GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,375 Posts
Happy New Year!

Thanks for what I assume is just the first of many propaganda pieces for the New Year.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,293 Posts
Happy New Year!

Thanks for what I assume is just the first of many propaganda pieces for the New Year.
Amen to that.

For starters, George Bush said a lot of stupid things. Calling modern industrial high-living-standard technological feed-all society "addicted" to oil was one of those.

Oil is a tool, it brought the US and the rest of the world from the 19th century world of coal to the 20th century world of oil and all that oil allowed us to do.

All agitprop, all the time. And no, I don't plan on watching the slide show. Three were enough. :drive::drive::drive:

If not for oil, or coal, what is there? Wood. We'd be burning wood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
1. Oil consumption has not followed GDP's rise because median wages have not increased like they normally do when GDP goes up. A lot of the jobs created have been low paying service and part time jobs, so that's not a surprise. The worker's participation rate is low, as it's too easy to be on welfare now, so that probably plays a role in keeping wages down as there is less competition for jobs.
2. Fuel consumption has not gone up as fuel prices have gone down because there has been too little time for the impacts of lower fuel prices to be felt. Once people with decent paying jobs are reasonably certain low prices are here to stay, they will start to buy more large, fuel inefficient vehicles, but even so with only about 1.2 million cars sold per year (of which perhaps only 300000 are gas guzzler trucks and large SUVs) out of a total national fleet of 250 million vehicles, it will take some time for this to translate to higher national fuel consumption.
Economic laws still apply- when something costs less it is used more. It just takes a little time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
It is true, the supply of oil and gas has increased - no thanks to the government. Demand has stayed the same or dropped so consumers are benefiting from more efficient vehicles that use less gas. The next problem that needs to be addressed will be the loss of gasoline/diesel tax revenue by the states and federal government. The government needs to make up for the loss of tax revenue.
Look for taxing driving by the mile or some other kind of surcharge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,723 Posts
I thought this was very interesting, particularly the decoupling of oil from GDP growth. That indicates that we are becoming far more efficient in turning energy into economic growth which is a good thing no matter where the energy is coming from. Equally as important: we now have proven ways to get to a range of fossil fuel energy at different price points. Yes, unconventional oil like tar sands or shale might now be viable at $50 a barrel. But, we know how to exploit those reserves at $80 a barrel. Those reserves aren't going anywhere, which may create a bit of a ceiling for oil prices for the near future. If demand grows and OPEC can't or won't increase production, those reserves -- particularly shale -- are primed to come back on-line. If history have demonstrated anything, it is that the remaining non conventional players will spend this period finding ways to reduce the costs of existing production, making them even more viable as the price comes back up.

All of this is good news. The economy is getting more efficient which in the long run is an engine for real wealth production. The fact that we have 5000 lb, 350+ HP, capable pickups that can get nearly 20 mpg is just but one manifestation of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,375 Posts
Did you actually read it? Head in the sand I see as usual. I know it's difficult for you, but how about reading it and making an intelligent rebuttal if you disagree.

Yes I did, read and comprehended all 15 slides; shall I break-down every slide for you?

Patrick has already touched on a few.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,225 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Yes I did, read and comprehended all 15 slides; shall I break-down every slide for you?

Patrick has already touched on a few.
Patrick brought up a few good points.

Do you actually have anything to add?

The point of the thread is to discuss the facts presented. If you want to discuss, go right ahead.

But when you immediately dismiss facts as propoganda without any reasons why, you don't do much to support your position (if you even have one).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,293 Posts
It is true, the supply of oil and gas has increased - no thanks to the government. Demand has stayed the same or dropped so consumers are benefiting from more efficient vehicles that use less gas. The next problem that needs to be addressed will be the loss of gasoline/diesel tax revenue by the states and federal government. The government needs to make up for the loss of tax revenue.
Look for taxing driving by the mile or some other kind of surcharge.
Unintended consequences anyone?

The obvious answer to lower fuel use is to increase the tax on fuel. I'm very rarely one to advocate tax increases, and I still don't.

