Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has a plan...
slap a 50-CENT PER GALLON TAX on gasoline.
Ok, it's for combating Global Warming...
but still, can our citizens really afford this?
Dingell happens to be the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and accustomed to getting his way in Congress.
THE STORY:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/dingells_energy_plan_would_hik.html
A purposeful proposal or political poison?
Would you SUPPORT such a proposal?
2007-09-27 09:21:51 · 7 answers · asked by GeneL 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
i agree with zelda that it is a get rich quick scheme..
but just so the polititions know, i can't afford gas as it is now, and i get some help from the state, so sure, if they want to raise prices, then i will apply for more state money...... there is no other way. i cant even afford gas to get to a job right now...
so go ahead, raise it again, i will stay home and collect money..
2007-09-27 09:30:10 · answer #1 · answered by smurfette 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You could afford it if you gave up your behemoth SUV and got something a little more fuel efficient.
Whether you like it or not, the days of cheap oil are over. I predict that you'll see gas for $4 a gallon soon. In a few years, it may be to $5. It's up to almost $10/gallon in Germany, I hear.
And you'll see Suburbans, Hummers, Durangos, and Excursions for sale at really cheap prices, because people don't want to spend $150 for a tank of gas for them.
We can act now, or we can sit back and be fat and stupid and happy - and targets. Which do you pick?
2007-09-27 09:42:50 · answer #2 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course we can afford it. It's just an inconvenience. Look past the inconvenience, and you'll see the point of incentives for the usage of alternative transportation and fuels. What we can't afford is to be dropping off in massive numbers from respiratory disease and wearing mandatory high-powered sunscreen and nose filters in forty years.
Don't you think any Congressman from MICHIGAN would've seen dire consequences in NOT doing anything before proposing something so obviously unpopular with a big chunk of his constituency?
It's here, folks, and it's getting worse. Time to deal with it.
2007-09-27 09:28:07 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i does not help a tax on gas. explanation why is it won't accomplish what he needs. He needs to decrease gas use and carbon dioxide emissions. we've not got the suggestions to decrease our gas use. How are we meant to get to artwork without it? If we've not got public transportation this is sweet for human beings to apply, how are they going to get around while they'd't have adequate funds the cost to maintain their autos working? If there have been many options and it may actually benefit our surroundings to tax gas then I probable could substitute my strategies. in spite of the shown fact that, we are already paying way too a lot for gas, and if he expects human beings to pay greater, their greater effective be dramatic consequences. Edit: I do like your argument middleclass. i think that the ideal consequence of a tax could be what you mentioned. in spite of the shown fact that we could want the universal public transportation and different issues available for a tax to be triumphant.
2016-12-17 11:48:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That guy is retarded. For one, he falls for this overglorified hoax known as global warming. For another, does he actually think that raising a tax on gas will prevent people from buying it? It's just a get-rich-quick scheme.
2007-09-27 09:26:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes, if the tax money went to developing mass transit and alternative fuels.
2007-09-27 09:25:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Might as well, need money for the next war the repubs start...
2007-09-27 09:26:06 · answer #7 · answered by metoo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