My Channel

Friday, November 22, 2013

NBC is just beside itself that we are driving so darn much. Don't worry, they have a solution

We'll tax you by the mile.
Improved fuel efficiency is one of the easiest and practical solutions society can implement to combat climate change, but its unintended consequences are large: potholes and shaky bridges all across the U.S. map. That's because more efficient cars mean yield barren fuel-tax coffers, which traditionally have funded bridge and road infrastructure.
Because climate change is real and unintended consequences of taxes and regulations are just all made up in your mind and stuff. Imagine all these damn drivers having the temerity to actually use the roads and bridges for.. driving! The nerve. The roads and bridges would be in pristine condition if we'd just stop using them.
The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon hasn't budged in two decades, and that hasn't helped those coffers, either; indexed for inflation, it would be at about 30 cents per gallon today. The effect is that such infrastructure has nearly 40 percent less funding than in 1993.
Because we are spending the money we get in very wisely. We never waste in the government.

What taxes get spent in Vegas, stay in Vegas. Until they go back to Washington
There's just no other choice. We must raise the gas tax. This will stop you knuckle-draggers from driving all the time so we can stuff you on to mass transit that runs on our schedule, not yours. 
"Dealing with climate change is not a top priority of Oregon's transportation planners," said Steve Woolpert, professor of politics at Saint Mary's College of California. 
Some view the VMT as a means of addressing an unfairness in the system as people opt for more fuel-efficient vehicles—for example, that Prius drivers end up paying less for road infrastructure than their gas-guzzling counterparts. Woolpert thinks that's a wrongheaded argument. "(VMT) will weaken incentives for buying fuel-efficient vehicles. … It is unfortunate that Oregon is pursuing a VMT rather than a comprehensive response to climate change."
Maybe because the climate change is laughable. If all these climate change people really were that worried about it, maybe they wouldn't be buying up all this coastal property that will be underwater in a few years because of polar ice melt or whatever.
 "The high cost of coastal homes in New York and Los Angeles is on its own a market signal that the alleged threat of global warming is well overdone. Even worse for those who buy into the theory of global warming that says a planetary crack-up is inevitable absent a substantial human response, is that Malibu, Manhattan and the Hamptons are filled with the very people who, when asked if they believe in the global warming theory, would most likely say yes. Ok, so Ted Danson owns in Martha's Vineyard, noted environmental activist Laurie David does too, and then Al Gore is known to have purchased a coastal palazzo in Montecito, CA. What this tells us is that even global warming's most famous advocates don't believe very deeply in their own activism. To believe the warmists we're sitting idle as Rome supposedly burns, but as evidenced by the popularity of coastal property among warmists and non-warmists alike, the market says the 'science' predicting catastrophe is utter nonsense."
Look, we're going to tax you. We disapprove of your lifestyle of thinking and doing for yourself. We'll do whatever the hell we want but you are racist knuckle draggers who vote GOP and that's got to stop. 

No comments:

Post a Comment