Nearly half of all Americans are worried about the collapse of a bridge somewhere in the United States, yet nearly two-thirds reject higher taxes to inspect and fix them, according to a new poll.
The collapse of a bridge in Minnesota has put America’s infrastructure on the political agenda.
In an affect called BIMBY — “Better In My Back Yard” — that is common in polling, CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said people often feel that situations locally are better than the national averages.
I’ll have to remember to use that term next time I’m arguing with other Santa Feans about the corrupt bastards in Congress.
Despite the concerns, only one-third of those polled favor increasing the tax on gas to pay for bridge inspections and repairs. The federal program to inspect and repair bridges is funded mostly by the federal tax on gasoline. Sixty-five percent of those questioned were against raising that tax.
Congressman James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, on Wednesday said he would introduce legislation for bridge repair funding and increased inspections. He says a 5-cent increase in the gas tax would pay for the proposed three-year program by generating $8.5 billion a year.
Another gutless wonder! Need to find $8.5 billion? That’s what the chickenhawks in Washington spend on Bush’s War – in a month.
>>People want a durable, 1/2 safe vehicle
Then why the fuck do they buy SUVs??? They may kill women and children more effectively in a collision, but they don’t last any longer, and they sure as shit aren’t safe to drive.
#94 – ECA,
Statistically, large SUVs are about as safe as mid-size cars, at least when only adults are in them. Add children to the mix and the numbers for SUVs are dramatically worse. Children fare very poorly in rollover crashes. So, soccer moms, please pick your vehicles carefully. Pick vehicles that have a low center of gravity. Pick cars not trucks.
“more metal between the object you hit and yourself”
ECA, you’re still living with those beliefs from the ’50s. What saves your life is the vehicle collapsing – AT A CONSTANT, CONTROLLED RATE – absorbing the impact, NOT resisting it. Those old 2 1/2 boats of the ’50s and early ’60s were solid, all right. And when they hit something, YOU kept on going, into the dash, impaled on the steering column, or through the windshield. It’s about deceleration and MASS.
Think about what happens when two tanks hit, then think about what happens differently if the tanks are replaced by shopping carts.
Two 2-ton vehicles colliding head-on collide with 8 TIMES the impact of two 1-ton vehicles. When two 2500-lb. Minis each doing 50MPH hit head on, the occupants may walk away, and often do. You don’t want to see what happens when two 6000-lb. Ford Excursions doing 50 hit head-on, airbags or no.
That’s “safer”??
#92
The rich *might* pay more but what you will get is less tax revenue. That’s the core problem with your plan is that it is not based on finding ways of increasing tax revenue as but rather punishing the rich.
> No one wanted SUVs, or at least only
> people that really needed them wanted them.
An “SUV” are merely an extension of a truck and a built-in camper shell. The Ford Bronco goes back to the 70’s. That idea of using your extra truck space for seats goes back a long way. By your reckoning, people were incapable of making decisions themselves and were duped for 20 years now by the automobile industry. If that is the case, the people that *didn’t* buy them were also duped and around in circles we go. At the end of the day, you are proven wrong by the data. People DID buy SUVs thus there was a demand for them. By definition, when people are willing to give money in exchange for an item, they are stating with ultimate clarity that they demand that item.
> why do you believe they should only be for the rich?
Because providing tax cuts for people that contribute almost nothing to tax revenue has no effect on the economy. It makes sense to provide cuts to those that actually pay the vast majority of the tax in order to make any difference.
> What is that amount? 10,000,000/yr? 100,000/yr? 10,000/yr?
> Why not just eliminate the taxes altogether? Wouldn’t that, by your definition, maximize tax revenue?
First, basic mathematics tells us that collecting nothing does not maximize revenue. The optimal level of taxes is somewhere on a curve. There was a time in this country when there was no tax (albeit many, many years ago). You make it sound as if it never happened. In order for the government to operate efficiently, there is a reasonable level of tax revenue necessary. No one disputes that. Only the level of “reasonable” is disputed. IMO, the government has more than enough revenue to do its job were it to spend that money wisely.
#93
> From that statement I’ll assume you subscribe to demand side macroeconomic theory.
No, that is basic microeconomic theory. When people purchase products, they demand that product. They are stating with clarity that they feel the benefit gained from that purchase outweighs the opportunity cost of other uses for their money. Why do you think no one purchases plaid SUVs? You can ask for plaid. You can get your car painted in plaid. Yet no one asks for such a thing. Thus, we state that “plaid” is not in demand. If it were, people would request it.
> BTW Trucks needn’t conform to the same safety standards as
> cars which makes them more profitable for manufacturers who
> can persuade consumers to purchase them. A further bump for
> supply in this case.
There is no question that automobile manufacturers had an incentive to get people to buy SUVs. However, if pushing SUV’s did not translate to sales, they would have stopped selling them.
> Regarding long term planning for businesses, I have to say
> you are mistaken. Long term planning is essential for
> successful business strategies.
I agree that long term planning is essential for businesses. However, for most businesses, “long term” is five years or so. Not a decade.
97,
Yes I would…I REALLY would…
as I wouldnt be thrown from the car…
And you THINK that we couldnt ADD better safety devices in the OLDER cars??
your car wont be RIPPEd to threads, when someone Scrapes by…
IF there were a car fire, Aluminum WONT stop it…STEEL WILL..
With STEEL, we could install a WHOLE bag partition, infront of the cab, to absorb shock…Aluminum WONT DO IT, IT warps and bends to easy.
But people want to be UP higher then in a low laying CAR…thats why so many have trucks, but dont USE them as trucks. they want to see whats AHEAD…and you cant in a Short car.
AND you are looking DOWN at something BEFORE you, insted of a DIRecT view of an INCOMING object…you can see it better from ABOVE IT.
ECA – if everyone rode around in 30″-high cars, we’d all have the same visibility; if we all drove 75″-high trucks – we’d all have the same visibility. But when someone in a population that drives 30″ers buys a 75″er to gain an advantage over others, it starts an ‘arms race’, and we get what we’ve already got; 75″ vehicles killing the occupants of 30″ vehicles, because the guy with the 75″er “wanted better visibility.” (Not really ‘visibility,’ but ‘lines of sight.’ What-ever)
Anyway, the old cars would kill you because they would collapse at wildly changing rates. Modern, lighter cars absorb the impact at an EVEN RATE. Think about the difference between driving into a concrete bridge abutment and hitting one of those new barriers made of water-filled plastic barrels. Hitting the concrete at 50 might kill you, where you could slam into the barrels at 100 and still walk away, because the impact is spread out over time, the deceleration is longer and less abrupt.
Look at this. Like most auto saftey advances, it was developed, not by Volvo, as yuppie drones think, but by Mercedes. At glance at, say, a ’60 Buick and a ’60 Mercedes that have hit anything head-on, and the Buick may have relatively little damage, while the M-B is totalled. But the occupants of the Buick were much more likely to be DEAD. The Buick owners heirs inherit an intact car after the funeral. The owner of the totalled M-B is still alive to buy an new car…
#98 – Thomas,
The rich *might* pay more but what you will get is less tax revenue. That’s the core problem with your plan is that it is not based on finding ways of increasing tax revenue as but rather punishing the rich.
Maybe. There’s nothing at all certain about that. And, I’m not trying to punish the rich. I’m trying to make them pay their fair share. And, since people making more can afford more, I think that fair share should be higher for them than for me for the same reasons I think that my share should be higher than someone making less than I do. Does this mean I’m punishing myself or recognizing my responsibilities?
An “SUV” are merely an extension of a truck and a built-in camper shell. The Ford Bronco goes back to the 70’s. That idea of using your extra truck space for seats goes back a long way. By your reckoning, people were incapable of making decisions themselves and were duped for 20 years now by the automobile industry. If that is the case, the people that *didn’t* buy them were also duped and around in circles we go. At the end of the day, you are proven wrong by the data. People DID buy SUVs thus there was a demand for them. By definition, when people are willing to give money in exchange for an item, they are stating with ultimate clarity that they demand that item.
Actually, yes, the bronco and wagoneer go way back. And the people that needed such vehicles bought them. But, they were a small niche market. The cutlass, a mid-size car, was the number one seller for many years. Cars outsold SUVs many times over. Now it’s the other way around. We’re not talking about what existed; we’re talking about what was mass-marketed and sold and in what numbers.
Oh, and people can be convinced through marketing to buy anything. How else could you possibly explain McDonald’s?
For all of you mentally arthritic contributors who think that “taxing the rich” is the all-encompassing solution to everything, Try replacing the word “rich” with “blacks” or “Mexicans” or “Irish.” See how it sounds.
#104 – NJK,
Rich is a race or ethnicity??!!? I guess, in the sense that it’s hereditary. But, I think that makes my case better than it does yours.
#105 – me,
Sorry, I meant “often hereditary”, of course not always.
#103
> And, I’m not trying to punish the rich. I’m trying to make
> them pay their fair share. And, since people making more
> can afford more, I think that fair share should be higher
> for them than for me for the same reasons I think that my
> share should be higher than someone making less than I do.
Looking aside the issue of tax avoidance, basic mathematics tells us that if two people have a tax rate, the person making more income is going to pay more in taxes. Thus, if “fair” means equitable percentages, then the rich are already paying more than their fair share since we have a progressive tax. Soaking the rich with ever higher tax rates is the sign of someone that wants everyone to end up with the same amount after taxes and that is a sign of someone that has a fundamental problem with the concept of wealth.
> And the people that needed such vehicles bought them.
It would be more accurate to say that those people that *wanted* those vehicles bought them. They may have wanted them for a host of reasons including need. We don’t know nor should care in the discussion of whether they were in demand. At the end of the day, sales is the true indicator of demand.
> How else could you possibly explain McDonald’s?
McDonald’s would not be in business if people did not buy their product. To say that all the millions of people that bought Big Macs were dupped into buying McDonalds instead of say Jack-in-the-Box or some other choice is height of obsurdity. When people purchased McDonald’s fare, they had other choices but chose McDonald’s. Just because you and I wouldn’t choose McDonald’s does not mean it is not in demand.
#107 – Thomas,
I don’t believe equitable is fair. Else, if an adult wanted some candy and a child had it, the adult would be entitled to half. I believe that equitable includes the fact that wealthy people can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. I pay more than people making less than me and do not resent it at all. I resent that people making more pay less. And, yes, I’m talking about percentage, not total dollars. I really do believe that someone making, say $10,000/yr cannot afford any taxes let alone 15%. If you agree and follow that through to its logical conclusion, it leads to progressive taxes.
OK, they wanted SUVs. But, very few people actually did. It wasn’t until the manufacturers CREATED THE DEMAND that the demand existed. Yes, they really did create a demand among a large number of people. There were already a few with the desire/demand to have such vehicles. But, modern marketing is what convinced such a huge group of induhviduals that they wanted them too, despite the fact that, at least initially, it was hard for many to learn to drive a truck. Many still do not know how, which is why so many end up upside-down in a ditch in winter.
For McD’s, I was talking about buying McD’s, Taco Hell, Pizza Slut or others as a contrast to actually buying food, not each other. Certainly, where I am, real food can be bought for less money and will be served to a customer even faster than any of the fast non-food places.
> I don’t believe equitable is fair.
> Else, if an adult wanted some candy
> and a child had it, the adult would
> be entitled to half.
This is a silly strawman argument and can easily be countered. If the child purchased the candy, they are entitled to eat it. Under a progressive tax system, just because the child is from a family that is well off, they’d be obligated to give a larger percentage of their candy than a kid from a less well off family.
IMO, “fair” should be determined by the rate at which the government brings in the *optimal* amount of revenue. Too high and the rich move their money out of taxable investments and revenue drops. Too low and you leave too much on the table that could have been collected. When Bush’s tax cut went into effect, tax revenue went up. That tells me that the previous rate was too high.
RE: “Creating demand”
While it is possible to increase sales through various types of marketing campaigns, at the end of the day people are responsible for their purchases. Thus, whether the automotive industry “created” demand or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, people decided it was worth giving up their money to purchase SUVs as opposed to the plethora of alternative choices.
Scott – I wanna, if I have time later, touch on that taxation issue, and I’m with you 100% – but just an aside here on that SUV thingie;
A number of years ago, the beancounters for the Big Three noticed that certain states, particularly Texas, were showing above-average profit, and they quickly confirmed that that was because of the higher volume of their most profitable products – pickups & SUVs. Many consumers with lower incomes noticed how, for a given trim level, they could get, say, a $20k car, or a $15k pickup – or that for a given price they could afford, the truck had more bells and whistles than the passenger car. This buying trend was noticed, because it resulted in unexpected profits at a time when they were generally hurting… so once it started, they shifted their marketing emphasis to the higher-profit vehicles, and the sheeple responded, as they tend to do, even though for many of them, they were buying the wrong type of vehicle for their needs. Such is the Miracle of Marketing. Pffft…
But as a hardcore vehicle person, lemme set you straight on a couple little things;
“…despite the fact that, at least initially, it was hard for many to learn to drive a truck.”
Nah, that hasn’t been true for a while. Other than the actual size of the vehicle, they all have power brakes & steering and automatic transmissions, and have had for a while. That’s actually one of the reasons for the upswing in sales – once the inaccurate public perception of trucks as being harder to drive was dispelled, that’s when they started buying them in droves.
“Many still do not know how, which is why so many end up upside-down in a ditch in winter.”
Nah, encore. The same people who don’t ‘get’ winter driving make the exact same mistakes in cars as they do in trucks; it’s that the difference in vehicle dynamics, mainly in considerably higher centers-of-gravity and front-heavy weight distribution, mean that when a dumbass pulls a dumbass stunt on an icy road in a car, they wind up in a snowbank, whereas the same dumbass stunt in a truck results in a ‘rollo’.
But just technicalities, your argument is sound…
Lauren,
Yes. Minor technicalities. At least hear in the northeast, it may be a bit different than there. Our assholes are of a different variety. They believe that because an SUV won’t get stuck, that it can also stop just as quickly as it can on dry pavement, even in a blizzard. What they don’t seem to realize is that:
A) Not only can they not stop any faster, but because of extra weight requires extra stopping distance.
B) All vehicles have 4 wheel brakes. The SUV will not miraculously get extra traction by having an extra transaxle to distribute more power.
C) Higher center of gravity makes them far more likely to roll over and play dead.