If the states and feds would hire 10,000-20,000 honest competent independent auditors they could cut fraud, waste, and abuse (my estimate is the fed budget is around 50% FWA) by even 10%, that could be applied to infrastructure which BTW supposedly was infused with over 500 billion a few years back.
"Haha. I guess there weren't that many shovel-rady jobs after all! Haha!"

Almost everyone's on the take so good luck with the audit. It COULD happen, though, if so-called leaders actually wanted solutions instead of digging us deeper in and pretending behavior has no consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,225 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
If the states and feds would hire 10,000-20,000 honest competent independent auditors they could cut fraud, waste, and abuse (my estimate is the fed budget is around 50% FWA) by even 10%, that could be applied to infrastructure which BTW supposedly was infused with over 500 billion a few years back.
"Haha. I guess there weren't that many shovel-rady jobs after all! Haha!"

Almost everyone's on the take so good luck with the audit. It COULD happen, though, if so-called leaders actually wanted solutions instead of digging us deeper in and pretending behavior has no consequences.
It's highly unlikely that the federal government would meet your arbitrary and likely unrealistic estimate of "50% reduction of FWA".

So you don't really have a viable solution do you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
It's highly unlikely that the federal government would meet your arbitrary and likely unrealistic estimate of "50% reduction of FWA".

So you don't really have a viable solution do you?
Really easy solution.

First, drop the gas tax.

Tally up the total costs to maintain/improve our roadways, on a state by state basis.

For interstate-designated roads, send the bill back to the federal government, who then pays for it by a national levy to each state, based on its # of members of the House of Representatives.

For intrastate-designated roads, bill each person who registers a vehicle, based on the # of miles driven since the last registration, times weight of the vehicle. You don't need to pay on the spot (you can pay monthly, over the course of the following year), but if you don't pay, you can't register the vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roy219 and Tone

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,345 Posts
Unfortunately I can't view the slideshow, hopefully when I get home.

One general thought calling facts and figures into question. Over the past couple of days the local paper ran and article citing government studies. The article cited the rush hour traffic on i84 in Danbury CT as costing the average commuter $1,500 at year in gas. I happen to be one of those average commuters that drives through the rush hour traffic on i84 in Danbury, my annual gas cost is $2,500 (~16,000 miles a year). So per the article and the government study 60% of my annual gas cost is from traffic on i84. Pure garbage, and decisions are being made off of crap math like this to determine what to do with the highway. Granted I would love the traffic flow to be improved, but realistic numbers need to be used. At most I'd say $100 of gas a year is wasted for me. It just makes me wonder how many other statistics are way off or missing basic aspects of the calculations.....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,293 Posts
The very premise of this thread is far off target. Calling modern civ's use of high-density energy an "addiction" is like saying humans are "addicted" to breathing.

It's highly unlikely that the federal government would meet your arbitrary and likely unrealistic estimate of "50% reduction of FWA".

So you don't really have a viable solution do you?
I don't really understand your first sentence.

If you think that half the federal budget is not waste, fraud, and abuse, what percent do you suspect?

If you think they would not be interested in curbing WFA, you are 150% correct. Tens of thousands of folks get rich off corrupt and wasteful systems. Wait, it's call the fat of the land.

And yes, my answer is viable. IF leadership was honest, and willing to spend money where it should be spent instead of useless agencies and activities.

Is it likely to happen? WPF, When Pigs Fly.

Really easy solution.

First, drop the gas tax.

Tally up the total costs to maintain/improve our roadways, on a state by state basis.

For interstate-designated roads, send the bill back to the federal government, who then pays for it by a national levy to each state, based on its # of members of the House of Representatives.

For intrastate-designated roads, bill each person who registers a vehicle, based on the # of miles driven since the last registration, times weight of the vehicle. You don't need to pay on the spot (you can pay monthly, over the course of the following year), but if you don't pay, you can't register the vehicle.
IF you could get an honest accounting of costs that could work. Of course, when dealing with estimated costs and contracts, there's a wee bit of inflating that goes on.

To wit:

NSA's Massive Utah Datacenter Having Serious Electrical Problems: Has Already Had 10 Fiery Explosions
from the frying-our-data dept
It's no secret that government computing projects tend to be something of a boondoggle for government contractors. There are way too many stories of projects that are massively over-budget while never actually working. It's almost to be expected these days. Still, when it came to the NSA's infamous Utah data center they've been building over the past few years, you would have thought that maybe these guys would plan things out a little more carefully. While we can mock the NSA for the lies and misleading statements they make to the public, most people agree that they do have pretty damn good technical skills.

But, no, it appears that the Bluffdale data center is a complete mess. The data center, which was supposed to open up last month, has apparently been massively delayed due to major electrical problems -- and we're not just talking about some issues with not having enough power, but with setting stuff on fire:
According to the Wall Street Journal, the data center's electrical problems include "arc failures," a.k.a. "a flash of lightning inside a 2-foot box," which results in fiery explosions, melted metal and circuit failure. More terrifying, this has happened ten times, most recently on September 25, reports the WSJ, which reviewed project documents and reports and talked to contractors involved. The report blames the NSA "fast tracking" the Utah project and thus bypassing "regular quality controls in design and construction." Whoops.
Whoops indeed. Apparently the NSA was in such a rush to store all our data that it almost burned down its own data center. Good thing they're getting a tax break on all that electricity they're using.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...lems-wont-be-storing-your-data-just-yet.shtml

President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective programs. This is a step in the right direction to pare back the runaway spending that has pushed the budget deficit over $400 billion. In less than three years, the first baby boomers will begin to collect Social Security: Lawmakers must therefore begin to reduce spending now to make room for the massive Social Security and Medicare costs that will follow.
The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) to address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of Representatives, and similar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) were rejected by the Senate. A small group of House lawmakers has formed the Washington Waste Watchers, but their agenda has not been embraced by the whole House.
Lack of information is not the problem. Today, government waste investigations and recommendations can be found in hundreds of reports, such as:
Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),[1]
The Congressional Budget Office's Budget Options book,
Inspector general reports of each agency,
Government Performance and Results Act reports of each agency,
The White House's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) program reviews, and
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's 2001 Government at the Brink reports.
For those seeking past recommendations that went unheeded, the 1984 Grace Commission report on government waste and the 1993-1995 publications of Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review can still be found.


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/04/top-10-examples-of-government-waste

At least half the Cabinet agencies could be abolished. DHS, Energy, Education for starters. You could spend your life cutting waste 40 hours a week and still make just a dent.

Unfortunately I can't view the slideshow, hopefully when I get home.

One general thought calling facts and figures into question. Over the past couple of days the local paper ran and article citing government studies. The article cited the rush hour traffic on i84 in Danbury CT as costing the average commuter $1,500 at year in gas. I happen to be one of those average commuters that drives through the rush hour traffic on i84 in Danbury, my annual gas cost is $2,500 (~16,000 miles a year). So per the article and the government study 60% of my annual gas cost is from traffic on i84. Pure garbage, and decisions are being made off of crap math like this to determine what to do with the highway. Granted I would love the traffic flow to be improved, but realistic numbers need to be used. At most I'd say $100 of gas a year is wasted for me. It just makes me wonder how many other statistics are way off or missing basic aspects of the calculations.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: rand49er

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
IF you could get an honest accounting of costs that could work. Of course, when dealing with estimated costs and contracts, there's a wee bit of inflating that goes on.
Transparency is important, but that's a completely separate conversion. I have a close relative who works in Waste & Fraud in the GAO, and with the budget they have, she literally can't even scratch the surface, which is tragic.

Quick fix would take about 24 months. Each agency gets 12 months to identify all waste/fraud that doesn't contribute to its core mission. Then, the annual amount saved gets directly paid out to the agency and its employees, commensurate with their salaries.

Then, an independent auditor gets to go in and do their own review, and anything they find, they get to keep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,375 Posts
1) Gas has gone down more than a $1.00 and less than $2.00 in some areas.
- Factual, just stating the facts, simple supply demand

2) U.S. Shale Boom; has increased domestic production. With so much cheap oil you’d expect consumption to be soaring.
- US production has been only notably higher for roughly 2 years, new technology has enabled the private sector to find oil previously un-claimable.
- Oil/Gas consumption, is rather “inelastic” just like in 2008 when gas was over $4.00 we couldn’t just stop using it……….. i.e. when beef is expensive and chicken is cheap, we eat more chicken, when gas is more expensive we just pay more.

3) U.S. is consuming the least oil per dollar of GDP, in more than 40 years.
- Follows productivity gains trends, the amount of oil consumed per dollar of GDP, has been on a steady and linear trend that started almost 40 years ago, appears minimal influence from any outside forces, other than reducing the COGS.

4) Oil consumption and GDP once moved in tandem. That link has been severed.
- Roughly the time of our latest down-turn 2007 – 2009.
- Two main drivers, beyond the global financial collapse: Demographics tied to the massive lay-offs, forced early retirements and baby-boomers retiring as planned. The dramatic increase in government spending, funding GDP and putting money in people’s pockets without them having to drive to work.

5) Economist at U.S. Energy Department forecast flat consumption for 2015.
- Just like gas is inelastic when prices go up, just because it cheaper doesn’t mean most will use more, $3.50 gas has become the norm, we’ve learned to live with it, I’ll take just as many trips with gas at $2.00 this year as I did last year with it at $3.50………. i.e. If chicken goes from $1.99/pound to $0.99/pound I won’t eat any more this year than I did last year.

6) Cars are becoming more fuel efficient.
- No disagreement there, simply stating a fact, driven by: sustained high gas prices, technology gains, competition, and CAFÉ requirements.

7) Demand for gas is waning as more baby boomers retire and drive less.
- The “participation rate” is at 36 year low (in real numbers and percentage), part of it is tied to baby-boomers retiring, the rest is tied to crap economy and the lack of (good) job creation………..i.e. One will drive 30 miles for a $50,000 office job, but you aren’t going to drive that for a 4 hour shift at a car-wash.

8) Young people are migrating to cities……
- Note the graph doesn’t show us numbers or percentages, (survey of people 25-34) shows us; Percentage “Who Prefer Close-In Neighborhoods”
- The fact that the dramatic graph is not related to the statement is at best suspect…… What does "prefer close-in neighborhoods" even mean!?

9) ….. and they are using public transit more than previous generations.
- Is this a new trend?
- Is it maybe tied to the employment situation of Millennials?
- Any correlation to the percentages still living in “moma’s basement”?

10) American are also increasingly turning to renewable fuels including wind and solar.
- Because they are cheaper or because the Government is paying for the promotion of their use? Hold-on, let me write my $179.00 monthly Volt payment……..

11) As oil consumption has fallen and production has risen, imports to the U.S. have dropped.
- Note a graph of U.S. Oil Imports and Production shown, is it rocket science that the more oil we produce, the need to import goes down!?
- Why isn’t consumption shown, maybe because it would conflict the message? Oil consumption has been rather stable, 2009 was a 17 year low, we’ve used more every year since.

12) That means we don’t need to buy as much oil from countries “like these”……
- We import less, in-total – the fact that we buy less from the bad-guys, logically follows.

13) Or OPEC countries as a whole………….
- The same as #12, additionally with the stronger dollar, we are getting more from Canada too.

14) Oil is plentiful enough that exports of U.S. crude shot up in 2014.
- Companies like to sell their product to the highest bidder, additionally we can only refine so much in the U.S. its got to be either sold or stored, if it can’t be consumed/refined fast enough.

15) The U.S. has supplied 89 percent of the energy it’s consumed this year. That’s up 2 percentage points from 2013.
- Which aligns with our recent increase in production, and the latest in a trend that stated in 2005.
- There was a time when we were certain that we were “going to run out” so using OPO “other people’s oil” was a strategic plan of sorts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
The very premise of this thread is far off target. Calling modern civ's use of high-density energy an "addiction" is like saying humans are "addicted" to breathing.



I don't really understand your first sentence.

If you think that half the federal budget is not waste, fraud, and abuse, what percent do you suspect?

If you think they would not be interested in curbing WFA, you are 150% correct. Tens of thousands of folks get rich off corrupt and wasteful systems. Wait, it's call the fat of the land.

