Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything just
fine the way it is?


To put it another way, it's EXTREMELY likely that this country could, in the
not-so-distant future, exercise some leverage with oil prices in the same
way I can exercise leverage with new car prices because there are at least 4
dealers for any brand of car in Rochester NY.

To put it another way, people in relationships will refuse to admit they're
wrong about even the most trivial crap until they've been dragged through
194 hours of couples counseling. Analogy: At some point, people need to give
up their attitude of "God gave every American the right to own whatever
vehicle we want, to drive it as much as we want, and maintain it as poorly
as we want, and you're a fascist/commie/whatever if you suggest otherwise."

Do you think it's worth beginning the oil consumption counseling now, or
doesn't that give you as big a hard-on as seeing cities in flames? A real
man would get a HUGE woody from being able to tell a supplier to shove their
product.

"Jon Smithe" wrote in message
news:g6Aad.226519$D%.78729@attbi_s51...
Weren't you the person who proposed Bush must be on drugs for him to have
a
poor showing on the first debate, and then have a respectable showing in
the
2nd debate?

Please substantiate that bit of bull****.

That may be bull****, but surely, SOMETHING is going on with your president.
Watch this and tell me differently:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov

Eisboch wrote:

Do I understand this statement correctly ... that there is a tax
incentive to purchase a Hummer?


Yup. A business owner may purchase any vehicle with a GVW over 6,000
pounds for business purposes (wink, wink,) and take a deduction of up to
$106,000 in the first year after buying a $110,000 Hummer H1. Right now
the "opportunity" expires in 2006, but who knows...

Go to http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction.htm for all the
gory details.

Who ever said life was fair....

"John Wentworth" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

Do I understand this statement correctly ... that there is a tax
incentive to purchase a Hummer?


Yup. A business owner may purchase any vehicle with a GVW over 6,000
pounds for business purposes (wink, wink,) and take a deduction of up to
$106,000 in the first year after buying a $110,000 Hummer H1. Right now
the "opportunity" expires in 2006, but who knows...

Go to http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction.htm for all the
gory details.

Who ever said life was fair....

Hey...if a hard working bricklayer needs the biggest pickup truck on earth
and actually uses it to haul tons of stone, that's one thing. But, some
asshole who buys a hummer just to tool around in, that's bull****,
especially since he probably whines as much as everyone else about oil this,
oil that, OPEC's a bunch of crooks...blah blah blah.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything just
fine the way it is?


I'd impose much stiffer gas guzzler taxes on vehicles before I'd tax
gasoline. If the vehicle is necessary for business, I'd make the gas
guzzler tax partially deductible/refundable so that businesses that need
trucks/vans/SUV's aren't squeezed as hard by it.

It must be realized that this would negatively impact truck/SUV sales, so
the government must offset the tax with huge tax rebates to those factories
which attain a certain production level of vehicles employing new
fuel-saving technology.






To put it another way, it's EXTREMELY likely that this country could, in
the
not-so-distant future, exercise some leverage with oil prices in the same
way I can exercise leverage with new car prices because there are at least
4
dealers for any brand of car in Rochester NY.

To put it another way, people in relationships will refuse to admit
they're
wrong about even the most trivial crap until they've been dragged through
194 hours of couples counseling. Analogy: At some point, people need to
give
up their attitude of "God gave every American the right to own whatever
vehicle we want, to drive it as much as we want, and maintain it as poorly
as we want, and you're a fascist/commie/whatever if you suggest
otherwise."

Do you think it's worth beginning the oil consumption counseling now, or
doesn't that give you as big a hard-on as seeing cities in flames? A real
man would get a HUGE woody from being able to tell a supplier to shove
their
product.

Taxing gas isn't the answer. A person who is driving a hybrid fuel car may
be doing so because they have a long commute to work and that's the only way
they can fit fuel expenses into their budget. By taxing the fuel, you may
make them exceed their budget, but leave them with no alternative. Taxing
the purchase of products which use a lot of fuel is a better answer.

It's cheaper to buy a two-stroke outboard motor than a four-stroke. If the
government wants to attack the fuel economy issue and some environmental
issues at the same time, then they should impose a stiff
gas-guzzler/polluting tax on the conventional two-strokes.

They can also offer huge incentives on the manufacturing side. Having
manufacturers make large changes in technology is very expensive. The
government needs to reward the companies which make those changes.

"John Wentworth" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

Do I understand this statement correctly ... that there is a tax
incentive to purchase a Hummer?


Yup. A business owner may purchase any vehicle with a GVW over 6,000
pounds for business purposes (wink, wink,) and take a deduction of up to
$106,000 in the first year after buying a $110,000 Hummer H1. Right now
the "opportunity" expires in 2006, but who knows...

Congress removed the loophole just last Friday.

Weren't you the person who proposed Bush must be on drugs for him to have a
poor showing on the first debate, and then have a respectable showing in the
2nd debate?

Please substantiate that bit of bull****.

Nice Dodge. Your wife drive a Chrysler?

I expressed an opinion, wondering why Bush was so different in the second
debate.

Some right wing reactionary stated as a fact, not an opinion "John Kerry will
put in a 50 cent a gallon gas tax right away and another later on." Should be
easily substantiated by quoting some bit of Kerry's energy proposal. So far,
dead silence from the right and shameful attempts to switch the subject.

If it is your opinion that there was no difference in GWB's performance between
debate 1 and debate 2, fine. You're entitled.

Very nice dodge. I like the way you turned the conversation from you making
a completely unsubstiated defamatory "opinion" to wither or not I saw any
difference between the 1st and 2nd debate. Very good dodge, but not much of
anything else.

In my statement, I stated Bush did a poor job in the first debate and did a
respectable job in the 2nd debate. There are so many reason for a
difference in performance, and drugs would be one of the very last. The
fact that you actually believe drugs is the most likely explanation says
more about you than about Bush.

By the way, have you found once piece of legistlation that Kerry sponsored
that you think is important?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Weren't you the person who proposed Bush must be on drugs for him to have
a
poor showing on the first debate, and then have a respectable showing in
the
2nd debate?

Please substantiate that bit of bull****.

Nice Dodge. Your wife drive a Chrysler?

I expressed an opinion, wondering why Bush was so different in the second
debate.

Some right wing reactionary stated as a fact, not an opinion "John Kerry
will
put in a 50 cent a gallon gas tax right away and another later on." Should
be
easily substantiated by quoting some bit of Kerry's energy proposal. So
far,
dead silence from the right and shameful attempts to switch the subject.

If it is your opinion that there was no difference in GWB's performance
between
debate 1 and debate 2, fine. You're entitled.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything
just
fine the way it is?


I'd impose much stiffer gas guzzler taxes on vehicles before I'd tax
gasoline. If the vehicle is necessary for business, I'd make the gas
guzzler tax partially deductible/refundable so that businesses that need
trucks/vans/SUV's aren't squeezed as hard by it.

Logical, although you'd have to work out some sort of highly detailed scheme
for hobbyists, like someone who raises horses for kicks and needs one of
those huge diesel pickups with a 5th wheel for the trailer. Same for people
who haul an RV and need that same kind of truck.


It must be realized that this would negatively impact truck/SUV sales, so
the government must offset the tax with huge tax rebates to those
factories
which attain a certain production level of vehicles employing new
fuel-saving technology.

Only if those car makers redesign their SUVs to reflect the fact that maybe
10% of owners actually need the vehicles geared for off-road use. Otherwise,
all they'll do is tweak the engines just enough to squeeze under whatever
new limit is set. No redesign, no tax break.



To put it another way, it's EXTREMELY likely that this country could, in
the
not-so-distant future, exercise some leverage with oil prices in the
same
way I can exercise leverage with new car prices because there are at
least
4
dealers for any brand of car in Rochester NY.

To put it another way, people in relationships will refuse to admit
they're
wrong about even the most trivial crap until they've been dragged
through
194 hours of couples counseling. Analogy: At some point, people need to
give
up their attitude of "God gave every American the right to own whatever
vehicle we want, to drive it as much as we want, and maintain it as
poorly
as we want, and you're a fascist/commie/whatever if you suggest
otherwise."

Do you think it's worth beginning the oil consumption counseling now, or
doesn't that give you as big a hard-on as seeing cities in flames? A
real
man would get a HUGE woody from being able to tell a supplier to shove
their
product.

Taxing gas isn't the answer.

I'm not referring to taxing. I'm talking about an advertising scheme as
pervasive as what we now see for tobacco, drugs and DWI. Taxing may cut
demand indirectly, but changing minds is direct. If you don't believe this,
take a peek at what the carbohydrate scandal has done to the earnings of the
major bakers in this country.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:30:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

There are no angels.

A - freakin' - men.... [1]

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

[1] Except for my two daughters and wife that is. :)