Liberals befuddle and confuse me

[Paul Hoffman]

Two things I find puzzling:

1) Taxes. Here in Oregon where we have no sales tax, there are many
liberals all too eager to latch onto this regressive tax. The golden
goose isn't laying enough eggs and they see a sales tax as a great new
revenue stream to squeeze more blood from a turnip. Similar to
gambling, their amazing ability to overlook its devestating effect on
people who can least afford it is galling. Our Democratic governor is
also a big fan of gambling. Whatever happened to *progressive*
taxation? In their zeal to grab more and more revenue, the liberals
seem all too eager to abandon the very principles of progressive
ideology.

2) Gas prices. You'd think they'd be jumping for joy that gas prices
are high now. The days of plentiful, cheap fossil fuels are numbered,
right? Surely this means that all the SUV tank buyers will rethink
their purchase of their suburban assault vehicles and buy Toyota Piuses
or better yet bike, walk or take public transportation. But oh no...
they want to lower gas prices and punish oil companies. And just what
will they do with the money they propose confiscating from oil
companies? Will it go toward alternative energy research, stopping
global warming or some other worthy energy related cause? Yeah right!

So which is it, are they progressive or not? Are they for alternative
fuels and energy independence or aren't they? I don't want a penny
ante comparison to the GOP... that's a cop-out and a "lesser of two
evils" argument. On their own merits, tell me why the Dems are right
about these two issues and what they're doing to support this agenda.

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by Paul Hoffman
1) Taxes. Here in Oregon where we have no sales tax, there are many
liberals all too eager to latch onto this regressive tax. The golden
goose isn't laying enough eggs and they see a sales tax as a great new
revenue stream to squeeze more blood from a turnip. Similar to
gambling, their amazing ability to overlook its devestating effect on
people who can least afford it is galling. Our Democratic governor is
also a big fan of gambling. Whatever happened to *progressive*
taxation?

Im all in favor of it. I'd like the idea of progressive state income
taxes...unfortunately they always operate as a flat tax. Sales tax is
good because it is a way to generate money...if you can generate money,
even in the form of a regressive sales tax, and then dole out that
money to the people who need it most, that more than makes up for the
fact that the tax is regressive. Unfortunately what happens is
conservatives never want to dole it out to people who need it the
most.....

In their zeal to grab more and more revenue, the liberals

Post by Paul Hoffman
seem all too eager to abandon the very principles of progressive
ideology.
2) Gas prices. You'd think they'd be jumping for joy that gas prices
are high now. The days of plentiful, cheap fossil fuels are numbered,
right? Surely this means that all the SUV tank buyers will rethink
their purchase of their suburban assault vehicles and buy Toyota Piuses
or better yet bike, walk or take public transportation. But oh no...
they want to lower gas prices and punish oil companies. And just what
will they do with the money they propose confiscating from oil
companies? Will it go toward alternative energy research, stopping
global warming or some other worthy energy related cause? Yeah right!

I think a lot of it is just finding something people can relate to to
attack Bush and the gop over. God knows they've done enough horrible
things they should be punished for over the last 6 years that people
unfortunately don't relate to.........

Post by Paul Hoffman
So which is it, are they progressive or not? Are they for alternative
fuels and energy independence or aren't they? I don't want a penny
ante comparison to the GOP... that's a cop-out and a "lesser of two
evils" argument. On their own merits, tell me why the Dems are right
about these two issues and what they're doing to support this agenda.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
if you can generate money,
even in the form of a regressive sales tax, and then dole out that
money to the people who need it most, that more than makes up for the
fact that the tax is regressive.

So using your utilitarian logic, it's okay to take all kinds of money
in the form of taxes and then give it back to anyone who "needs it
more". Precisely why I'm not a Democrat. I would prefer not to tax
poor folks in the first place and let *them* do what they will with
their money. Such a novel idea... to trust poor people to manage their
own money. Encourage them to save, invest and take ownership rather
than to live paycheck to paycheck and rely on the government safety
net. What you're endorsing is the nanny state... represented in its
supreme form by communism. Karl Marx would be so proud of you.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
I think a lot of it is just finding something people can relate to to
attack Bush and the gop over. God knows they've done enough horrible
things they should be punished for over the last 6 years that people
unfortunately don't relate to.........

Couldn't resist throwing Bush into the mix could you? Again, this is
the "we're not as evil as they are" argument.

Thanks for playing along though. Please try again later.

[mianderson]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
if you can generate money,
even in the form of a regressive sales tax, and then dole out that
money to the people who need it most, that more than makes up for the
fact that the tax is regressive.

So using your utilitarian logic, it's okay to take all kinds of money
in the form of taxes and then give it back to anyone who "needs it
more". Precisely why I'm not a Democrat. I would prefer not to tax
poor folks in the first place and let *them* do what they will with
their money. Such a novel idea... to trust poor people to manage their
own money. Encourage them to save, invest and take ownership rather
than to live paycheck to paycheck and rely on the government safety
net. What you're endorsing is the nanny state...

hey look everyone...it's neal boortz.......

and you used the term "nanny state". That automatically wins you a
free copy of the "fair tax" book.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by mianderson

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
if you can generate money,
even in the form of a regressive sales tax, and then dole out that
money to the people who need it most, that more than makes up for the
fact that the tax is regressive.

So using your utilitarian logic, it's okay to take all kinds of money
in the form of taxes and then give it back to anyone who "needs it
more". Precisely why I'm not a Democrat. I would prefer not to tax
poor folks in the first place and let *them* do what they will with
their money. Such a novel idea... to trust poor people to manage their
own money. Encourage them to save, invest and take ownership rather
than to live paycheck to paycheck and rely on the government safety
net. What you're endorsing is the nanny state...

hey look everyone...it's neal boortz.......
and you used the term "nanny state". That automatically wins you a
free copy of the "fair tax" book.

Not hardly.. he supports a flat sales tax. I like some of his ideas
like abolishing payroll taxes and rebates for essential goods and
services, but I don't think it's progressive enough. But it is a start
in the right direction...

[mianderson]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by mianderson
and you used the term "nanny state". That automatically wins you a
free copy of the "fair tax" book.

Not hardly.. he supports a flat sales tax. I like some of his ideas
like abolishing payroll taxes and rebates for essential goods and
services, but I don't think it's progressive enough. But it is a start
in the right direction...

Well do you think our current federal income tax structure is
progressive enough? I certainly don't........

[Bill Lang]

mianderson, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and
that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by mianderson
hey look everyone...it's neal boortz.......
and you used the term "nanny state". That automatically wins you a
free copy of the "fair tax" book.

Come to the dark side, my son. Join the revolution!

www,fairtax.org

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Bill Lang
mianderson, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and
that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by mianderson
hey look everyone...it's neal boortz.......
and you used the term "nanny state". That automatically wins you a
free copy of the "fair tax" book.

Come to the dark side, my son. Join the revolution!
www,fairtax.org

Dood, we don't want him.

Post by Bill Lang
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by Bill Lang
mianderson, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and
that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by mianderson
hey look everyone...it's neal boortz.......
and you used the term "nanny state". That automatically wins you a
free copy of the "fair tax" book.

Come to the dark side, my son. Join the revolution!

so you are a fan of this idiocy?

One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's unbelievable
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because neal
boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a little pub so the
numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Post by Bill Lang
www,fairtax.org
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[Bill Lang]

, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's unbelievable
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a little
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's unbelievable
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a little
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any federal
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an increased
sales tax when they buy stuff? wow.........

Post by Bill Lang
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[Bill Lang]

, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

well that just seems whacked out to me......how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

Post by Bill Lang
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[Bill Lang]

, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of

earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just

because

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

well that just seems whacked out to me......

Fairness:

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any federal
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an increased
sales tax when they buy stuff?

so it's fair for people making 45k a year to not pay any federal
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an increased
sales tax when they buy stuff?

so it's fair for people making 4.5k a year to not pay any federal
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an increased
sales tax when they buy stuff?

so it's fair for people making .45k a year to not pay any federal
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an increased
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

We're not funding ourselves now, in case you hadn't noticed. I
suggest we stop spending so much money. That's what I have to do
when I can't pay my bills.

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

We're not funding ourselves now, in case you hadn't noticed.

I dunno....we sorta are in a way.....deficits yeah, but this misguided
war is one reason for that.

I

Post by Bill Lang
suggest we stop spending so much money. That's what I have to do
when I can't pay my bills.

well either way the fair tax isn't a serious idea.....it's a pipe dream
for white middle and upper middle class male professionals who are in
love with it......that's it. It was created simply because a radio
host needed a schtick and wanted to sell some books.....

Post by Bill Lang
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

well that just seems whacked out to me......how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

Do you somehow think that rich people don't buy stuff?

[TimV]

Post by Randolph M. Jones

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

well that just seems whacked out to me......how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

Do you somehow think that rich people don't buy stuff?

Your marginal propensity to consume decreases as your income increases. So
the typical sales tax is completely regressive. If certain necessary goods
are exempted from sales taxes, it is less regressive but still hurts the
middle class compared to the wealthy. For the typical consumer then, your
marginal tax rate will actually decrease as your income increases. Although
it sounds completely reasonable in theory, it really shifts much of the tax
burden onto the middle class.

T

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by TimV

Post by Randolph M. Jones

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

well that just seems whacked out to me......how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

Do you somehow think that rich people don't buy stuff?

Your marginal propensity to consume decreases as your income increases. So
the typical sales tax is completely regressive. If certain necessary goods
are exempted from sales taxes, it is less regressive but still hurts the
middle class compared to the wealthy. For the typical consumer then, your
marginal tax rate will actually decrease as your income increases. Although
it sounds completely reasonable in theory, it really shifts much of the tax
burden onto the middle class.

If you took all the various current taxes, government fees, shelters,
and loopholes into account, do you think the burden on the middle class
would be more or less than it is now? Of course, this also depends in
part on how you are going to measure burden.

[TimV]

Post by TimV

Post by Randolph M. Jones

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and

that's

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's

unbelievable

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a

little

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any

federal

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an

increased

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
sales tax when they buy stuff?

Yep.

well that just seems whacked out to me......how are we as a nation
going to fund ourselves?

Do you somehow think that rich people don't buy stuff?

Your marginal propensity to consume decreases as your income increases.
So the typical sales tax is completely regressive. If certain necessary
goods are exempted from sales taxes, it is less regressive but still
hurts the middle class compared to the wealthy. For the typical consumer
then, your marginal tax rate will actually decrease as your income
increases. Although it sounds completely reasonable in theory, it really
shifts much of the tax burden onto the middle class.

If you took all the various current taxes, government fees, shelters, and
loopholes into account, do you think the burden on the middle class would
be more or less than it is now? Of course, this also depends in part on
how you are going to measure burden.

Very hard to say. I doubt that any fair tax plan would get rid of most fees,
there will still be too much incentive for tacking all those fees on telecom
usage, etc. It would also have no effect on my local or state taxes. Right
now, I can write off my state income and local property taxes off of my
federal gross income. I don't think that any answer to lowering the tax
burden on the middle class should start with a scheme that inherently is
regressive. Wipeout more loopholes and drop the marginal tax rate if you
want. But a VAT or consumption tax cannot be made progressive because of the
basic economics of consumption and savings. Frankly, a flat tax with a
threshold corresponding to minimum income needed to survive would be much
fairer, but obviously not progressive. Then you have issues of regional COL
disparities. But either the current system or a flat system would be much
fairer than the "fair tax". The question would be whether is more desireable
to have a regressive, flat or progressive tax system, and then how you plan
on implementing it.

T

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by Bill Lang
, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's
the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
so you are a fan of this idiocy?
One problem with the fair tax plan(aside from it's unbelievable
unfairness) is that it makes no sense. And no, just because
neal boortz and a few crackpot economists who just want a little
pub so the numbers add up doesn't mean they do.

Our perspective on what is fair and what isn't differs.

so it's fair for people making 450k a year to not pay any federal
income tax and instead contribute to paying society's public
infrastructure and services by having what amounts to an increased
sales tax when they buy stuff? wow.........

What do you find unfair about that approach?

[TimV]

Post by Paul Hoffman
1) Taxes. Here in Oregon where we have no sales tax, there are many
liberals all too eager to latch onto this regressive tax. The golden
goose isn't laying enough eggs and they see a sales tax as a great new
revenue stream to squeeze more blood from a turnip. Similar to
gambling, their amazing ability to overlook its devestating effect on
people who can least afford it is galling. Our Democratic governor is
also a big fan of gambling. Whatever happened to *progressive*
taxation? In their zeal to grab more and more revenue, the liberals
seem all too eager to abandon the very principles of progressive
ideology.

If food and clothing are exempted, a sales tax is somewhat progressive,
though hurting lower middle class far more than those with more disposable
income. However, I'm completely with you on gambling. I don't know about
Oregon, but in other states, there isn't a conservative-liberal split on
gambling. Usually you have as the anti-gambling coalition a combination of
religious fundamentalists and socialism-leaning liberals.

Post by Paul Hoffman
2) Gas prices. You'd think they'd be jumping for joy that gas prices
are high now. The days of plentiful, cheap fossil fuels are numbered,
right? Surely this means that all the SUV tank buyers will rethink
their purchase of their suburban assault vehicles and buy Toyota Piuses
or better yet bike, walk or take public transportation. But oh no...
they want to lower gas prices and punish oil companies. And just what
will they do with the money they propose confiscating from oil
companies? Will it go toward alternative energy research, stopping
global warming or some other worthy energy related cause? Yeah right!
So which is it, are they progressive or not? Are they for alternative
fuels and energy independence or aren't they? I don't want a penny
ante comparison to the GOP... that's a cop-out and a "lesser of two
evils" argument. On their own merits, tell me why the Dems are right
about these two issues and what they're doing to support this agenda.

Beware the things you ask for lest they come true. It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

You've also neglected the pandering for votes factor. You know, the factor
that has Democrats screaming about those high prices that they secretly
really like and the factor that has Republicans proposing an energy welfare
check that both increases the deficit and doesn't predominantly go to the
wealthy or corporations.

Hypocrisy is an equal-opportunity employer.

T

[Paul Hoffman]

TimV wrote:

<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

Companies are free to make profits in a capitalist society. Are you
advocating that all companies should have a limitation on the amount of
profit they can make or just oil companies? I don't believe obscene
profits are *illegal* in the oil industry as it isn't regulated like
say telecommunications or utilities are. Should oil companies be
regulated in the same way?

Post by TimV
You've also neglected the pandering for votes factor. You know, the factor
that has Democrats screaming about those high prices that they secretly
really like and the factor that has Republicans proposing an energy welfare
check that both increases the deficit and doesn't predominantly go to the
wealthy or corporations.

For sure, the GOP is hypocritical. I specifically asked for on the
merits comparisons and you give me yet another penny ante comparison.
I already know the GOP is flawed. So do most of their supporters.
What you fail to grasp is that the Democrats have overwhelmingly failed
to convince anyone beside the Bush hating choir that they stand for
anything of substance and aren't just race baiting, class baiting vote
panderers.

Here's your chance.. convince me!

[TimV]

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.
Companies are free to make profits in a capitalist society. Are you
advocating that all companies should have a limitation on the amount of
profit they can make or just oil companies? I don't believe obscene
profits are *illegal* in the oil industry as it isn't regulated like
say telecommunications or utilities are. Should oil companies be
regulated in the same way?

Companies are free to make as much profit as they can if the market is
properly competitive. There are some legitimate questions of whether the
global oil market is properly competitive and compelling evidence that the
national gasoline market no longer is.

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by TimV
You've also neglected the pandering for votes factor. You know, the factor
that has Democrats screaming about those high prices that they secretly
really like and the factor that has Republicans proposing an energy welfare
check that both increases the deficit and doesn't predominantly go to the
wealthy or corporations.

For sure, the GOP is hypocritical. I specifically asked for on the
merits comparisons and you give me yet another penny ante comparison.
I already know the GOP is flawed. So do most of their supporters.
What you fail to grasp is that the Democrats have overwhelmingly failed
to convince anyone beside the Bush hating choir that they stand for
anything of substance and aren't just race baiting, class baiting vote
panderers.
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you? Just because I haven't
swallowed the kool-aid nor lack the ability to see the good in the
Democratic Party or the bad in the GOP doesn't make me some kind of liberal.
I think I answered your question rather accurately.

T

[mianderson]

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........


Just because I haven't

Post by TimV
swallowed the kool-aid nor lack the ability to see the good in the
Democratic Party or the bad in the GOP doesn't make me some kind of liberal.
I think I answered your question rather accurately.
T

[TimV]

Post by mianderson

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........

What does being a republican have anything to do with being a scientist?
Granted I'm a very moderate republican, but most scientists tend to be
rather politically moderate (think libertarian without the kookyness). I've
become a firm believer in the benefit of the chaos theory of government,
keep the Presidency and Congress in the hands of different parties. Then
neither group of idiots can completely screw everything up.

T

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by TimV

Post by mianderson

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........

What does being a republican have anything to do with being a scientist?

the base of the gop as a whole is pretty much opposed to research
scientists.......unless they work for bigpharm. Especially research
scientists affiliated with academia(even loosely)....If I did something
that was ridiculed by a party, I probably wouldn't support that party.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV

Post by mianderson

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........

What does being a republican have anything to do with being a scientist?

the base of the gop as a whole is pretty much opposed to research
scientists.......unless they work for bigpharm. Especially research
scientists affiliated with academia(even loosely)....If I did something
that was ridiculed by a party, I probably wouldn't support that party.

Dood, that's some stinky bait.

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV

Post by mianderson

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........

What does being a republican have anything to do with being a scientist?

the base of the gop as a whole is pretty much opposed to research
scientists.......unless they work for bigpharm. Especially research
scientists affiliated with academia(even loosely)....If I did something
that was ridiculed by a party, I probably wouldn't support that party.

Dood, that's some stinky bait.

you're in tennessee no?? If you don't think a good number of southern
republicans feel that way about science, look harder....

[d***@aol.com]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV

Post by mianderson

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........

What does being a republican have anything to do with being a scientist?

the base of the gop as a whole is pretty much opposed to research
scientists.......unless they work for bigpharm. Especially research
scientists affiliated with academia(even loosely)....If I did something
that was ridiculed by a party, I probably wouldn't support that party.

Dood, that's some stinky bait.

you're in tennessee no?? If you don't think a good number of southern
republicans feel that way about science, look harder....

I could say the same about the urban poor base of the demo party.
BTW....my town is in the top 5 in per capita PhDs and research
scientists.......and quite a few are Republicans.

[TimV]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV

Post by mianderson

Post by TimV

Post by Paul Hoffman
Here's your chance.. convince me!

I'm a republican how am I going to convince you?

aren't you some a researcher of some type? How any basic scientist is
a republican is beyond me.........

What does being a republican have anything to do with being a scientist?

the base of the gop as a whole is pretty much opposed to research
scientists.......unless they work for bigpharm. Especially research
scientists affiliated with academia(even loosely)....If I did something
that was ridiculed by a party, I probably wouldn't support that party.

Mia, I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about. Democrats
are great for science, except when it come to funding it. They are quicker
to realize the potential of things like stem cells but then they get all ADD
and tend to forget all about it at budget time. Medical research funding by
the government exploded in the 90's because it became the pet of the
republicans. This year sucks, but I attribute it to the idiot-in-chief's
stupid war. Can't have guns and butter.

Then there is the aspect of animal research. A sizable core constituency of
the Democratic party would like to see it stop. They've made it so difficult
to do with rules and regulations that it can be quite frustrating. I swear
there are PETA types that would rather see us experiment on live fetuses
than mice.

You also forget the extreme amount of money that pours into university
research coffers from military research projects. This includes tons of
money for breast cancer research from the Navy besides all the research into
nanotechnology.

Wake up mia, neither party has a monopoly on good and while it sometimes
might appear that Democrats are better for research, you can't get very far
without the money. You can always shift your stem cell research to
departmental or non-profit research funds. Heck, the vast majority of a
federal medical research grant goes to salaries and equipment anyway. A lot
of supply money comes from other funding sources. So in essence, the federal
ban on stem cells is somewhat smoke and mirrors to appease the
fundamentalists.

T

[m***@students.mcg.edu]

Post by TimV
Then there is the aspect of animal research. A sizable core constituency of
the Democratic party would like to see it stop. They've made it so difficult
to do with rules and regulations that it can be quite frustrating. I swear
there are PETA types that would rather see us experiment on live fetuses
than mice.

C'mon tim....what % of democrats(heck even liberals) really are
involved or actively care about what peta have got going on?

Post by TimV
You also forget the extreme amount of money that pours into university
research coffers from military research projects. This includes tons of
money for breast cancer research from the Navy besides all the research into
nanotechnology.

just out of curiosity, why is the navy pouring lots of money into
breast cancer research?

Post by TimV
Wake up mia, neither party has a monopoly on good and while it sometimes
might appear that Democrats are better for research, you can't get very far
without the money. So in essence, the federal
ban on stem cells is somewhat smoke and mirrors to appease the
fundamentalists.

Part of my point was just about how many rank and file republican
voters feel about you guys............go to any southern baptist white
church and it's full of "researchers are evil" mantra......

Post by TimV
T

[TimV]

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV
Then there is the aspect of animal research. A sizable core constituency of
the Democratic party would like to see it stop. They've made it so difficult
to do with rules and regulations that it can be quite frustrating. I swear
there are PETA types that would rather see us experiment on live fetuses
than mice.

C'mon tim....what % of democrats(heck even liberals) really are
involved or actively care about what peta have got going on?

It's not numbers, it's the fact that the constituencies of the Democratic
party being so numerous. They often can't afford to alienate any one
constituency (which is their major problem right now).

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV
You also forget the extreme amount of money that pours into university
research coffers from military research projects. This includes tons of
money for breast cancer research from the Navy besides all the research into
nanotechnology.

just out of curiosity, why is the navy pouring lots of money into
breast cancer research?

They have for years. Back in the 80's, when neither Reagan nor the Democrats
running Congress really cared about health research, the Navy picked up the
slack.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu

Post by TimV
Wake up mia, neither party has a monopoly on good and while it sometimes
might appear that Democrats are better for research, you can't get very far
without the money. So in essence, the federal
ban on stem cells is somewhat smoke and mirrors to appease the
fundamentalists.

Part of my point was just about how many rank and file republican
voters feel about you guys............go to any southern baptist white
church and it's full of "researchers are evil" mantra......

They can call me a hedonistic godless fool all they want as long as they're
writing checks. For a couple of million dollars, I'd let you sit on my couch
and call me anything you want. I'd even let you throw a rotten tomato at me
every once in a while. Pats on the back and verbal support are nice and all,
but if they aren't accompanied by money, they don't go very far towards your
next vaccine.

T

[G***@ArmyofGod.com]

PETA is full of hate and anti-Christian bigotry. The adherents worship
animals instead of The One True God, The Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
http://www.armyofgod.com/PETA.html
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal
hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away
my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my
heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by TimV
I'm a republican how am I going to convince you? Just because I haven't
swallowed the kool-aid nor lack the ability to see the good in the
Democratic Party or the bad in the GOP doesn't make me some kind of liberal.
I think I answered your question rather accurately.

Dammit... I snared a Republican! I knew you were far too
intellectually honest to be a liberal.

[Charlie Board]

Post by Paul Hoffman
Companies are free to make profits in a capitalist society. Are you
advocating that all companies should have a limitation on the amount of
profit they can make or just oil companies? I don't believe obscene
profits are *illegal* in the oil industry as it isn't regulated like
say telecommunications or utilities are. Should oil companies be
regulated in the same way?

At a minimum. Addiction to oil is far and away our biggest
national security issue. Developing other viable sources
of energy (and soon) is basically a fundamental requirement
for the continued existence of anything approaching
Western civilization as we know it. With those kinds of
stakes its inane to leave finding a solution to companies
that have an enormous vested interest in *not* finding a
solution! We've tried that for a quarter century at least.
I saw a factoid on a right-wing blog the other day that said
Exxon has "invested" $210 billion since 1990. No mention
of how much of that was spent in research on finding
an *alternative* to oil but you and I both know it would
be a ridiculously small fraction. And that is a market failure.
The market leads to "investing" all that money in *not*
finding a solution to the core problem.

We need massive government research programs dedicated
to solving the problem much like Carter was starting
a quarter century ago before Reagan and his Texas oilman veep
took them out back and strangled them. And we need
massive tight regulation of the oil industry at the same
time because they've already demonstrated that if left free
they'll use their clout and resources to kill any attempt
to solve the problem.

Post by Paul Hoffman
What you fail to grasp is that the Democrats have overwhelmingly failed
to convince anyone beside the Bush hating choir that they stand for
anything of substance and aren't just race baiting, class baiting vote
panderers.

Fine. Keep electing Texas oilmen. Just don't expect them to
solve the oil problem. Because as far as they're concerned
there isn't one.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I, personally, couldn't be happier that the fuckers who drive H3s 30
miles to work each way are gonna be screwed. Except for the fact that
they vote, and idiot panderers from both parties have figured out that
they'd better start the pandering now but quick.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage. What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive. London went so far as to charge a toll for
driving in the central city. Owning and operating a car in Manhattan
is out of reach for most people.

Whereas here in Portland, despite having access to light rail and
buses, I usually use my car to go anywhere because it's usually far
more convenient and quicker than using public transport. I use the
light rail on those rare occassions when I need to go downtown or the
airport and want to avoid paying the obscene parking rates and
manuvering through the one way maze. Having an Urban Growth Boundary
has not forced people out of their cars here in Portland... while it
has been good for many other reasons such as preserving farmland and
minimizing sprawl. Ultimately, you have to people enough incentive or
punishment to get them out of their cars.

Post by Mike Dahmus
I, personally, couldn't be happier that the fuckers who drive H3s 30
miles to work each way are gonna be screwed. Except for the fact that
they vote, and idiot panderers from both parties have figured out that
they'd better start the pandering now but quick.

I agree with all of those sentiments.

[leinbacker]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage. What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive. London went so far as to charge a toll for
driving in the central city. Owning and operating a car in Manhattan
is out of reach for most people.
Whereas here in Portland, despite having access to light rail and
buses, I usually use my car to go anywhere because it's usually far
more convenient and quicker than using public transport. I use the
light rail on those rare occassions when I need to go downtown or the
airport and want to avoid paying the obscene parking rates and
manuvering through the one way maze. Having an Urban Growth Boundary
has not forced people out of their cars here in Portland... while it
has been good for many other reasons such as preserving farmland and
minimizing sprawl. Ultimately, you have to people enough incentive or
punishment to get them out of their cars.

I drive to/from Portland from Aloha everyday. Contribute a % of my pay
towards mass transit in addition to my property tax levies. Why should
I be punished? If it wasn't for me, you would be paying full fare on
MAX, which would be about $10 a ticket (no including the cost of
parking your car at the park and ride).

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by leinbacker

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage. What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive. London went so far as to charge a toll for
driving in the central city. Owning and operating a car in Manhattan
is out of reach for most people.
Whereas here in Portland, despite having access to light rail and
buses, I usually use my car to go anywhere because it's usually far
more convenient and quicker than using public transport. I use the
light rail on those rare occassions when I need to go downtown or the
airport and want to avoid paying the obscene parking rates and
manuvering through the one way maze. Having an Urban Growth Boundary
has not forced people out of their cars here in Portland... while it
has been good for many other reasons such as preserving farmland and
minimizing sprawl. Ultimately, you have to people enough incentive or
punishment to get them out of their cars.

I drive to/from Portland from Aloha everyday. Contribute a % of my pay
towards mass transit in addition to my property tax levies. Why should
I be punished? If it wasn't for me, you would be paying full fare on
MAX, which would be about $10 a ticket (no including the cost of
parking your car at the park and ride).

Dude, I pay the same taxes you do, actually more because I live inside
the city of Beaverton. I live in Beaverton and work in Beaverton, 3
mile commute each way. We each choose where we live and work. No one
forces us to live or work anywhere we don't want to.

I choose to drive a car because of convenience, the same reason I
choose to live close to work. But if the cost of driving became
prohibitive or if driving became too inconvenient due to lack of
parking, restricted street access, I'm sure I would change my
disposition to use more public transit or bike or walk to work.

The point is... libruls (especially here in PDX) should be jumping for
joy at high gas prices. That need not apply to you.

[leinbacker]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by leinbacker

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage. What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive. London went so far as to charge a toll for
driving in the central city. Owning and operating a car in Manhattan
is out of reach for most people.
Whereas here in Portland, despite having access to light rail and
buses, I usually use my car to go anywhere because it's usually far
more convenient and quicker than using public transport. I use the
light rail on those rare occassions when I need to go downtown or the
airport and want to avoid paying the obscene parking rates and
manuvering through the one way maze. Having an Urban Growth Boundary
has not forced people out of their cars here in Portland... while it
has been good for many other reasons such as preserving farmland and
minimizing sprawl. Ultimately, you have to people enough incentive or
punishment to get them out of their cars.

I drive to/from Portland from Aloha everyday. Contribute a % of my pay
towards mass transit in addition to my property tax levies. Why should
I be punished? If it wasn't for me, you would be paying full fare on
MAX, which would be about $10 a ticket (no including the cost of
parking your car at the park and ride).

Dude, I pay the same taxes you do, actually more because I live inside
the city of Beaverton. I live in Beaverton and work in Beaverton, 3
mile commute each way. We each choose where we live and work. No one
forces us to live or work anywhere we don't want to.

You guys should demand Washington County annex you away from Drake's
fifedom.

Post by Paul Hoffman
I choose to drive a car because of convenience, the same reason I
choose to live close to work. But if the cost of driving became
prohibitive or if driving became too inconvenient due to lack of
parking, restricted street access, I'm sure I would change my
disposition to use more public transit or bike or walk to work.

The market should determine if/when the cost is too prohibited, not the
new urbanist like Mike, who whines over and over about how citizens in
other cities choose to live.

Post by Paul Hoffman
The point is... libruls (especially here in PDX) should be jumping for
joy at high gas prices. That need not apply to you.

Hopefully they'll all be riding their tram when a timely power outage
hits.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage.

Uh, no. Not unless you're defining suburban sprawl as "that <city> sure
covers a lot of land". The development in outlying areas around New York
City is qualitatively different than that in outlying areas of various
Sunbelt cities such as Houston or Dallas or Atlanta.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage.

Uh, no. Not unless you're defining suburban sprawl as "that <city> sure
covers a lot of land". The development in outlying areas around New York
City is qualitatively different than that in outlying areas of various
Sunbelt cities such as Houston or Dallas or Atlanta.

To me, the overall footprint (land consumption) of a metro is all that
matters. I suppose to transportation experts such as yourself, density
or "qualitative" criteria matter more than the total land area paved
under.

30 miles from downtown is still 30 miles from downtown whether the
density of said metro is 4,000/sq mile or 26,000/sq mile. The effects
of the NE Megalopolis are that thousands of acres of farmland, woodland
and other rural uses are lost forever. It may not be on the scale of
the Sunbelt using traditional sprawl measures, but the result is the
same.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage.

Uh, no. Not unless you're defining suburban sprawl as "that <city> sure
covers a lot of land". The development in outlying areas around New York
City is qualitatively different than that in outlying areas of various
Sunbelt cities such as Houston or Dallas or Atlanta.

To me, the overall footprint (land consumption) of a metro is all that
matters. I suppose to transportation experts such as yourself, density
or "qualitative" criteria matter more than the total land area paved
under.
30 miles from downtown is still 30 miles from downtown whether the
density of said metro is 4,000/sq mile or 26,000/sq mile. The effects
of the NE Megalopolis are that thousands of acres of farmland, woodland
and other rural uses are lost forever. It may not be on the scale of
the Sunbelt using traditional sprawl measures, but the result is the
same.

Try looking at what's 30 miles out from Manhattan out towards
Connecticut or Long Island vs. 30 miles out from the middle of Houston.
There's a huge difference. Manhattan's far exurbs are wooded country
estates where stockbrokers might drive to a commuter rail line and then
ride in to the city. Houston's are abominable and execrable future slums.

I get the sense you haven't spent much time in and around NYC if you're
this resistant to the idea of a qualitative difference between
"transit-oriented" sprawl with gradually decreasing densities vs. the
Sunbelt pattern of a monotonic and monotonous strip-mall hell.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage.

Uh, no. Not unless you're defining suburban sprawl as "that <city> sure
covers a lot of land". The development in outlying areas around New York
City is qualitatively different than that in outlying areas of various
Sunbelt cities such as Houston or Dallas or Atlanta.

To me, the overall footprint (land consumption) of a metro is all that
matters. I suppose to transportation experts such as yourself, density
or "qualitative" criteria matter more than the total land area paved
under.
30 miles from downtown is still 30 miles from downtown whether the
density of said metro is 4,000/sq mile or 26,000/sq mile. The effects
of the NE Megalopolis are that thousands of acres of farmland, woodland
and other rural uses are lost forever. It may not be on the scale of
the Sunbelt using traditional sprawl measures, but the result is the
same.

Try looking at what's 30 miles out from Manhattan out towards
Connecticut or Long Island vs. 30 miles out from the middle of Houston.
There's a huge difference. Manhattan's far exurbs are wooded country
estates where stockbrokers might drive to a commuter rail line and then
ride in to the city. Houston's are abominable and execrable future slums.
I get the sense you haven't spent much time in and around NYC if you're
this resistant to the idea of a qualitative difference between
"transit-oriented" sprawl with gradually decreasing densities vs. the
Sunbelt pattern of a monotonic and monotonous strip-mall hell.

According to the Census Bureau, NYC's metro has an urbanized area of
3300 square miles. Next closest was Chicago with 2100 square miles.
3rd was Altanta with 1900 square miles. I don't care how gentrified
the estates are around NYC, that's a lot of land. Incidentally, LA is
denser at 7,000 per square mile spread over 1667 square miles.
Granted, the Census Bureau's numbers are highly suspect.

Are you saying that gentrification is preferable to growth boundaries
and land conservation or just that it's preferable to sprawling strip
mall hell?

I've never been to NYC, but have been to Boston and the Cape a couple
of times to visit family and have spent a lot of time in Dallas,
Houston and Phoenix. I can appreciate the difference in development..
the NE is much older and many of the towns and villages that are now
exurbs have historic town centers and buildings that predate the dawn
of the automobile and even the Declaration of Independence. But even
in the NE, much of the sprawl was driven by the automobile. Just
because the sprawl grew up around historic town centers instead of
strip malls doesn't somehow make that sprawl better from a land
conservation perspective.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Paul Hoffman
Just
because the sprawl grew up around historic town centers instead of
strip malls doesn't somehow make that sprawl better from a land
conservation perspective.

No, the sprawl around those old town centers is still marginally
transit-supportive (and at a bare minimum is usually not as
pedestrian-hostile as Houstonesque sprawl is). Again, it's quite common
for somebody in a big house in Connecticut to drive to a commuter rail
station and then ride all the way to Manhattan.

The LA figure is often attacked for the very reason I gave earlier - it
doesn't show the difference between "1000 square miles of cul-de-sacs"
and "10 square miles of high-density city center followed by gradually
decreasing but still transit-supportive development".

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
Just
because the sprawl grew up around historic town centers instead of
strip malls doesn't somehow make that sprawl better from a land
conservation perspective.

No, the sprawl around those old town centers is still marginally
transit-supportive (and at a bare minimum is usually not as
pedestrian-hostile as Houstonesque sprawl is). Again, it's quite common
for somebody in a big house in Connecticut to drive to a commuter rail
station and then ride all the way to Manhattan.

Ah.. but is the person in Connecticut taking the commuter rail because
they're transit supportive? Or is it because parking in Manhattan and
driving in Manhattan are expensive and inconvenient thereby making
transit a much more palatable option?

Transit oriented development alone doesn't make people give up their
cars. It certainly has failed so far here in Portland. The reason is
because most places I go have cheap, easy parking. I can fight thru
most of the traffic and beat the light rail. Therefore, my car is
still a very attractive option. I have my car stereo, total freedom
over my destination and don't have to listen to filthy mouthed
teenagers or sit next to meth heads.

To convince the vast majority to ride transit, we have to make it cost
prohibitive to drive or make transit so fast, cheap and convenient that
it's hard to pass up.

Post by Mike Dahmus
The LA figure is often attacked for the very reason I gave earlier - it
doesn't show the difference between "1000 square miles of cul-de-sacs"
and "10 square miles of high-density city center followed by gradually
decreasing but still transit-supportive development".

Agreed. But I'd still rather see more farmland, parks and greenspace
mixed in with all that development whether it's transit supportive or
otherwise.

[leinbacker]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
Just
because the sprawl grew up around historic town centers instead of
strip malls doesn't somehow make that sprawl better from a land
conservation perspective.

No, the sprawl around those old town centers is still marginally
transit-supportive (and at a bare minimum is usually not as
pedestrian-hostile as Houstonesque sprawl is). Again, it's quite common
for somebody in a big house in Connecticut to drive to a commuter rail
station and then ride all the way to Manhattan.

Ah.. but is the person in Connecticut taking the commuter rail because
they're transit supportive? Or is it because parking in Manhattan and
driving in Manhattan are expensive and inconvenient thereby making
transit a much more palatable option?
Transit oriented development alone doesn't make people give up their
cars. It certainly has failed so far here in Portland. The reason is
because most places I go have cheap, easy parking. I can fight thru
most of the traffic and beat the light rail. Therefore, my car is
still a very attractive option. I have my car stereo, total freedom
over my destination and don't have to listen to filthy mouthed
teenagers or sit next to meth heads.
To convince the vast majority to ride transit, we have to make it cost
prohibitive to drive or make transit so fast, cheap and convenient that
it's hard to pass up.

Why do we have to make it cost prohibitive to drive? Why not let the
market do that? Eliminate all car subsidies that go towards MAX, make
Trimet cover 100% of their fare cost and it will sort itself out.

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by leinbacker
Why do we have to make it cost prohibitive to drive? Why not let the
market do that? Eliminate all car subsidies that go towards MAX, make
Trimet cover 100% of their fare cost and it will sort itself out.

MAX can never really work without economies of scale. Making it pay
for itself right now is the same as saying take it offline permanently
because if you increase the fares you essentially doom it to low
ridership. Unless of course the freeways become so congested and
parking so expensive that people flock to MAX out of desperation.

I'm not particularly thrilled about the subsidies either. Some have
proposed adding tolls to metro freeways, particularly during rush hour,
as one way to ease congestion and raise revenue for road maintenance
and transit. I don't think is a bad idea and if combined with
eliminating the payroll and property tax funding of MAX it might be
palatable. I just don't know if the numbers would work.

I defer to the real transportation expert, M1EK.

[leinbacker]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by leinbacker
Why do we have to make it cost prohibitive to drive? Why not let the
market do that? Eliminate all car subsidies that go towards MAX, make
Trimet cover 100% of their fare cost and it will sort itself out.

MAX can never really work without economies of scale. Making it pay
for itself right now is the same as saying take it offline permanently
because if you increase the fares you essentially doom it to low
ridership. Unless of course the freeways become so congested and
parking so expensive that people flock to MAX out of desperation.
I'm not particularly thrilled about the subsidies either. Some have
proposed adding tolls to metro freeways, particularly during rush hour,
as one way to ease congestion and raise revenue for road maintenance
and transit. I don't think is a bad idea and if combined with
eliminating the payroll and property tax funding of MAX it might be
palatable. I just don't know if the numbers would work.
I defer to the real transportation expert, M1EK.

M1EK is too busy playing Sim City to really care about the common folk.

[a***@redshark.goodshow.net]

Post by leinbacker

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
Just
because the sprawl grew up around historic town centers instead of
strip malls doesn't somehow make that sprawl better from a land
conservation perspective.

No, the sprawl around those old town centers is still marginally
transit-supportive (and at a bare minimum is usually not as
pedestrian-hostile as Houstonesque sprawl is). Again, it's quite common
for somebody in a big house in Connecticut to drive to a commuter rail
station and then ride all the way to Manhattan.

Ah.. but is the person in Connecticut taking the commuter rail because
they're transit supportive? Or is it because parking in Manhattan and
driving in Manhattan are expensive and inconvenient thereby making
transit a much more palatable option?
Transit oriented development alone doesn't make people give up their
cars. It certainly has failed so far here in Portland. The reason is
because most places I go have cheap, easy parking. I can fight thru
most of the traffic and beat the light rail. Therefore, my car is
still a very attractive option. I have my car stereo, total freedom
over my destination and don't have to listen to filthy mouthed
teenagers or sit next to meth heads.
To convince the vast majority to ride transit, we have to make it cost
prohibitive to drive or make transit so fast, cheap and convenient that
it's hard to pass up.

Why do we have to make it cost prohibitive to drive? Why not let the
market do that? Eliminate all car subsidies that go towards MAX, make
Trimet cover 100% of their fare cost and it will sort itself out.

When drivers give up all the subsidies they recieve mass transit should do
the same.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
Just
because the sprawl grew up around historic town centers instead of
strip malls doesn't somehow make that sprawl better from a land
conservation perspective.

No, the sprawl around those old town centers is still marginally
transit-supportive (and at a bare minimum is usually not as
pedestrian-hostile as Houstonesque sprawl is). Again, it's quite common
for somebody in a big house in Connecticut to drive to a commuter rail
station and then ride all the way to Manhattan.

Ah.. but is the person in Connecticut taking the commuter rail because
they're transit supportive? Or is it because parking in Manhattan and
driving in Manhattan are expensive and inconvenient thereby making
transit a much more palatable option?

The _development_ is transit-supportive, not the person. It provides the
person with a credible OPTION to take transit, as opposed to Sunbelt
cities where the transit alternative costs as much or more than the car
and takes twice as long.

Post by Paul Hoffman
Transit oriented development alone doesn't make people give up their
cars. It certainly has failed so far here in Portland.

It's worked better in Portland than in any other American city where
rail was reintroduced after decades of forced and subsidized sprawl. The
problem is that it's still easy for the con-artists to use dishonest
tactics like comparing the mode split for 24 hours over the entire city
when rail transit only serves a few corridors, for instance.

Portland has a ton of people who ride transit who COULD be using their
cars, unlike the Sunbelt cities, where almost everybody who rides the
bus has no other choice. That shows that the transit-supportive model
works (and, by the way, Portland's buildings and associated development
can only be called transit-supportive compared to Sunbelt crap; they
have a long ways to go to catch up with the Northeast). What that shows
is that even a little bit helps.

[Jefferson N Glapski]

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the
problem per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl
*and* high transit usage.

Uh, no. Not unless you're defining suburban sprawl as "that <city>
sure covers a lot of land". The development in outlying areas
around New York City is qualitatively different than that in
outlying areas of various Sunbelt cities such as Houston or Dallas
or Atlanta.

To me, the overall footprint (land consumption) of a metro is all
that matters. I suppose to transportation experts such as yourself,
density or "qualitative" criteria matter more than the total land
area paved under.
30 miles from downtown is still 30 miles from downtown whether the
density of said metro is 4,000/sq mile or 26,000/sq mile. The
effects of the NE Megalopolis are that thousands of acres of
farmland, woodland and other rural uses are lost forever. It may
not be on the scale of the Sunbelt using traditional sprawl
measures, but the result is the same.

Try looking at what's 30 miles out from Manhattan out towards
Connecticut or Long Island vs. 30 miles out from the middle of
Houston. There's a huge difference. Manhattan's far exurbs are wooded
country estates where stockbrokers might drive to a commuter rail
line and then ride in to the city. Houston's are abominable and
execrable future slums.

Yet 15 miles from Manhattan, you currently have slums, while 15 miles from
Houston city center you have wonderfully, lush multi-use areas like the
energy corridor.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Jefferson N Glapski

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the
problem per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl
*and* high transit usage.

Uh, no. Not unless you're defining suburban sprawl as "that <city>
sure covers a lot of land". The development in outlying areas
around New York City is qualitatively different than that in
outlying areas of various Sunbelt cities such as Houston or Dallas
or Atlanta.

To me, the overall footprint (land consumption) of a metro is all
that matters. I suppose to transportation experts such as yourself,
density or "qualitative" criteria matter more than the total land
area paved under.
30 miles from downtown is still 30 miles from downtown whether the
density of said metro is 4,000/sq mile or 26,000/sq mile. The
effects of the NE Megalopolis are that thousands of acres of
farmland, woodland and other rural uses are lost forever. It may
not be on the scale of the Sunbelt using traditional sprawl
measures, but the result is the same.

Try looking at what's 30 miles out from Manhattan out towards
Connecticut or Long Island vs. 30 miles out from the middle of
Houston. There's a huge difference. Manhattan's far exurbs are wooded
country estates where stockbrokers might drive to a commuter rail
line and then ride in to the city. Houston's are abominable and
execrable future slums.

Yet 15 miles from Manhattan, you currently have slums, while 15 miles from
Houston city center you have wonderfully, lush multi-use areas like the
energy corridor.

Not to mention a few trailer parks......

Post by Jefferson N Glapski
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com

[Paul Hoffman]

Post by Jefferson N Glapski
Yet 15 miles from Manhattan, you currently have slums, while 15 miles from
Houston city center you have wonderfully, lush multi-use areas like the
energy corridor.

God Bless Pasadena and the Ship Channel. We couldn't be addicted to
oil without 'em. The Pasadena Freeway is quite the scenic tour.

[Jefferson N Glapski]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Jefferson N Glapski
Yet 15 miles from Manhattan, you currently have slums, while 15
miles from Houston city center you have wonderfully, lush multi-use
areas like the energy corridor.

God Bless Pasadena and the Ship Channel. We couldn't be addicted to
oil without 'em. The Pasadena Freeway is quite the scenic tour.

So is the Bronx and Newark.

[a***@redshark.goodshow.net]

Post by Paul Hoffman

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Paul Hoffman
<snip>

Post by TimV
It is easy to clamor for
higher energy prices to push your goals of energy conservation. It's another
thing to actually get hit in the wallet with it. It's also another thing to
get hit in the wallet with it when the oil companies are making obscene
profits.

I have no problem paying more and more for gas. I believe that market
forces will help to persuade people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles
or change their behavior. You can move closer to work, travel less,
take the bus, etc. We all have choices. During World War 2, fuel
rationing was common and people somehow sacrificed and survived.

During WWII, carpooling was orders of magnitude more practical than it
is today, thanks to the post-WWII decades of trillions of dollars worth
of subsidization of suburban sprawl.

I agree somewhat, but I think sprawl is a symptom and not the problem
per se. New York, Paris and London have suburban sprawl *and* high
transit usage. What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive. London went so far as to charge a toll for
driving in the central city. Owning and operating a car in Manhattan
is out of reach for most people.
Whereas here in Portland, despite having access to light rail and
buses, I usually use my car to go anywhere because it's usually far
more convenient and quicker than using public transport. I use the
light rail on those rare occassions when I need to go downtown or the
airport and want to avoid paying the obscene parking rates and
manuvering through the one way maze. Having an Urban Growth Boundary
has not forced people out of their cars here in Portland... while it
has been good for many other reasons such as preserving farmland and
minimizing sprawl. Ultimately, you have to people enough incentive or
punishment to get them out of their cars.

If the Urban Growth boundary were actually a boundary it might mean
something - but an ever expanding boundary really isn't a boundary. If they
wouldn't have gone and started extending the 3 lane portion of 26 out to
Hillsboro you'd see a good sized jump in the west side ridership also.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On 1 May 2006 09:43:37 -0700, "Paul Hoffman"

Post by Paul Hoffman
What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive.

Which will spawn suburban office parks.

HTH

HAND

[Jeff Davis]

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 1 May 2006 09:43:37 -0700, "Paul Hoffman"

Post by Paul Hoffman
What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive.

Which will spawn suburban office parks.
HTH
HAND

Apparently, you've never been to London.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Jeff Davis

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 1 May 2006 09:43:37 -0700, "Paul Hoffman"

Post by Paul Hoffman
What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive.

Which will spawn suburban office parks.
HTH
HAND

Apparently, you've never been to London.

Apparently, you've never been to Sunbelt cities.

In this rare case, the asshat newbie is exactly right. Artificially
making car usage within central cities cost prohibitive would kill what
office development remains in most US cities with a few obvious exceptions.

On the other hand, making transit more competitive (a positive
improvement) would do wonders. It requires building rail transit,
though; buses cannot and will never be competitive with the car in any
way, shape, or form until the car is NATURALLY cost prohibitive, i.e.,
as it is in New York or San Francisco.

[Jeff Davis]

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Jeff Davis

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 1 May 2006 09:43:37 -0700, "Paul Hoffman"

Post by Paul Hoffman
What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive.

Which will spawn suburban office parks.
HTH
HAND

Apparently, you've never been to London.

Apparently, you've never been to Sunbelt cities.

Why, yes I have.

Post by Mike Dahmus
In this rare case, the asshat newbie is exactly right. Artificially
making car usage within central cities cost prohibitive would kill what
office development remains in most US cities with a few obvious exceptions.
On the other hand, making transit more competitive (a positive
improvement) would do wonders. It requires building rail transit,
though; buses cannot and will never be competitive with the car in any
way, shape, or form until the car is NATURALLY cost prohibitive, i.e.,
as it is in New York or San Francisco.

You seem to find "naturally cost prohibitive" a miracle drug although
what "naturally" means in that sentence is left as an exercise for the
reader.

[Mike Dahmus]

Post by Jeff Davis

Post by Mike Dahmus

Post by Jeff Davis

Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On 1 May 2006 09:43:37 -0700, "Paul Hoffman"

Post by Paul Hoffman
What we need to do is make car usage within central
cities cost prohibitive.

Which will spawn suburban office parks.
HTH
HAND

Apparently, you've never been to London.

Apparently, you've never been to Sunbelt cities.

Why, yes I have.

Post by Mike Dahmus
In this rare case, the asshat newbie is exactly right. Artificially
making car usage within central cities cost prohibitive would kill
what office development remains in most US cities with a few obvious
exceptions.
On the other hand, making transit more competitive (a positive
improvement) would do wonders. It requires building rail transit,
though; buses cannot and will never be competitive with the car in any
way, shape, or form until the car is NATURALLY cost prohibitive, i.e.,
as it is in New York or San Francisco.

You seem to find "naturally cost prohibitive" a miracle drug although
what "naturally" means in that sentence is left as an exercise for the
reader.

Increased transit use due to better performance -> more density ->
market charging more for parking since there's other, better, uses for
land -> naturally cost prohibitive.

Congestion charge on city where suburban land is readily available and
cheap and easy to develop -> artificially cost prohibitive.

London could do it because driving is expensive anyways and because they
vigorously restrict development in the competing suburban office parks.