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.
>>f there are building in the way of more lanes, get rid of some
>>of the buildings.
Yeah, wait until they want to tear down YOUR building. Then you’ll find out the true meaning of “not in my back yard”.
In any case, I guess that whatever it takes, it’s worth it to keep the Hummers humming the gas pumps pumping, Dick Cheney’s stock portfolio growing, and people off of that commie pinko fag mass transit stuff, huh? That sounds like Socialized Transit, doesn’t it?
“If you take the train, the terrorists win!”
62,
ITS NOT, that the Americans DONT want the jobs, its that WE dont want the LOW PAY…
Farming jobs pay 10% less then min wage..
These folks work at LOW pay, no matter the job…Even in construction, you could pay 2 mexicans for every Union/trade job…AT LEAST…
Then figure you dont pay benefits even for an 80 hour per week job…
Want to SOLVe the problem?
EVERT person from Farmer-janitor-CEO-Owner, can only get 1 wage…ALL the same…
Talk about price adjustment..WOW. Rich and Poor all making the SAME wage…
Watch land values Balance themselves..
Watch taxes DROP.
THINk about it before you talk…
Well folkes, I have the solution for how to repair Americas infrastructure without raising taxes. I’m amazed nobody suggested it earlier.
Just privatize the rest of our infrastructure, award the bridges and interstates to various MNCs that you all fund with your tax dollars and investments anyway. They have a vested interest in keeping the goods flowing along the aforementioned roadways so you can buy them at your local Wallmart.
Either that or leave the bridge down and allow all domestic infrastructure to fail until the war effort slumps due to declining real American wealth. Perhaps then we can bring home our soldiers for a relief effort at home.
#21, Scott,
Point 1, can’t. The First amendment and all, ya know.
Point 2, see point 1.
I agree with both points and wish we could somehow make this happen. If only we could also get some truth in advertising at the same time too.
Point 3, This where I disagree.
I want the best representative possible. Most political representatives can earn much more in the private sector then in politics. If there is a choice between having someone run for office and declining because they can’t afford it then I say pay ’em.
To suggest most politicians want the office in order to get the paycheck is very wrong. Your own Mayor left a job paying him millions a year to run a city for the good of all. The same desire to serve is very evident from the California Governor to the Vice President. John Kerry, born rich, married richer, isn’t there for the money. Our own Congressman declined to run in again 2002 after 10 years in Congress. He has a young family and couldn’t afford to keep a house here and in Washington as well as save to put his kids through school.
Since when has the first amendment been an obstacle to the current administration anyway?
Seriously though as long as big money is able to influence public policies the will of the people will not be done. Lobbying is what we simple folk refer to as bribery.
I hesitate to speculate what sort of reforms would be required to bring actual democracy to America. The status quo benefits those who wield tremendous wealth and influence, I doubt they’d relinquish it without a fight.
#69, nightstar,
Since when has the first amendment been an obstacle to the current administration anyway?
The First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#37, #51, etc.. – There’s a simpler way to do what you guys are talking about:
Stop taxing income, and start taxing non-critical expenditures (anything other than food, shelter, and health care).
The struggles that come about with taxing income on both sides of the political spectrum are boiled down to a simple question of “…and what should the tax rate be?”, which is a much simpler argument to have, when the rules of the game are changed.
The only flaw in this plan is that it enables old men sit on their cash. The catch is that this doesn’t really happen: Those old men invest their money in companies, which as an expenditure would be taxed. However, with the elimination of all other tax laws, there would be no benefit to investing outside of the country.
In the end, it’s just a different way to look at the problem, but I think it would easier to solve in this manner.
#68 – Mr. Fusion,
Would you explain how the first amendment guarantees the right to pay politicians for the right to talk to them over dinner? In my book, lobby == bribe. I’ve not seen it any other way. But, if you mean that everyone should have equal opportunity to make an appointment to speak to their politician without putting money on the table, that might be ok, but remember the bit about equal access and no money.
Moss, et al, taxes are higher after passage of the Bush tax cuts, with a higher share being paid by the wealthy than before.
It’s not too surprising that Democrats would use a tragedy yo turn it into an attempt to raise taxes or pass some other item on the agenda.
.#49 – Lauren – “Americans, as this post demonstrates, increasingly want everything infrastructurewise that they’re accustomed to – but they demand those things while avoiding tooth and nail the responsibility of paying for them, like spoiled children.”
– I could be wrong (i was once), but I am pretty sure nobody would object to paying for the infrastructure. In fact, let’s have a show of hands – how many here would much rather put even 20% of the money we’re flushing down the toilet for bullets and bombs and their delivery systems into things that would actually benefit Americans? They just want some say in where the money they’re already paying through the nose is spent.
#3
If what you want to do is to increase tax revenue then increasing the tax rate on the rich will have the opposite effect.
#8
> class warfare is easy. Screw the tax cuts for the
> rich until working people and the American middle
> class are provided for.
The problem is our definition of “middle class”. Liberals want use to believe that “upper class” is anyone making more than $50K.
#16
So what’s going to happen as people start purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles and consuming less gas (thereby reducing the revenue from the gas tax)?
#37
RE: Planning more than 10 years ahead.
Nor should they. Too much can change in a decade. Any CEO that puts together a 10 year plan on anything other than say GM would be laughed out of a job. Most businesses are trying to make it to ten years much less plan what they will do a decade from now. There is just too much volatility to even try to conceive of such a plan.
RE: Capitalism destroying the environment
What a ridiculous sentiment. Name another country that has ever existed that did not “destroy” the environment. It is because of capitalism that we have more trees now than we did when the country was founded. It is why we have more fuel efficient cars and why we have more efficient appliances for homes.
#44
Since taxes are done by percentage, by definition the wealthy pay more than the poor. Even with a flat tax that would be true.
#51
> Insert a 40% bracket for 700,001 to 2,500,000.
The problem is that no person making that kind of money in their right mind is ever going to pay that tax rate. Won’t happen. They’ll hire armies of guys to do nothing but keep them out of that tax bracket like Mrs. Kerry (effective tax rate of 12%). What you will effectively do is to drive money out of businesses and startups and into long term investments where given the tax rate they will make a profit.
> Remove the tax loopholes that allow investment..
Again, won’t happen. The reason is that for every $70K person in the government you hire to come up with ways of soaking the rich, the rich will hire 100 people making twice that to find a way to avoid it.
#57
Learn something about economics. Raising the tax rate on the rich decreases tax revenue. If what you want to do is to increase tax revenue you should instead find ways of encouraging the rich to put their money in taxable investments.
#71
Actually, loopholes are derived from redefining “income.”
BertDawg – always wanting to give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt; admirable trait. I, however, being a cynic, see a lot of people using “it gets spent on nonsense, that’s why” as a convenient rationalization for selfishness and greed. As those two particular items are at record levels and rising, “I don’t mind paying taxes, if only…” strikes me as – ¿ como se dicé? – self-serving bullshit. I don’t believe that many latter-day Americans are that civic-minded, the evidence is that there’s little people won’t do for mo’ money. Gordon Gecko is not dead.
75,
IF the Gov put it UP, they should take CARE OF IT…
If they were foolhardy enough to spend the MONEY on something ELSE insted of Fixing something with the money…WHOSE fault is it??
Do you THINk your PROPERTY taxes should go up, even tho you dont see People OUT front fixing the road EVERY YEAR??
Do you think that the City and country should be ADDING 1-10% per year, for upgrades and Fixing schools, sewers, streets, and paying the Cops and fire department??
Whats funny, is that MOST do save that 10%…EXCEPT, that someone ALWAYS ends up SPENDING IT, or STEALING IT…
#70 Mr. Fusion. I’m familiar with the constitution, I own two copies. One I got at Disney World as a child(oh the irony!)
My statement was facetious.
Read the first amendment and reflect on recent executive orders and anti terror laws then get back to me.
#76 Thomas
A country that existed that didn’t destroy their environment? too easy, that would be North America Pre-European settlers. Thats right, the good ole USA when it was populated by it’s indigenous peoples. Nomadic hunter/gatherers like the Iroqois, Hurons , Ojibwa, Mohawk(it’s not just a hair style) etc.
please cite a source on your claim about having more trees than in 1776 because I can’t accept your statement as factual.
BTW taxing stock market transactions would produce more revenues than any proposed income tax increase.
Hmmm, why arent market transactions taxed anyway?
As it happens theres no Federal law ratified that requires payment of tax on income earned. At least no court has ever been able to produce one.
>>It is because of capitalism that we have more trees now than we
>>did when the country was founded. It is why we have more fuel
>>efficient cars and why we have more efficient appliances for homes.
CAPITALISM is the key to a clean environment, fuel-efficient cars, and energy-efficient appliances?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you stopped for a drink on the way home from work, and ended up spending the whole night in the bar. Extreme inebriation is the only reason I can think for someone to make a statement like that.
#79
> A country that existed that didn’t destroy
> their environment? too easy, that would be North America Pre-European settlers.
Wrong. First, it is questionable to call them a “country.” Second, they cut down tress, dammed rivers, drew on caves, made fires, killed animals etc. They *used* the environment just as we do. The only difference is the sheer numbers.
From The State of Humanity by Roger Sedjo and Marion Clawson. Pages 328-345.
In addition, the US has a net postive forest cover and has for some time.
> Hmmm, why arent market transactions taxed anyway?
They already are when gains are realized. In other words, when you sell stock and have made a profit you are taxed on the profit. In addition, every broker charges you a fee and those brokers pay taxes so again each transaction is “taxed.”
#81, Thomas,
Some researchers estimate that there are more trees in North America today than there were when Columbus arrived in 1492 (5)
OK, you got the book, name the researchers.
I can look outside my window right now and see farm land where once there was only trees. I can drive for miles in any direction and see only small stands of trees used as windbreaks where one there was a single forest. The same in every state in America.
#72, Scott,
Would you explain how the first amendment guarantees the right to pay politicians for the right to talk to them over dinner?
It doesn’t. Nor does the First Amendment guarantee the right of a local 4-H Club to meet the representative over dinner either. The same for gifts, the First Amendment doesn’t prevent the Agriculture lobby from giving the Congressman a wheel of cheese from a big producer any more then it does the 4-H Club from giving him a wheel of cheese they made.
Sleazy? Yes. Do I like it? Of course not. So how do you stop the large interest groups and industries from hogging all of Congresses time without also hindering groups like the 4-H Club from meeting with the Congressman.
#69, nightstar,
The suggestion in your posts is that the First Amendment is irrelevant. While it isn’t pretty, lobbying is apparently a Constitutional Right. I don’t enjoy the sleazy parts of it, but how do you get rid of them without gutting your right to talk to a politician about some legislation under consideration?
Trees were CLEAR cut until about the 70’s…We had Mountains and hills NAKED in the sun, and NO ONE was replanting..
DURING that time there was RUN OFF of rain, and mud slides and destruction of the land AFTEr the Clearing.
SENCE that time it has been REQUIRED to replant the hill sides. To stop Erosion, and to save the TOP soil.
NOW if we could get Farmers to grow Wind brakes (1 acre for every 100) we might be able to do MORE.
#83 – Mr. Fusion,
Well, I can’t say that my way leaves anyone with access to their politicians. However, if you take the money out of it, they have no interest in listening to the CEO of Sony; they have no more interest in listening to the CEO of GM than they do to the 4-H club, less in fact, since 4-H is many votes CEO of GM is one. So, perhaps they will not listen to anyone, as W does, or perhaps they’ll take some interest in their constituency. It’s just a dream, but I like it.
#76 – Thomas,
If what you want to do is to increase tax revenue then increasing the tax rate on the rich will have the opposite effect.
Sorry, you completely lost me on this one. And, remember, my version of the plan has no deductions for anything and no tax free income.
The problem is our definition of “middle class”. Liberals want use to believe that “upper class” is anyone making more than $50K.
Mind letting us liberals speak for ourselves. You’re full of it on that one. Personally, I think the definition of wealthy varies by zip code. It also starts at some number of times the median income for the region. Take AMT for example, it starts at a level where anyone living in Manhattan is having trouble making ends meet.
So what’s going to happen as people start purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles and consuming less gas (thereby reducing the revenue from the gas tax)?
We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it. Seriously though, I have no idea what money will fix the bridges if we can make that happen, but I’d be singing about it if we could actually accomplish that.
RE: Planning more than 10 years ahead.
Nor should they. Too much can change in a decade. Any CEO that puts together a 10 year plan on anything other than say GM would be laughed out of a job. Most businesses are trying to make it to ten years much less plan what they will do a decade from now. There is just too much volatility to even try to conceive of such a plan.
That’s all well and good. But, the planet won’t care. We need a healthy biosphere to survive. I don’t give even one rat’s buttock, let alone an entire rat’s ass, whether corporations get eaten alive. I care about survival of species, ours and the many others I find more beautiful than our own.
RE: Capitalism destroying the environment
What a ridiculous sentiment. Name another country that has ever existed that did not “destroy” the environment. It is because of capitalism that we have more trees now than we did when the country was founded. It is why we have more fuel efficient cars and why we have more efficient appliances for homes.
Sorry, I can’t name another. I can’t name one. Have you been to the eastern seaboard? Ever? Take a look on google maps; it’s all concrete. Farmland is also total human devastation. As for fuel efficient cars, we had more fuel efficient cars in 1986 than we have today. Why? Because capitalism found a loophole in a law that allowed them to make dramatically more money on light trucks that had fewer regulations than cars. So, they sold people on trucks. It was NOT an easy sell. Most people didn’t want trucks. But, extreme advertising convinced a huge percentage of induhviduals that they needed SUVs to be safe, even though the damn things kill kids in much larger numbers due to rollover crashes.
> Insert a 40% bracket for 700,001 to 2,500,000.
The problem is that no person making that kind of money in their right mind is ever going to pay that tax rate. Won’t happen. They’ll hire armies of guys to do nothing but keep them out of that tax bracket like Mrs. Kerry (effective tax rate of 12%). What you will effectively do is to drive money out of businesses and startups and into long term investments where given the tax rate they will make a profit.
Check the history of tax rates in the US. The top bracket peaked at 94% in 1945 and stayed above 90% until 1964. They paid.
http://tinyurl.com/2q6d7g
Learn something about economics. Raising the tax rate on the rich decreases tax revenue. If what you want to do is to increase tax revenue you should instead find ways of encouraging the rich to put their money in taxable investments.
Mind finding the wing-nut source of that piece of crap information so that I can search for the info to dispute it?
Wikipedia states that the effects of a tax cur are completely unpredictable based on what people do with the money. Rich people tend to hold on to theirs better than anyone else, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cut
The report in State of Humanity is an except from research done and edited by Roger A. Sedjo and Marion Clawson.
The following PDF from the Forest Service. Most Forest Service data only goes back to the 1950’s when they started taking detail measurements. They have estimatations however of land prior to that.
One item that I know has come up in recent years is getting an accurate inventory on trees within cities. For example, in the drive I took today (Los Angeles) to get something to eat, every street was lined with trees from start to finish of my trip. I’d roughly estimate at least one or two trees per building.
#86
RE: Taxing the rich
The problem here is that you keep thinking that the way the rich avoid taxes is through deductions and that is simply not the case. They avoid taxes by declaring less income. Thus, if you increase the tax rate on the rich, they will move more of their money into tax-free investments and will find ways of declaring less income and thus pay less tax. When they do that, they take money out of the taxable investments which means the overall tax revenue drops.
RE: Fuel efficient vehicles
Many politicians are already considering this problem. If I remember, this blog had an entry about a guy that was fined for the past gas taxes he did not pay because he used an electric vehicle.
RE: Planning more than 10 years ahead
This is where markets break down and governments are needed. It is the duty of our elected officials to think more than five or ten years ahead and devise ways of having businesses help the environment through their own self-interest. Businesses have to deal with too much volitility to reasonably plan more than five years or so ahead.
RE: Capitalism destroying the environment
I have been the Eastern seaboard many times and have seen some beautiful countryside. If farmland is considered human devastation, then you are substantiating my point that every civilization that has ever existed past or present or future has in some way “destroyed” the environment. However, what you are missing is that along with that “destruction” is a tremendous amount of care through self-interest. Farmers take great care of their land because doing otherwise means they cannot grow crops. Paper companies take care of their timberland because failing to do so means less product. Lastly, there are many that out of purely altruistic self-interest, expend great resources in helping to protect more land for use by all. The Forest Service report even mentioned that the spike in paper prices was due to more land being protected from industry use.
RE: Trucks
If you are a capitalist, then the one universal truth is Supply and Demand. Regardless of government, laws, or regulations Supply and Demand will reign supreme. The automobile industry did not only make SUVs and such only to get around the fuel efficiency requirements, they did it because people wanted to buy them. If no one wanted to buy a SUV, they would not make them. The argument that people did not *want* to buy trucks is specious. The evidence proves otherwise. People *did* buy trucks/SUVs.
RE: Taxes (again)
> Check the history of tax rates in the US.
> The top bracket peaked at 94% in 1945 and
> stayed above 90% until 1964.
Scary if anything. I notice that it peaked at the end of WWII when the US government was broke. However, there is a huge piece of the puzzle missing from your data which is a comparison of GDP in comparison to that tax rate. I’ll bet that the economy improved every time tax rates dropped.
From your Wikipedia article:
>>“Forest land area increased from 747 to 749 million acres
>>(0.3 percent) between 1997 and 2002, continuing a slight
>>upward trend in area beginning in the late 1980s.”
I would agree with that. In New England, hundreds of thousands of acres that were formerly farmlands have reverted to forests, because factory farms and genetically-modified crops and animals have put most of the family farmers out of business. Now, businessmen in Armani suits taking the profits and computerized factory farms are the norm.
So in that sense, capitalism IS responsible for an increase in forest acreage. Whether sacrificing a way of life for generations is worth having some cheap, growth-hormone laden mean and corn that won’t reproduce; that’s another matter.
#87 – Thomas,
Let’s see, first, the report extrapolates from 57 years of data to an estimate of 100 years of data. You then extrapolate to 500 years. Neat trick. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that before Euro-deforestation, the continent had more trees, DUH!!
Further, before Anasazi deforestation, the continent had still more. But go ahead and extrapolate backwards an order of magnitude over the data. No problem there.
#81 Thomas
You can’t argue that the American indigenous peoples had negligeable impact on their environment.
Calling foul because they had a reasonable population for their lifestyle is irrelevant and misleading.
Take for example a 20 gallon aquarium(a metaphor for our continent).
If you populate it with a breeding pair of guppies, they will reproduce to the maximum carrying capacity of their environment. But if you go to the fish store each weekend and add a dozen or so you eventually crash the system.
Heres my Forestry reference to refute yours.
from FORESTRY ISSUES Deforestation: Tropical Forests in Decline
John Roper
Forest Conservation Consultant
Burnaby, British Columbia,
Canada
Ralph W. Roberts R.P.F., ing.f.
Senior Advisor, Forestry and Conservation
Canadian International Development Agency
Hull, Quebec, Canada
“Between 1850 and 1980, 15 per cent of the world’s forests and woodlands were cleared (Rowe et. al, 1992). The world forest area has now shrunk to 3,500 million hectares as a consequence of human exploitation, most of which occurred in the latter half of the 20th century (FAO, 1997).”
“The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 1997) has estimated the annual rates of deforestation in developing countries at 15.5 million hectares for the period 1980-1990 and 13.7 million hectares for 1990-1995. The total forest area lost during the 15 year period was approximately 200 million hectares. To put this figure in perspective, 200 million hectares is more than the total land area of Mexico or Indonesia.”
So it appears our “experts” disagree.
Also one must take into account the differences between old growth forests and new growth. If you’ve ever been to BC or to Sequoia National Park in Cali. you know what I mean. Planting rows of cedar 25 years ago doesn’t quite compare to the 500yr old giants they’ve replaced.
Regarding taxing market transactions I wasn’t refering to the profits but the transaction. Think sales tax. When one buys stocks bonds or options, a transaction has occurred. Should a tax be placed on market transactions all our tax revenue woes are resolved, just look at the market value and daily transaction values for an inkling of the potential.
I don’t wanna hear any crying about stifling investment in domestic markets etc. If the market is lucrative investment will occur regardless of taxes, just look at real estate for the last century or so. If the market isn’t lucrative it doesn’t merit investment now does it.
to claim taxes on market trades would stifle trading is akin to suggesting income tax would eliminate employment.
#83 Mr.Fusion, your preaching to the choir.
My comment about the irrelevance of the first amendment was a FACETIOUS reference to the Bush governments dismantling the constitution specifically first amendment rights.
Still I don’t think freedom of expression grandfathers bribing politicians. But then again I’m not a lawyer ^^
RE: Taxing the rich
The problem here is that you keep thinking that the way the rich avoid taxes is through deductions and that is simply not the case. They avoid taxes by declaring less income.
Thus you missed my point about no tax free income, twice. But, even without that, I disagree, if you raise the percentage, they will pay more. They may not pay their fair share, but will pay more.
RE: Planning more than 10 years ahead
This is where markets break down and governments are needed. It is the duty of our elected officials to think more than five or ten years ahead and devise ways of having businesses help the environment through their own self-interest.
OK, so you at least agree that capitalism will NOT fix environmental problems.
RE: Capitalism destroying the environment
[snip] However, what you are missing is that along with that “destruction” is a tremendous amount of care through self-interest.
Small businesses, when they own their property think this way. Large scale agribuisiness does not. Paper companies are among the worst at this. Kimberly Clark has refused to even consider recycled paper or even tree farms to replace their current practice of clear-cutting old-growth forest to make freakin’ toilet paper. Land being protected by government is the only thing that works. Capitalism certainly does not.
RE: Trucks
Actually, on this one you’re just completely incorrect. No one wanted SUVs, or at least only people that really needed them wanted them. Auto manufacturers not only manufactured the SUVs, they manufactured the demand for them.
RE: Taxes (again)
Very selective reading. I picked that page because I considered it unbiased. However, you picked all one side of it.
Try this from the same article:
The longer term macroeconomic effects of a tax cut are not predictable in general, because they depend on how the taxpayers use their additional income and how the government adjusts to its reduced income.
Further, when making the tax cuts, why do you believe they should only be for the rich? Why does this work only for people making above a certain amount? 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?
I apologize for the prolific and verbose posting. However at the risk of pedantry I must address Taxing the rich.
“Bouchard & Mezard estimate that 90% of “total wealth” is owned by 5% of the population in many rich countries.”
Wikipedia(sorry)
taxing the rich seems worthwhile according to that statistic.
Thomas said “If no one wanted to buy a SUV, they would not make them.”
From that statement I’ll assume you subscribe to demand side macroeconomic theory. Counterpoint of course is supply side macroeconomic theory which suggests if they didn’t make SUVs no one would buy them.
Keynesian economics id probably more realistic relying on both supply and demand.
I’d have to say in our Marketing driven economy with lifestyle pushing purchasing decisions that supply is the more relevant factor in automotive purchases.
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.
Regarding long term planning for businesses, I have to say you are mistaken. Long term planning is essential for successful business strategies. Thats why lobbying is so popular :p
Sometimes Revolutionary strategies are required rather than evolutionary and the environmental stimulus dictating such can cause a change or plans.
For another example. If Apple didn’t make Ipods would people demand them?
93…
I can give you a better reason for an SUV…
They are BIG, and have more metal between the Object I hit, and my self.
Have you ever set in a SHORT car trying to see a Light behind another vehicle, or TRUCK??
People want a durable, 1/2 safe vehicle, that they can SEE from…