actual congressman who proposed this idea. Yet posters here continued to attack the source.
    2) Someone (AH? I think) suggested that I be told that gas prices keep rising. Well, that’s not my experience. Here in California, the price of premium has dropped from around $4.40 to under $4.00 (yesterday $3.89) -SINCE BUSH RESCINDED the presidential order against off-shore drilling.
    3) A few posters heep harping on “Republicans lying about getting immediate relief at the pump if we start drilling.” I’d like just one of those posters to point to ANY republican or anyone at all who has ever said that. You people are just repeating democrat talking points. NO ONE EXPECTS IMMEDIATE RELIEF just because drilling starts. Now, it is POSSIBLE that oil future prices will drop, it’s not assured. Although this SEEMS to be what happened when Bush made his announcement. THe speculators panicked and the price of oil and oil futures dropped.
    4) Democrats refuse to allow us to drill for oil in the ocean, offshore where there is LOTS of it. I really dont know WHY. I guess one reason is that they’re afraid of environmental damage. Yet, while we sit around in a circle-jerk, THE CUBANS AND RED CHINESE are drilling OUR oil off OUR coast. Do the dems think they will be more responsible environmentally that US firms would?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • nrd515: I actually like the looks of this thing, but no Ecoboost ever for me, unless I lost my mind and leased one....
  • nrd515: This thing gets a hard pass for ugliness and price. Like several other vehicles lately, the price is just...
  • nrd515: No, it’s “Gray Primer Clearcoat”, and IMO, one of the worst colors to ever be put on a car....
  • nrd515: I was behind a red one last week. I just don’t like the looks of it. Like most “modern”...
  • namesakeone: And the advertised car does not have alloy wheels; those are wheel covers.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber