Ogami sez: The left wants to tell everyone else how to live, yet exempt themselves from their own draconian rules. Why is it so unacceptable to the Religious Left that the public be allowed to make their own buying decisions, to have a free market determined by what the consumer wants, and not what some nutjob group of leftist wackos want?
Good luck convincing anybody of this. Unfortunately, it won't work on me, because I live in a red state and grew up not even being able to buy books or magazines (and I don't mean porn, I mean anything
) on Sundays because of "blue laws" enacted by a bunch of *ahem*
right-wing wacko nutjobs who wanted to make my purchasing decisions for me. I also didn't get to see certain movies (and again I ain't talkin' porn, unless you consider stuff like Last Temptation of Christ
to be porn) because right-wing wacko nutjobs wouldn't let them into town under threat of theater-arson. Hell, we even had the freakin' safe-'nilla For Better or Worse
comic strip censored out of our local paper because some right-wing wacko nutjobs didn't like a gay character in it and decided that if they didn't want to see it then nooooooo
body should see it. Thank the gods for mail order, or I'd miss out on a lot of books, movies, and music that right-wing wacko nutjobs don't allow to be sold around here. I can't think of one thing that any "leftist" has ever stopped me from buying, but I can think of plenty that have been embargo'ed by the local right-wing Baptaliban morality-police. Hell, our own Donald Wildmon
won't even let ya watch Mighty Mouse
. Wotta leftist!
G sez: If someone wants to buy a car which gets 5 gallons to the mile and has the cash to do it. Then so be it. No one made them buy the car.
There's a funny, inconvenient lil' thing called "supply and demand," though. If Billy Bob Inadequate is such a shickenchit that he thinks he needs a Hummer to make that ver'-ver'-dangerous trip to the grocery store, then that's fine. But I don't think he should be rewarded
for buying one... which is exactly what Bush did. Tellya why. It's because Bush is an oil man and so are his buddies - it's in their best interests that you use up as much gas as possible, 'cuz that's money in their pocket.
O' course, he's not a very farsighted guy, and since gas prices shot up so much that it started to crush his approval rating, he's now saying we need to be better conservationists. That's a big tune-change from a couple years ago, the time of the "big no."
If he really thinks we should conserve fuel more, how come the tax breaks go to the vehicles which suck up the most of it, instead of the ones that use the least? That would
be the walk that backed up the talk, wouldn't it? But all the talk
is for conserving, while all the incentives
are for using-up. Why is that? Could it be, maybe, that there's not as much $
in talk? Talk, after all, is cheap. Gas, on the other hand, is upwards of two-eighty-nine-point-nine. So he'd have us do our fuel-conservation in a rebated Ford Excursion.
Part of the reason that gas is as high as it is is because some people are using up more than their share driving these SUV's that they absolutely don't need. I don't mind SUV's for people who have a real use for 'em, but waaaaaay too many people are driving them for no legitimate reason other than they're "popular" and they don't wanna be different. They're having to fill up their own tanks, sure, but their overuse also makes my
gasoline more expensive, and yours, too. I'm not for stopping anyone from buying them, and I'm not for banning them, but I think if you do something that adversely affects everyone else, you surely shouldn't be rewarded
for it. In fact, they should pay more for it. That's not "socialism" - that's just a fair price for what you want. It's capitalism, if anything - them what wants the most pays the most. If I want a bigger air conditioner, then my electricity bill's going to be higher. Bigger air conditioners are more expensive - you don't get a tax break for 'em. If I want that, then I have to pay for that, all across the board. Why should the laws of the market be suspended for SUV's?
As inconvenient as it may be to the people who want to be rewarded for doing stuff that benefits no one but themselves - be they smokers or SUV drivers or whatever - nobody owes it to 'em to make those things easy or convenient for them. What's the profit in your
driving an SUV for me
? None. Your overconsumption makes my
gas prices go up. Therefore, it's not in my best interest to help you get cheaper, less-efficient SUV's, since that would decrease my own profit-margin. See? Capitalism, not socialism.
Which brings me back to Ogami:
It's almost as if the filthy rich Democrats in the Senate want no one but themselves to be able to afford SUVs. They already have theirs, they don't want the average citizen to be able to afford them. So tax them out of existence for all but the rich and powerful, typical solution from the "concerned" Democrats who want to "save" the environment.
I'm for doing away with the SUV tax break for Democrats, too, y'know. They're not doing me any more favors driving those things than the Republicans are.