And yes, my answer is viable. IF leadership was honest, and willing to spend money where it should be spent instead of useless agencies and activities.

Is it likely to happen? WPF, When Pigs Fly.



IF you could get an honest accounting of costs that could work. Of course, when dealing with estimated costs and contracts, there's a wee bit of inflating that goes on.

To wit:

NSA's Massive Utah Datacenter Having Serious Electrical Problems: Has Already Had 10 Fiery Explosions
from the frying-our-data dept
It's no secret that government computing projects tend to be something of a boondoggle for government contractors. There are way too many stories of projects that are massively over-budget while never actually working. It's almost to be expected these days. Still, when it came to the NSA's infamous Utah data center they've been building over the past few years, you would have thought that maybe these guys would plan things out a little more carefully. While we can mock the NSA for the lies and misleading statements they make to the public, most people agree that they do have pretty damn good technical skills.

But, no, it appears that the Bluffdale data center is a complete mess. The data center, which was supposed to open up last month, has apparently been massively delayed due to major electrical problems -- and we're not just talking about some issues with not having enough power, but with setting stuff on fire:
According to the Wall Street Journal, the data center's electrical problems include "arc failures," a.k.a. "a flash of lightning inside a 2-foot box," which results in fiery explosions, melted metal and circuit failure. More terrifying, this has happened ten times, most recently on September 25, reports the WSJ, which reviewed project documents and reports and talked to contractors involved. The report blames the NSA "fast tracking" the Utah project and thus bypassing "regular quality controls in design and construction." Whoops.
Whoops indeed. Apparently the NSA was in such a rush to store all our data that it almost burned down its own data center. Good thing they're getting a tax break on all that electricity they're using.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...lems-wont-be-storing-your-data-just-yet.shtml

President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective programs. This is a step in the right direction to pare back the runaway spending that has pushed the budget deficit over $400 billion. In less than three years, the first baby boomers will begin to collect Social Security: Lawmakers must therefore begin to reduce spending now to make room for the massive Social Security and Medicare costs that will follow.
The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) to address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of Representatives, and similar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) were rejected by the Senate. A small group of House lawmakers has formed the Washington Waste Watchers, but their agenda has not been embraced by the whole House.
Lack of information is not the problem. Today, government waste investigations and recommendations can be found in hundreds of reports, such as:
Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),[1]
The Congressional Budget Office's Budget Options book,
Inspector general reports of each agency,
Government Performance and Results Act reports of each agency,
The White House's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) program reviews, and
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's 2001 Government at the Brink reports.
For those seeking past recommendations that went unheeded, the 1984 Grace Commission report on government waste and the 1993-1995 publications of Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review can still be found.


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/04/top-10-examples-of-government-waste

At least half the Cabinet agencies could be abolished. DHS, Energy, Education for starters. You could spend your life cutting waste 40 hours a week and still make just a dent.
I am an arch right winger but even I understand that this notion of cutting government spending by cutting fraud, waste and abuse is a crock. Whenever Greta van Sustren brings it up on Fox I wish I could reach out and slap her! The FWA problem will always exist, in any organization. Period. You will never "eliminate" it. I doubt you can even cut it materially, without using costly new processes and red tape that could be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. And besides, the problem is bigger than the few billion expended on fraud and waste. The problem is that government is too damn big, too damn centralized and too much gets spent on things which the federal government should not be involved in based on even a cursory reading of the Constitution.

Government needs to be cut by transferring all Federal land not required for military uses to the states, which would eliminate the need for the Interior Dept. Schooling is local, no need for the Feds and Michele to butt in so cut the Dept. of Education. Housing is a local issue so cut HUD. Labor and environmental protection are state issues so cut the Labor Dept. and the EPA. There is no need for an Agriculture Department or a Department of Commerce. Cut the huge number of DOD contractors, which is a way for the Pentagon to get around the mandated end strength limits of the US armed forces. All social security administration, welfare programs (medicare, medicaid, SNAP etc) should devolve onto states, so cut those departments. I'm sure the states would make these programs far more restrictive than the feds and run them much better than being done now- no more welfare queens and people becoming rich on disability! The Feds should focus only on national defence, running the Fed, the Coast Guard, CIA/NSA, FAA, DHS and Treasury and national highway system (keep the Transportation Dept. as a small highway agency). This was supposed to be a Federation of states wasn’t it? Now those reforms would be meaningful. This FWA stuff is a red herring and cop-out that creates the appearance of action to cut spending, but does nothing in practice.

