Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

[acptulsa]

CBO estimates a trillion dollars over the first decade. We all know the estimates are BS. This scheme will double the income tax revenues.

RP is throwing a wrench into this jack off scheme and this thread rambles on incoherently about everything but the point, except for Danno, who gets it right.

Bosso

x2. Here we have a bill that, one, for everyone who buys in will get a tax break now to help them buy (hopefully but, it seems, not necessarily from Detroit) and create jobs (hopefully but not necessarily in this country), and two, will help rob the robbers of future cap-and-trade 'revenue'. And since he's only offering to let people keep their money, not give them someone else's money, if they jump through hoops, it isn't to my mind a subsidy. It's helping people to help themselves get ahead of the cap-and-trade taxinistas. And it acts as another litmus test--anyone who votes against this and for cap-and-trade obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is not we the people.

From an ideological standpoint--meh. As a political move to help those who are thinking ahead, short circuit cap-and-trade (or try to), and to help us determine friends in Washington from enemies, it's brilliant. Politically brilliant. Make the most of it.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Cash for clunkers?

Why do we want to encourage people to trade in perfectly good vehicles for which they have no debt and borrow money to buy new ones?
Wasn't this Obama's plan?

I'm disappointed as well.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Because the truck drivers are now at a competitive disadvantage.

Every individual is competing for wealth in a free market. When the government subsidizes one individual, it puts the others at disadvantage.

It's the same as when the government subsidizes a corporation.

It's not a subsidy. Giving and not taking are two completely different things.

I don't think that's the bad part, Torchbearer. I think the bad part is that it encourages people to spend or borrow at least ten times the amount of the return in order to get the return, at a time of recession caused by reckless spending and borrowing.

And in particular, I'm disturbed that this is being encouraged by someone who continues to forecast imminent economic collapse; the same person who stresses the importance of saving money rather than spending it or borrowing recklessly.

The bill isn't coercive.

Welfare is other people's money going into people's hands, aka: theft. A tax-credit is my own money coming back to me. If I don't have any tax-money to get back, I don't get anything. Completely different. He isn't proposing paying people to buy one of these vehicles.

Yes.

But welfare is taking someone else's money when you didn't pay into the system in the first place. Taking a tax break is getting back your own money (or keeping it in your pocket, depending on your individual tax situation).

I think the bill is fine. Any tax breaks are a good start, especially with the tax machine in the Oval Office. No one is forcing anyone to drive a gas guzzler. If you want the tax break then buy a new more fuel efficient car. The bill doesn't mandate a particular type of car. It appears to only specify a 20% higher gas mileage as the trigger for the tax break. If you want your gas guzzler, keep your gas guzzler. That's freedom of choice right there. Just don't expect a tax break for driving the gas guzzler. I'm sure Obama will be happy to apply that $2000 to universal health care or a new welfare program for illegal immigrants if you don't want it back.

And rest assured that no one in Congress but Ron Paul will be offering you a tax credit of any sort over the next 4 to 8 years, so take it where you can get it.

Again, yes.

I anticipate this being spun into hell by the right just like they did with earmarks.

 

[homah]

It seems that this is an infringement on the free market. It will help companies that produce vehicles with high MPG and hurt those that don't. Perhaps with a $2000 credit the effect will be minimal, but this still rubs me the wrong way. I don't like the idea of the government influencing which corporations are successful.

Just wondering if those who are for this would have a problem with the credit being $5000? $10,000? $50,000? If so, why is $2000 okay but these higher amounts not? If not, surely you can see that some companies would have much higher profits while others would likely be put out of business.

 

[silverhawks]

x2. Here we have a bill that, one, for everyone who buys in will get a tax break now to help them buy (hopefully but, it seems, not necessarily from Detroit) and create jobs (hopefully but not necessarily in this country), and two, will help rob the robbers of future cap-and-trade 'revenue'. And since he's only offering to let people keep their money, not give them someone else's money, if they jump through hoops, it isn't to my mind a subsidy. It's helping people to help themselves get ahead of the cap-and-trade taxinistas. And it acts as another litmus test--anyone who votes against this and for cap-and-trade obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is not we the people.

Cap-and-trade is not meant to be a carbon tax on cars. The government is not aiming to tax your exhaust fumes. It is a carbon tax on industry, and their industrial emissions for manufacturing.

A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

Companies, not individuals.

It will hit INDUSTRY hard, cause INDUSTRY to move out of the USA to somewhere the tax doesn't exist, and in the case of power plants, their tax costs will be passed down to the consumer for power generation, so we will see massive price hikes for utilities.

