Help change GAS prices

Roger,

Thanks for pointing out one of my favorites.

I drive a big ugly SUV. Until recently, I drove it all of a half mile to
get to work. Meanwhile, I see all these environmentalists and their bumper
stickers in town from the burbs and just know they used three times the fuel
I did.

Now, I office out of my home. Strangely, I am driving more due to the
difference in the new business, and looked into trading but it just won't
pay. The old SUV is not depreciating hardly at all, and the risk of buying
another late nineties vintage vehicle is not worth the few hundred dollars I
would save in fuel per year. Buying new would mean depreciation.

The old SUV will just have to do for another 100k. That will likely take 10
or 12 years though







"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On 17 May 2004 07:19:16 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

Worth a try.
---------------------------------------------

Dear Richard (and the Group),

The only message a one day deferral of gas-buying would send is that the
American public is as dumb as a stump.

Which we already knew.


If you want your message to appear in the bottom line of a corporation
you must
boycot their product, as gun owners did with Smith & Wesson. To simply
defer
your purchase is the sort of meaningless feel-good bull**** they feed to
college kids to keep them from burning down the school.

Which only works some of the time.


As a point of historical interest there has been at least a dozen such
idiot
plans to "send a message" to the oil companies, dating back to the Arab
oil
embargo following the 1973 'Yom Kipper' war. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see how ineffective they have been.

Actually it wasn't a boycott, but people conserving when we had that
real shortage back in the 70s. We started economizing, car pooling,
buying cars that got good gas mileage and it really did show up as a
drop in the demand for oil. Really put a crimp in the US auto
industry for a few years too.

But, we used less, so gas became plentiful, we forgot about becoming
really independent of foreign oil and we are now back to big engines,
6.000# plus vehicles, and the possibility of a real shortage this
summer because the refineries don't have enough capacity to provide
that much gas.

People cant take the blame, they need some one or something else to
blame so they blame the oil industry for making big profits because
the demand is at an all time high. They blame the politicians for not
forcing the oil refineries to charge less, all the time using more
gas. Proving once and for all, as does the TV program, there is no
intelligent life in the universe.

As I mentioned in another post; I now get 20% better gas mileage and
drive only 25% as much as I did 20, or even 10 years ago. My wife's
car has over 170,000 on it and it still gets 37 mph.

18 instead of 15 and 8,000 instead of 30,000, or 22,000 fewer miles.
If my math is correct I was using 2000 gallons a year. I now use 444.5
gallons for a decrease of 1555 gallons per year. At $2.00 per gallon
that is over $3,100 saved per year at today's prices.

However, it's not just the dollar savings, but the reduction in what
we use.

I wonder what effect it would have IF every family would reduce their
use by 75%, or even try. It is possible by learning to schedule and
combine trips. Most just complain and continue on with business as
usual as they don't want to deal with the inconvenience of planning
and scheduling.

Even though we could afford to drive as much as we used to and
purchase new vehicles every few years, we cut back on the use and
drive 'em till the wheels are about ready to fall off...or they get
totaled.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


--------------------------------------------

Want to send a REAL message?

Imagine what would happen if EVERYONE in the nation stayed home for a
day.
Don't go ANYWHERE. Don't buy ANYTHING. Don't even turn on the TV.
Freeways
completely empty of vehicles. Public buildings with their doors locked
and
parking lots empty. Sporting events not being played in an empty,
echoing
stadium.

Never happen of course, for the simple reason that such an expression of
your
individual freedom just happens to be illegal for most of us 'free'
citizens of
the United States of America.

Better to play it safe. So go ahead and defer your purchase of gas for a
day.
Or fill up the day before. Really show those oil companies who's the
boss.
Yeah... that should do it.

-R.S.Hoover

Richard Lamb wrote in message ...
C J Campbell wrote:

"Bob Olds" wrote in message
m...
If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
I WON'T buy gas on May 19.

And this will cost the oil companies money how? The gas out will not
inconvenience them in the slightest. Now, if everyone just stopped buying
gas, period, that might mean something.


It's not about costing them money, guys.

As has been pointed out (to death) we will all burn just as much gas
as we would have, regardless of when it was purchased.

The point of civil disobeadence is to make a point.

To say something.

Usually to someone who is not listening.


Richard

Yes, Richard's point is the key. The point is to make politicians
squirm and sweat, to make Oil CEO's burn favors in resisting gov
pressure to build additional refineries. At the very least it will
disrupt daily tanker truck delivery schemes. If the merged media
ignores our disobedience, we could up the ante in a month and expand
the boycott for a week. Corporate America can't fire everybody.

Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
a more golden age of aviation.

I was involved in three labor actions at my outfit. All significantly
improved the working lives of the guys comming behind us.

pacplyer

Hi "Dude", thank for responding to my post. Read below for more
comments...

"Dude" wrote in message ...
Jay,

Do you have any research showing that fuel taxes are not supporting the
costs of roads? I remember a story on television about the transportation
fund being held in surplus to help balance the budget or something.

Yes I do, if fuel taxes fully supported the cost of construction and
maintenance of roads then I wouldn't have to keep voting "No" on all
the road construction bonds that seem to come up every election. Also
I wouldn't have to keep sending hundereds of dollars (arbitrarily
based on the value of my vehicle) to the DMV every year just to
"register" my car. Building and maintenance is an ongoing process and
always will be, its stupid to borrow money for this use. All the
interest and commision is less infrastructure we could have had, or
equivalently less taxes we would have had to pay out of our pay
checks. Bonds are used to pay for a lot of roads because there is no
political will to pay for them as we go. This is a result of a
previous poster's comment that John Q Public is dumb as a stump.

I have always toyed with the gas tax idea, it makes a lot of sense in many
ways. The only problem is that it is a drain on the economy in several bad
ways, and I can't get my arms around what the unintended consequences might
be.

It does make a lot of sense and is it a worse drain on the economy
than the alternative, higher income tax? There will be consequences
no doubt. Businesses that unfairly benefit (at everyones expense)
from subsidized infrastructure (like trucking) will see a decline in
the demand for their services due to thier higher prices. This will
manifest itself in slighlty higher prices for goods that continue to
move by truck (rather than train).

One of them would likely be higher taxes to build more public transportation
unless much of the fuel tax is earmarked for that. More public
transportation would mean an increase in corruption in government as the
extra control over where people go and how is just too yummy for those
folks.

Its a tough trade between 2 evils, the inefficiency of a well meaning
government or the profit motive and corruption of a monopoly. But
demend for more public transportation would be another outcome. Where
I live, people on the dole are able to afford to drive around in cars.

On 19 May 2004 12:41:41 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

Hi "Dude", thank for responding to my post. Read below for more
comments...

"Dude" wrote in message ...
Jay,

Do you have any research showing that fuel taxes are not supporting the
costs of roads? I remember a story on television about the transportation
fund being held in surplus to help balance the budget or something.

Yes I do, if fuel taxes fully supported the cost of construction and
maintenance of roads then I wouldn't have to keep voting "No" on all
the road construction bonds that seem to come up every election. Also
I wouldn't have to keep sending hundereds of dollars (arbitrarily
based on the value of my vehicle) to the DMV every year just to
"register" my car. Building and maintenance is an ongoing process and
always will be, its stupid to borrow money for this use. All the
interest and commision is less infrastructure we could have had, or
equivalently less taxes we would have had to pay out of our pay
checks. Bonds are used to pay for a lot of roads because there is no
political will to pay for them as we go. This is a result of a
previous poster's comment that John Q Public is dumb as a stump.

Austin is about to get 8 new toll roads. TXDoT says they have no
other alternative. They are holding "public hearings" and getting
plenty of flack (like putting tolls on already paid for roads to pay
for other roads) but are basically saying it's a done deal.


I have always toyed with the gas tax idea, it makes a lot of sense in many
ways. The only problem is that it is a drain on the economy in several bad
ways, and I can't get my arms around what the unintended consequences might
be.

It does make a lot of sense and is it a worse drain on the economy
than the alternative, higher income tax? There will be consequences
no doubt. Businesses that unfairly benefit (at everyones expense)
from subsidized infrastructure (like trucking) will see a decline in
the demand for their services due to thier higher prices. This will
manifest itself in slighlty higher prices for goods that continue to
move by truck (rather than train).

The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.


One of them would likely be higher taxes to build more public transportation
unless much of the fuel tax is earmarked for that. More public
transportation would mean an increase in corruption in government as the
extra control over where people go and how is just too yummy for those
folks.

In Austin, we pay a 1/2 per cent sales tax to support the mass transit
authority. They have been pushing light rail for several years, in a
city that doesn't easily support a fixed base transit structure. But
"other cities have it", so we must, too. Meanwhile, the buses run
mostly empty with the exception of a few express routes.


Its a tough trade between 2 evils, the inefficiency of a well meaning
government or the profit motive and corruption of a monopoly. But
demend for more public transportation would be another outcome. Where
I live, people on the dole are able to afford to drive around in cars.

Agreed. Gas just hit $1.90 here. This may motivate car pool/van pool
thinking, but most people still prefer the "freedom" of their car.

My wife has a 25 mile one way commute. We had considered moving
north, but the houses are at least 50% higher for the same thing. So
we're looking at a hybrid for her.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...

Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
a more golden age of aviation.

If it was up to Nader there would be no general aviation.

Dear Newsgroup,

I really like this group. But I have seen this BS idea on just about every
newsgroup I visit. So pardon my off topic rant.

A better idea would be to reduce unnecessary travel. Instead of not buying
gas how about we make it a focus of national pride not to drive as much.

Cut down on demand. As demand decreases so will prices. When you are
really bored, look at how many vehicles have a driver only. Remember car
pools?

How about getting it through our thick heads that we can't afford vehicles
that get 30 or less miles per gallon. As Americans, we use 27 percent of
the worlds supply of petroleum. Wait until China gets fully industrialized.
You ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm done.

Regarding 4130, I just put in an order to Wicks Aircraft for some .090 sheet
and actually got it. No backorder either. Anyone check with Mr. Vogelsong
at Dillsburg lately? I checked Aircraft spruce and they were stocking 4130
plate in both warehouses. Is the 4130 shortage fact or fiction like the
peanut butter shortages of the 80s or was it the 70s? Man time fly's.


--
John "Ebby" Ebensperger
Hatz Classic s/n 37
Camden, NY

Dillon Pyron wrote in message . ..

Austin is about to get 8 new toll roads. TXDoT says they have no
other alternative. They are holding "public hearings" and getting
plenty of flack (like putting tolls on already paid for roads to pay
for other roads) but are basically saying it's a done deal.

We have one nearby that is going BK. Sounds like the tax-payers are
going to have to bail it out what was supposed to be a self supporting
road. Now that the real estate developers have cashed out of the new
serviced areas, they can turn the burden of the road over to
tax-payers.

The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.

Thats perfectly fine, some goods will find less energy intensive ways
of moving such as trains. The closer you connect the cost of a
service with the use of the service, the more efficient its use will
be.

In Austin, we pay a 1/2 per cent sales tax to support the mass transit
authority. They have been pushing light rail for several years, in a
city that doesn't easily support a fixed base transit structure. But
"other cities have it", so we must, too. Meanwhile, the buses run
mostly empty with the exception of a few express routes.

Seems silly to have a general tax when a gas tax would raise revanue
and increase ridership.

Agreed. Gas just hit $1.90 here. This may motivate car pool/van pool
thinking, but most people still prefer the "freedom" of their car.

Of course people prefer the freedom of a car, just like I'd prefer the
freedom to not have to drag my butt to work every day.

My wife has a 25 mile one way commute. We had considered moving
north, but the houses are at least 50% higher for the same thing. So
we're looking at a hybrid for her.

Thats one of the things that subsidized gas has encouraged- extended
suburbs. Why live in the city when you have a car and cheap gas?
Likely your time in the car costs more than the gas.

Check on some real people's mileage on those hybrids. I've heard both
good and bad about the actual gas milage. Apparently the EPA measures
gas milage by extrapolating from exhaust pipe emmisions rather than
actual road tests.

The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.


Its a fact that heavy vehicles do the damage.....they pretty much do ALL the
damage...

You can design a road to say have a load capacity of 10 tons....

And you could literally have billions of car passes over it and it wouldnt
damage it a bit....

Then you could have a few million passes of big 9.5 ton trucks and and it would
get damaged over a period of time....

But, get one sorry SOB with a 10.1 ton truck driving on it....and the road bed
cracks....and once it cracks its load capacity is pretty much gone and
virtually every additional vehicle pass (even little cars) just adds to the
damage....

I guess I am trying to point out that the damage function is VERY/EXTREMELY
nonlinear in relation to the load level....

And dont ask me what I think should be done to trucks/truckers that have been
found to be over the legal load limit...

take care

Blll

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...

Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
a more golden age of aviation.

If it was up to Nader there would be no general aviation.

Probably true. But you don't have to worry: Nader's not going to get
elected and General Aviation is not a factor in the 2004 election so
he won't really be after it. By voting for him however, you give more
voice to the working american. This gives strength to Nader's holy
war against big monopolies like big oil. Support for him also
redefines the issues of the other two lack-luster parties who don't
really support the little guy (and his falling disposable income
problem) since they're both whores of major corporations. It is
true, Ralph wants to tax weath (your airplane.) But he'll never get
the chance since if his numbers come up, the the winning admin will
put the brakes on CEO greed to keep Ralph from picking up speed. And
that's what I want: the pendulum to swing back the other direction for
a while so that the little guy can afford to fly again. What do you
guys think?

pacplyer

In pacplyer wrote:

Probably true. But you don't have to worry: Nader's not going to get
elected and General Aviation is not a factor in the 2004 election so
he won't really be after it. By voting for him however, you give more
voice to the working american. This gives strength to Nader's holy
war against big monopolies like big oil. Support for him also
redefines the issues of the other two lack-luster parties who don't
really support the little guy (and his falling disposable income
problem) since they're both whores of major corporations. It is
true, Ralph wants to tax weath (your airplane.) But he'll never get
the chance since if his numbers come up, the the winning admin will
put the brakes on CEO greed to keep Ralph from picking up speed. And
that's what I want: the pendulum to swing back the other direction for
a while so that the little guy can afford to fly again. What do you
guys think?

I think even more democrats need to vote for Nader this time around.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/