Oh, but I am a foreigner so take it from whence it comes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
... I have a close relative who works in Waste & Fraud in the GAO, and with the budget they have, she literally can't even scratch the surface, which is tragic ...
Having worked for the Federal Government (EPA) for over fours years while a grad student, I have some insight into how they think. A politician will trumpet the fact that some such dept monitors Waste & Fraud so they're can't be any WFA even though that dept may have only scratched the surface. I've seen reports get written, big thick ones, that get waved in critics' eyes as "proof" of whatever they want it to prove, and no one has the chance to dispute or contest the statement because of the sheer size of such reports, with agencies whose jurisdictions overlap, with the enormity of government in general, and with everyone's short attention spans. Washington DC is a monster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
I am an arch right winger but even I understand that this notion of cutting government spending by cutting fraud, waste and abuse is a crock. Whenever Greta van Sustren brings it up on Fox I wish I could reach out and slap her! The FWA problem will always exist, in any organization. Period. You will never "eliminate" it. I doubt you can even cut it materially, without using costly new processes and red tape that could be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. And besides, the problem is bigger than the few billion expended on fraud and waste. The problem is that government is too damn big, too damn centralized and too much gets spent on things which the federal government should not be involved in based on even a cursory reading of the Constitution.

Government needs to be cut by transferring all Federal land not required for military uses to the states, which would eliminate the need for the Interior Dept. Schooling is local, no need for the Feds and Michele to butt in so cut the Dept. of Education. Housing is a local issue so cut HUD. Labor and environmental protection are state issues so cut the Labor Dept. and the EPA. There is no need for an Agriculture Department or a Department of Commerce. Cut the huge number of DOD contractors, which is a way for the Pentagon to get around the mandated end strength limits of the US armed forces. All social security administration, welfare programs (medicare, medicaid, SNAP etc) should devolve onto states, so cut those departments. I'm sure the states would make these programs far more restrictive than the feds and run them much better than being done now- no more welfare queens and people becoming rich on disability! The Feds should focus only on national defence, running the Fed, the Coast Guard, CIA/NSA, FAA, DHS and Treasury and national highway system (keep the Transportation Dept. as a small highway agency). This was supposed to be a Federation of states wasn’t it? Now those reforms would be meaningful. This FWA stuff is a red herring and cop-out that creates the appearance of action to cut spending, but does nothing in practice.

Oh, but I am a foreigner so take it from whence it comes.
Patience.

There will come a point, once the Internet Generation reaches a certain age, where the high demands and expectations of the American people will collide with the immense incompetency of the federal government, and reform will come in a tidal wave.

Once power devolves out of Washington, and moves back to far more accountable states and local municipalities (as well as privatization where that makes the most sense), the costs will plummet, and services will vastly improve.

You'll also see a major change in US political culture, with both major party coalitions being gutted by changing constituencies, and new coalitions will form. Also, with dozens of real-world examples of both radical and moderate policies in play (across the different states), government will gravitate towards actual feasible solutions to problems, rather than just shouting at each other about policies that can never be implemented. You'll see quasi-religious states (Mississippi), libertarian paradises (New Hampshire), socialist paradises (Vermont), business oligarchies (New York), and dozens of states in between, all operating within guidelines set by a far smaller and more effective federal government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,225 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Really easy solution.

First, drop the gas tax.

Tally up the total costs to maintain/improve our roadways, on a state by state basis.

For interstate-designated roads, send the bill back to the federal government, who then pays for it by a national levy to each state, based on its # of members of the House of Representatives.

For intrastate-designated roads, bill each person who registers a vehicle, based on the # of miles driven since the last registration, times weight of the vehicle. You don't need to pay on the spot (you can pay monthly, over the course of the following year), but if you don't pay, you can't register the vehicle.
Makes sense to me.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top