You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #21: yeah, 2 cents wouldn't be much of an issue [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. yeah, 2 cents wouldn't be much of an issue
in Massachusetts, where I live, there is no sales tax on food (except prepared food) and no tax on clothing. everything else is taxed at 5%. I think that "necessities" should not be taxed.

When it comes to gasoline, while I wish it weren't the case, I'm afraid for many it's become something of a necessity. I love the idea of carpooling and mass transit and encouraging bicycle use and even requiring employers to allow some employees to work from home. But, for some, commuting by car is a necessity and I don't think it's right to burden the poor with additional taxes on gasoline (i mean way more than 2 cents a gallon).

Some want to let prices rise to cut down on auto use (the "free" market couldn't be more expensive) and some want to tack another 50 cents or a dollar a gallon on to the price of gas via added gas taxes. Both would likely reduce auto use; neither is fair to those who can't afford it. I think we've come to the point with CO2 emissions that we have to look at severe rationing of gasoline and mandatory controls on employers to reduce pollution from commuting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a very, very dark report today that essentially said we need to rapidly reduce our CO2 output by 80% if we are to ward off the very worst impact from global warming. My take is that we should aggressively work towards that 80% reduction in every aspect of our society until we are able to take advantage of new technology or alternative fuels. This business of reducing oil consumption by only 2.5% by 2020, which I believe will be the impact of the changes proposed in the Democrats' latest Energy Bill, is tragically inadequate. The candidate supporters quickly point out the political practicalities; the tragedy is that they may be right. If they are, what their real message is, intended or otherwise, is that our political system is so defective that it is unable to respond adequately to a life threatening crisis.

I'd like those with a platform to at least start telling the people the truth. Maybe they can't win. Maybe we couldn't pass the legislation we need. Leadership demands they at least start putting out the message. Maybe when enough people have heard it, change will become possible. The truth is, there is no "practical" alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC