News-Record.com

James,

I agree with you. I hope that when you start driving, you will also start voting for Libertarians for public office, who will put a stop to the corrupt ties between government and business which deliberately stifle the free market, which would almost certainly have already phased out gasoline engines by now if not for the statist/corporate regime which has ruled us for so long.

Paul: I like your taste in music, but sometimes I think you're living in la-la-land.

"Libertarians .. will put a stop to the corrupt ties between government and business ... "

That's what they ALL say.

" .. the free market .. would almost certainly ___ .. if not for the statist/corporate regime which has ruled us for so long."

What free market? All that matters is this months profit and loss statement.

James D. Rockefeller says:

"That's what they ALL say."

Right. That's what all those Demopublicans promise election time after election time and then never deliver on their promises after the voters who never seem to learn keep re-electing them time after time. It seems like after about the fiftieth time the Demopublicans fail to deliver on their promises, the voters would say, "Hmm. Maybe we should vote for somebody else," but it never seems to sink in.

So I'm trying to let everyone know that they don't have to keep falling for the same tricks over and over again, year after year, decade after decade. Vote Libertarian...as soon as we get back on the ballot again. If we ever win, we'll actually allow free elections in this country.

Rockefeller,

I forgot. Thanks for correcting me by pointing out that there is no free market here. The statist/corporate regime we have prohibits it. What I meant to say is that the hypothetical free market which would exist under a Libertarian government would most likely have already phased out gasoline engines.

I like your term "Demopublicans." Great time saver.

Paul:

Please explain Why (what's the driver) a Libertarian Goveranment would "phase out gasoline engines" and the tell me How they would do that (what's the mechanism).

I'll give them carte blanche for as long as it takes. You tell me how long they need.

The engineering/tinkering gearhead gurus are already causing a market shift for diesels, particularly older mercedes on Ebay motors.

Lot of activity in biodiesel and veggie oil conversions.

Old diesels, with a bit of tinkering, run right well on veggie oil. Only drawback is sometimes it makes you hungry with the french fry smell. A young community college student just converted my emergency generator for pocket change.

Lemme Rephrase

What is our present "goverment" doing that prevents these entrepreneurial efforts - and presumably is limiting development of the "free market"?

... and for the record, I confess to not being a big fan of biofuels. This tech' merely diverts part of the worlds finite agri-supply to enable us to merely motor around. It is a short term partial "solution" to reducing the amount of oil that is imported. Eventally we'll have to choose .. Hummers or Hunger.

... just to be a pain, diesel is derived from oil .. just like gasoline.

"Diesel has yet another problem. Though it gets better fuel economy and emits less greenhouse gases, it produces more carcinogenic particulates and smog-causing nitrous oxide. U.S. standards governing those kinds of are scheduled to get tougher by 2007. No automaker has yet to build a car that could meet those standards.

"The reason: the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel. In order for automakers to meet emission standards, it needs oil companies to produce low-sulfur diesel, something the oil companies have been reluctant to do. This has put carmakers and oil companies--natural allies--at loggerheads. "When we ask petroleum companies to get sulfur out of fuel, they say 'the sky is falling,'" complains Burns. "We've got to get them to play a little more proactively here."

"By 2006 they will be required to sell low-sulfur diesel, but the levels will still not be as low as they will be in Europe and not low enough to allow carmakers to meet the 2007 emissions standards."

http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/24/cz_jf_0124feat.html

Ya know .. the obvious answer is to just conserve .. cut back and spread what cha got. Jimmy Carter had the answer with his cartigan sweater, but he's been ridiculed for that suggestion. When Bushy mentioned it too, notice the silent response he received to that trial ballon.

So let's give folks an incentive to buy SUV's to carry One, destroy the rail systems, build more and more roads to encourage burning the hell out of what we have left, drill holes everywhere to get quickly rid ouselves of the last drop in America, and just for kicks let's ridicule those old hippy tree huggers ... and the people most guilty of this call themselves "conservatives".

Frankly, it all makes me sick.

JDR,

You hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of SIMPLE things we could do to conserve that would have SIGNIFICANT results.

For instance, in my automobile owner's manual, it states clearly that driving my car at 55 miles per hour yields 15% better gasoline mileage than driving it at 65.

FIFTEEN PERCENT! That's about 33 cents a gallon right now. So the benefits are not only less consumption but price savings as well.

Jimmy Carter was right on that one. We're just too stupid to get our heads out of the sand and take responsibility for the world we will leave for our grandkids.

Good idea, Jim! Let's get rid of war, too, and meanies.

Yellow Dog, have you ever driven 55 MPH? It's like being in a time warp. I wouldn't advise it unless you are really, really bored. The paltry savings would hardly begin to pay for the masses who would (literally) be driven insane. What we need is better mileage, even if the govt has to mandate it.

Paul, the market demands big gas engines because people like to go fast and gas is cheaper that anything else. There's no libertarian solution. It's like politics generally: what people say they want is directly contrary to what they actually want--i.e., the desires they act on.

My lil 4 banger can cruise at 85 and 90 across I-90 in SDak. and still got over 30mpg so 55mph is not the answer.
I drive only short distances now in my lil 4 banger and I still get over 30mpg no appreciable difference between 85mph and 40mph except I got to where I was going faster.

James Rockefeller,

I think you caught your error, but just to be sure, I'll clarify that I never said that a Libertarian government would phase out gas engines. I said the free market would.

Surely you don't disagree that government and oil companies are in bed with one another, do you? That alone presents them with a good reason to delay phasing out gas engines.
But to speak in general terms, there is no free market in this country because of excessive regulation, which places undue burdens on businesses, and excessive taxation. Imagine how much more funding R&Ds and entrepreneurs would have if the government didn't steal 50% of everyone's wealth.

Brian 444,

"Paul, the market demands big gas engines because people like to go fast and gas is cheaper that anything else."

Perhaps it's cheaper than anything else right now, but I would like to see what science would have produced in a free market after all of these years. As for speed, I'm sure alternative fuels will provide that shortly as they improve the technology and discover new technology.

"There's no libertarian solution. It's like politics generally: what people say they want is directly contrary to what they actually want--i.e., the desires they act on."

That's absurd. That's precisely what a free market (which is libertarian) does--responds to the desires that people act on.

Surely the government and the oil companies are in bed together.

I strongly disagree that the "free market" is restricted by excessive regulation, which places undue burdens on businesses, and excessive taxation.

Regulation is needed to try and keep the Love Canels from happening. It is fascinating that Exxon-Mobil can earn $30 billions in a single year yet not afford the $100 thousand it would have cost to install the mandated oil-soaks around the Valdeze (which wouldhave prevented the whole thing), and that they can pay laywers to string litigation out for decades rather than pay the $5 billion fine imposed for said disaster.

There is no "undue burden" on businesses. Businesses use that complaint to to shift the burden onto the taxpayer. As an example, the Superfund is (was) a tax collected from the chemical and oil businesses to pay for cleaning up the toxic messes they have left on OUR soils over the years. This administation has decided it "too much burden" - so they effectively dropped it. Who's gonna pay to clean the toxins? You get One guess only.

Excess Taxation on Corporations? Have you seen the pie chart on who pays Federal taxes? From memory - cause I don't feel like looking it up right now - here's how it looks:

INDIVIDUAL INCOME Taxes - about 40%
SOCIAL SECURITY Taxes - about 40%
CORPORATE Taxes - about 10%
OTHER Tax Stream - about 10%

Note that if I (or a company or corpoation) invest in a new technology, I get a deduction at the least and maybe even a tax credit.

So don't BS about Taxes holding down ingenuity.

If you wanna argue that with or without government complicity Corporations hold down ingenuity, that I'll accept.

Drive 55 has to be balanced with the productivity loss from travelling at a lower speed.

When I can get to Wilmington in 3.5 hours I'm much more inclined to go there and stimulate their economy than if it takes me 4.5 hours to go there. The extra driving time costs.

Hummers or hunger? Ya mean no more Hummering through the drive through at MickeyDs?

This Jimmy Carter garbage about wearing sweaters around the house isn't what America is about. We are used to a certain lifestyle (which some of you would call excessive and unfair to the rest of the world) and I for one am not going to sit around the house in a sweater with the thermostat at 60. That is one reason Carter was landslided, he projected defeat and pessimism while Reagan projected optimism for America.

I think our economy will produce based upon consumer needs and desires. Hybrids are doing well because some people want them. Good for them. Others including myself prefer an SUV, good for me. As oil becomes more scarce and/or price goes up substantially the demand for alternative fuel sources will be there, THEN these technologies will be developed and implemented. But don't expect Americans to be driving around at 55mph in cars no bigger than a riding lawnmower. Ain't gonna happen.

Dan - you're right about the "I Can't Drive 55" syndrone .. but I know people that have already turned down the t'stat.

You're prob' also right about the American lifestyle in general, but I suggest the count of Americans that'll maintian it will get smaller.

At one time, if you lived on less than a 12 acre's, you were one of the few dammed city slickers, but these days many folks call themselves Fortunate to just live in a single family home.

... and speaking of Ronnie ... He was a great inspiration .. but didn't he say things like, "I will never trade Arms for Hostages, however I may trade Arms for Hostages."

Here's a right-spin: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Here's an left-spin: http://www.slate.com/id/100474/

James Rockefeller,

It looks like we agree more than we had previously thought.

We're on the same page with what you say about Exxon. I do believe in regulations (state regulations, not federal) that force people to pay for whatever environmental damage they do. They should be forced to clean it up and compensate the victims of their damage, and they should probably pay some punitive damages as well.

That's not the kind of regulation I was talking about which is excessive, however. I'm talking about the regulation which micro-manages every friggin' little detail of how someone does business. I'll use one small, tiny little example. My friend's dad owns a small business. There are about 15 employees: 13 male, two female. The government told him he couldn't have just one unisex bathroom and forced him to add a second bathroom, designating one for women only. I loathe to think of how many hundreds of other such idiotic regulations there are for businesses of this size, and the number of regulations concerning mega-corporations such as Exxon must be unfathomable. This regulation unnecessarily increases the cost of business, which is passed on to the consumers, and it hurts small businesses more than the mega-corps. Furthermore, it prevents a lot of people from going into business for themselves in the first place. Then everyone complains that there aren't enough small businesses and that the mega-corps are charging highway-robbery prices, and then they demand that the government fix it with more regulation!

I'm not sure where you got your 10% number for corporate tax, but here's what I found, which is a far cry from your numbers.

Corporate Income Tax Rates--2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%

I found these numbers here:

http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

As for me personally, I don't make very much money, but I have to pay 25% in taxes just because I'm self-employed, whereas if I made the same salary and worked for someone else, I would only have to pay about 10%.

Paul, you cheatin on your taxes? I'm self employed as well but pay much more than 25% including the "other" part of FICA that my employer would pay if I worked for someone else.

The regulation for a women's restroom? That's a pisser.

Dan,

I ashamed to say that I am not cheating on my taxes. I do pay tribute to the tyrant.

No doubt you do pay a lot more than 25% income tax. But note what I said: I don't make very much money! I'm just in lower bracket than you, I guess, one so low that if I were designated "employee" instead of "self-employed," I would only be paying about 10%.

I have no doubt that the self-employment tax was implemented in order to discourage people from starting their own small businesses because Gov Co. is in bed with the other mega-corps, and none of them want the competition from the little guys.

A couple of notes regarding my previous post.

I wouldn't consider not paying your taxes to be "cheating." I'd consider it not allowing yourself to be bullied.

Take with a pinch of salt my comment about my tax bracket being "so low." "So low" still translates to several thousand dollars, and even if the rate were 0.0001%, it would be too high.

Paul:

That 10% number for corporate tax was not a Rate, but the Percentage of the Federal Tax Stream. The Fed's claim - what is it 2.7 Trillion? Let's call it 3 for east math (and it'll be that in 2009)

Of that 3 trillion:

$1,200,000,000,000 comes from Your Income Tax.

$1,200,000,000,000 comes from Social Security Tax - which you pay 6.65% and your employer pays 6.65%. Dan an I each just pay the 13.3% (I think these percentages are right - I do do the taxes here).

$3,000,000,000,000 is paid from Corporate Revenues, which arguable really comes from You 'cause it's just a pass-through on the cost of products.

$3,000,000,000,000 comes from elsewhere.

That's a LOT of Zeros.

As you know, I oftern rail at Corporations - but know that I'm talking the Big Boys - the official line is $100 million, and that seems to me a fair distinction.

You Dad's friend, with 15 workers? I'm all about support, even more so than my own business, 'cause I do not have anyone besides me and my family depending on it.

If I were king - I'd have a "hockey-stick" tax program, similar to this and based on diminshing returns:

Up to $50,000 gross, no taxes (and no deductions either).

Between $50,000 and $250,000, zero for the first $50k, then perhaps a flat 20% and few deductions.

Between $250,000 and $2,500,000, ditto but perhaps a flat 45% and fewer deductions.

Between $2,500,000 and $10,000,000, ditto but perhaps a flat 80% and even fewer deductions.

Over $10,000,000 - a flat 95%, no deduxctions. Why? 'cause no one is worth that much, 'cause it will encourage corporate boards to be a lot smarter with compensation, cause after that mark, it all goes eleswhere.

AFTER the national debt get's paid off, we talk about lowering things.

One final note, then off to battle ...

Paul say's he'd consider one not paying taxes to be not allowing ones self to be bullied.

I say: You don't pay takes? Fine.
- stay off the roads.
- strike your name off the Police's "Respond to ... " list, and the fireman's.
- No schooling for you or your kids.
- You and your kids are on the "Front Line" for every military operation, we'll provide the transportation since you're disqualified fom the road-usage you didn't pay for.
- No water from wells, since the ground is part of America's Common Wealth, and that water leeches onto your property from outside your property.
- No fireplace, 'cause similarly that smoke blows off your land.

Go to pdf page 64 to see what else you're restricted on:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

Again - it's HOW it's spent that matters.