Forums | MacLife

"Why not buy vehicles that are less expensive and use the difference towards, I don't know, building the proper infrastructure for alternative fuel source distribution so that in the future alternative fuel cars can compete with gas only cars in the free market?"

And how many years do you predict this will take?

So, res, what details does the fox channel reveal?

zoees wrote:

"Why not buy vehicles that are less expensive and use the difference towards, I don't know, building the proper infrastructure for alternative fuel source distribution so that in the future alternative fuel cars can compete with gas only cars in the free market?"

And how many years do you predict this will take?

Probably a while - how long do you think it will take for the alternative fuel cars to completely depreciate?
I bet that happens LONG before alternative fuel is readily available. So they are paying extra for cars that will basically just run on gas.

Yeah - that makes sense.

daemon wrote:

So, res, what details does the fox channel reveal?

Why don't you watch and find out?

resedit wrote:

The people wanted them to exclude republican input in the formation of the bill ?

You are aware that quite likely over 95% of Americans haven't read a page of the bill, they want the intended result - economic stimulus - and that's what they approve of, they don't know the details of how the bill plans to accomplish that.

Are tax cuts generally viewed as an effective stimulus?

Tax cuts are an ineffective economic stimulus.

Mark Zandi, a Republican economist who advised John McCain's presidential campaign, has been stressing this point for months. Zandi's research showed a corporate tax cut delivering $0.30 in real GDP growth for every $1 invested, an alternative minimum tax patch delivering $0.48 for every $1 invested, and a regular tax rebate delivering anywhere from $1.02 to $1.28 for every $1.

Compare that to aid to state governments, which Republicans have roundly criticized: $1.36 for every $1 invested. Infrastructure spending delivers a whopping $1.59 in GDP for every $1.

But it's not just Zandi making this point. The Congressional Budget Office -- you know, the guys with the incomplete stimulus report that Republicans absolutely loved last week -- deemed last year that corporate tax cuts are "not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending."

So why is Washington still having this conversation about tax cuts? It's time to talk about why business tax breaks in the stimulus bill amount to $24.9 billion -- a small share of the overall package, yes, but more than double the amount that was invested in rail and mass transit.

Link.

Zandi's research.
Corporate Tax Rate Cut Likely to be Ineffective as Stimulus.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

The people wanted them to exclude republican input in the formation of the bill ?

You are aware that quite likely over 95% of Americans haven't read a page of the bill, they want the intended result - economic stimulus - and that's what they approve of, they don't know the details of how the bill plans to accomplish that.

Are tax cuts generally viewed as an effective stimulus?

Depends upon who you talk to and what the current rate is.

That spending (the alternative fuel cars) is clearly spending with an ulterior motive in mind, one we can't currently afford.
Use the money to promote jobs growth, not the liberal agenda.

resedit wrote:

Depends upon who you talk to and what the current rate is.

Would you agree that "$0.30 in real GDP growth for every $1 invested" is not a great level of return?

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

The large fleet will be filled on regular gasoline.

...until the alt fuels are available, whose production is spurred by the ready market of government vehicles.

res wrote:

Interstate commerce boomed because the highways were built, the highways weren't built because interstate commerce boomed.

The highways where largely built over existing routes.

If they wanted to buy these cars in areas where the fuels are already available - maybe I could see the benefit.
I doubt however that a few park rangers in Lassen County are going to attract any businesses to bring alternative fuels up that way - especially since they have a tendency to turn to gel and not work when it gets cold.

Thus the only way most of these vehicles will ever see a drop of alternative fuel before they are replaced is if the government trucks it in just for them (even more expense).

"a few park rangers in Lassen County"....gee, I didn't know this program was so restricted. Glad you could clue me in to that.

You're just trivializing it.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

The people wanted them to exclude republican input in the formation of the bill ?

You are aware that quite likely over 95% of Americans haven't read a page of the bill, they want the intended result - economic stimulus - and that's what they approve of, they don't know the details of how the bill plans to accomplish that.

Are tax cuts generally viewed as an effective stimulus?

Depends upon who you talk to and what the current rate is.

Cuts in the capital gains tax did not spur a growth in reinvestment in industry/commerce. Giving tax cuts to industries doesn't mean that they will reinvest in infrastructure. We can see that in the oil, gas, and power generation industries. What we see in tax cuts is an improvement in wealth at the highest levels of investment, and returns to the investors. It does not play out as reinvestment in other areas.

user wrote:

Energy independence is a "liberal agenda" now?

You left off the "ultra", BTW.

Yeah, I second the 'wtf' on that one...

Well, really they do.

If enacted, it would certainly rollback the New Deal and much of the rest of our collectivization.