Since 49% of American electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, a hybrid that charges up from the electric grid is still creating emissions at the other end, which will be taxed by government.

In fact, who wants to bet that a nation of people with flex-fuel hybrids will use MORE electricity than we do now, resulting in greater emissions, resulting in more cap-and-trade taxation, resulting in increased costs to charge up your hybrid?

This bill does NOTHING to stop that. In fact, voting for this AND cap-and-trade will make any politician look like an environmental messiah, because it will be perceived that they are fighting two sources of pollution (industrial pollution and automobile pollution) instead of one.

 

[acptulsa]

Cap-and-trade is not meant to be a carbon tax on cars.

Yet. But if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They're already making little noises about it, here and there. And all the people annoyed by the roar of huge knobby Hummer tires yell, 'hell ya gig 'em!' Never fails.

 

[silverhawks]

Yet. But if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They're already making little noises about it, here and there. And all the people annoyed by the roar of huge knobby Hummer tires yell, 'hell ya gig 'em!' Never fails.

I agree with you. But please, go back and read what I posted, and tell me what the bill does to STOP cap-and-trade. It doesn't. If anything, it plays into manufacturing public consent for it.

Can you not see an Obamabot saying this?

"Well, I'm doing my part for the environment by buying a Volt, so I think the factories should do their part too, by paying for their emissions. That way, we're all saving the planet."

And then later:

"Now that those dirty factories are paying their way to saving our world, what about those gas-guzzling Hummers? Those pollute 100x more than my Volt does, and they're not paying a dime!"

And just to make myself perfectly clear - I'm not suggesting that Dr Paul of all people is on board with the Obama administration and their agenda; but I am suggesting he clearly was convinced this was a good idea by someone who is.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm afraid I can't agree with this expansion of government. Too unethical for my taste. Sorry, RP.

 

[dannno]

It seems that this is an infringement on the free market. It will help companies that produce vehicles with high MPG and hurt those that don't.

Great, so can you explain what the $1 trillion military subsidy along with direct subsidies for oil create a competitive advantage for truck drivers by driving down oil prices?

We don't have a free market. Ron Paul is lowering taxes and encouraging more efficient vehicles that the free market would have provided anyway without the oil subsidy. He is battling a subsidy for oil with a tax cut for fuel efficient vehicles.

 

[dannno]

I'm afraid I can't agree with this expansion of government. Too unethical for my taste. Sorry, RP.

This isn't an expansion of government.. they will be getting LESS tax money.

 

[acptulsa]

I agree with you. But please, go back and read what I posted, and tell me what the bill does to STOP cap-and-trade. It doesn't.

It doesn't. Go back and read what I said. It could ease the pain for some participants if and when they shove through automotive cap-and-trade via federal fuel taxes, and anyone who votes for cap-and-trade but doesn't vote for this is exposed as having an unseen agenda which should be found out. These things aren't much, but could be helpful to us if we play them right.

 

[dannno]

I agree with you. But please, go back and read what I posted, and tell me what the bill does to STOP cap-and-trade. It doesn't. If anything, it plays into manufacturing public consent for it.

Yes it does, did you not see the Al Gore global warming video posted the other day on here?? If not you should look it up, he gets his ass handed to him by a congressional committee.

There are a lot of people in congress skeptical of these cap and trade schemes, and this gives them an alternative environmental bill to vote for that isn't a cap and trade scheme.. because their constituency wants to see an environmental bill go through and they feel like they either need to vote for this one or seem like someone bad on the environment.

Ron Paul is a lot smarter than you. He's also a lot smarter than me, but I know for a fact he is a lot smarter than you and knows what he is doing strategically, morally, principally and otherwise.

 

[silverhawks]

It doesn't. Go back and read what I said. It could ease the pain for some participants if and when they shove through automotive cap-and-trade via federal fuel taxes, and anyone who votes for cap-and-trade but doesn't vote for this is exposed as having an unseen agenda which should be found out. These things aren't much, but could be helpful to us if we play them right.

Acp, how does it "ease the pain" for drivers of hybrids if the government ARE TAXING ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION?

 

[dannno]

So does anybody who was shouting "competitive advantage" before want to address the last post on page 11 about how the $1 trillion annual military oil subsidy along with direct subsidies create a competitive advantage for trucks, and that this bill is only offsetting this effect slightly? Because that is the only valid argument I've heard, and I just logically destroyed it.

 

[dannno]

Acp, how does it "ease the pain" for drivers of hybrids if the government ARE TAXING ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION?

Because they are also taxing oil production (along with subsidizing at the same time!)

 

[Bobster]

There are a lot of people in congress skeptical of these cap and trade schemes, and this gives them an alternative environmental bill to vote for that isn't a cap and trade scheme.. because their constituency wants to see an environmental bill go through and they feel like they either need to vote for this one or seem like someone bad on the environment.

This response should be pasted at the top of the thread. This makes a whole lot of sense and isn't expanding the size of government. In fact, it helps those who buy a new car (Most new vehicles do have better mileage than models from previous years.)

While I'm against it for obvious reasons, I think this is more of a strategic move than anything. Maybe posturing himself for some sort of future endeavor?

 

[homah]

Great, so can you explain what the $1 trillion military subsidy along with direct subsidies for oil create a competitive advantage for truck drivers by driving down oil prices?

We don't have a free market. Ron Paul is lowering taxes and encouraging more efficient vehicles that the free market would have provided anyway without the oil subsidy. He is battling a subsidy for oil with a tax cut for fuel efficient vehicles.

Yes, we don't have a free market, but isn't that what Ron Paul is supposed to be striving for? It seems that introducing one anti-free market idea in an attempt to balance out another doesn't get you where you want to be in the end. Perhaps it is a short-term solution, but in the end does it lead us to the solution we want or does it make things more difficult?

 

[acptulsa]

Acp, how does it "ease the pain" for drivers of hybrids if the government ARE TAXING ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION?

Plugs are optional on hybrids. The reason it isn't grossly inefficient to haul those heavy batteries around isn't so much that you get to plug in, it's mainly that at least some (if you're good, make that most) of your braking energy is saved and reused for acceleration (as opposed to simply heating up your discs and making asbestos dust).

And best of all, when you toe the brake pedal and turn the wheel motors into generators, there's no meter for the government to read.

 

[silverhawks]

Yes it does, did you not see the Al Gore global warming video posted the other day on here?? If not you should look it up, he gets his ass handed to him by a congressional committee.

Yes, and I posted this in that thread:

And yet, I'm betting that most of Congress on both sides of the House will pass carbon tax and emission bills without blinking an eye.

There are a lot of people in congress skeptical of these cap and trade schemes, and this gives them an alternative environmental bill to vote for that isn't a cap and trade scheme.. because their constituency wants to see an environmental bill go through and they feel like they either need to vote for this one or seem like someone bad on the environment.

Ron Paul is a lot smarter than you. He's also a lot smarter than me, but I know for a fact he is a lot smarter than you and knows what he is doing.

Having blind faith in politicians didn't work for me on Bush, it doesn't work for me on Obama, and it most certainly doesn't work for me on Ron Paul.

So there are a lot of Democrats in the Democratic majority in Congress that are skeptical about cap-and-trade? That won't go the way that Pelosi, Reid and Obama tell them to the moment that the cap-and-trade bill heads for a vote?

For the last time: THIS BILL ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE. An alternative to cap-and-trade would be a bill requesting federal tax exemption on private sector research into hydrogen cars or hydrogen power plants, something that removes the NEED to tax carbon emissions at the source.

This bill COMPLEMENTS cap-and-trade; through increased national electricity production which will lead to increased use of coal in coal-fired power plants, increasing the potential revenue from cap-and-trade.

I guarantee you, the majority of politicians that have this and cap-and-trade placed before them are going to vote yes for BOTH, because it will make them look more "environmentally-friendly" to act on TWO sources of pollution instead of one of them.

Failing that, the Democrats can use this bill if it becomes law to justify cap-and-trade, for the same reason.

And if Dr Paul can't see that from a mile off, then no, he most certainly ISN'T smarter than I am.

 

[acptulsa]

For the last time: THIS BILL ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE. An alternative to cap-and-trade would be a bill requesting federal tax exemption on private sector research into hydrogen cars or hydrogen power plants, something that removes the NEED to tax carbon emissions at the source.

You are right and these things are apples and oranges. That said, both fruits are government-grown, and this could be a way to try to forestall cap-and-trade taxes at the pump. 'I supported this, we don't need that' is just the kind of political cover conservative lawmakers in half-'liberal' districts will want and will take comfort in when the other subject comes up and they vote it down. So, while they're unrelated in reality, I don't think they're politically unrelated. Remember, 'in reality' and 'in politics' are two very different worlds...