• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM to shut down Hummer

So don't drive on the what? 4 days a year the snow is so deep the ploughs and gritters can't get through.

I am that important I need to be able to get anywhere, any time.


I also have an drz-400 with knobbies for suck occasions I can't get through via the truck.



You complain at $4 a gallon? That's 40% cheaper than standard EU prices. That has nothing to do with the relative price of the commodity and everything to do with the untouchable status of fuel tax in the US and Canada. If the government is too timid to tax gas to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars ( I'm talking 40-50 MPG, not 25-30) then there's no hope that the US and Canada will bring down their CO2, greenhouse emissions.



US is how many square miles?


europe is small, you don't have to drive as far. Not the same scenario.
 
Slight misconception there Rev. (May I call you Rev?)

Commuter distances are pretty much the same everywhere. Most people spend most of their time within about 50 miles of their homes ditto for the US. Lets face it, who wants to spend hours and hours in a car every day?

You might have a point with infrastructure, but not about distances.
 
US is how many square miles?


europe is small, you don't have to drive as far. Not the same scenario.

An increased cost of fuel will push towards fuel efficiency. The questions is... when? I am not totally against a graduated fuel tax (at a rate of something like a penny per month for the next three years).
 
US is how many square miles?

europe is small, you don't have to drive as far. Not the same scenario.

What you drive Route 66 every day?

Europe might be smaller, but it ain't small. My nearest supermarket is 50 miles away! Nearest city, 65 miles away.

In any case, a car that's does 40 MPG would be even better if you do a lot of miles, no?
 
Then drive something more efficient. Or car pool. Funny thing, when the price of gas was so high, people here were doing that big-time.

Bottom line, the decisions that other people make affects my bottom line when it comes to gas prices.

Ohhh, so I should be able to prevent people from doing things that affect my bottom line, like requiring CO2 scrubbers on generating plants??
 
An increased cost of fuel will push towards fuel efficiency. The questions is... when? I am not totally against a graduated fuel tax (at a rate of something like a penny per month for the next three years).




So landscapers, and people who haul goods, and other working people will have to suffer, for percieved "fuel efficency"?



If europe had the square milage of the US and was as spread out, europes gas prices could not be sustained at thier absurd rates.
 
What you drive Route 66 every day?


I used to. I lived in NM, and drove 66, 550, etc almost daily.


Europe might be smaller, but it ain't small. My nearest supermarket is 50 miles away! Nearest city, 65 miles away.

:lol: europeans dont shop at supermarkets. :shrug:


Some farms out west span more than that.



In any case, a car that's does 40 MPG would be even better if you do a lot of miles, no?



Depends, what is its milage loaded down with cargo and work stuff?


What is its hauling capacity? Can it plow? haul mulch, carry more than 4 people comfortably?
 
Ohhh, so I should be able to prevent people from doing things that affect my bottom line, like requiring CO2 scrubbers on generating plants??

The reason you put those scrubbers in action does effect your bottom line, you just cannot see an instantaneous effect. Do you believe firms have the right to freely pollute as is dictates towards profitability?
 
The reason you put those scrubbers in action does effect your bottom line, you just cannot see an instantaneous effect. Do you believe firms have the right to freely pollute as is dictates towards profitability?

Depends on your definition of pollution.

I and my plants around the house don't consider CO2 pollution. I breath it out and they breath it in.
 
So landscapers, and people who haul goods, and other working people will have to suffer, for percieved "fuel efficency"?

Most commercial transportation firms have special tax rules for fuel. At a rate of a penny per month, nobody is going to see a major period of pain unless of course there are supply implications.

If europe had the square milage of the US and was as spread out, europes gas prices could not be sustained at thier absurd rates.

Well that is partially true. The ability to create a more fuel efficient auto was around fifteen years ago. Would the cost go nearly as high (does it need to)? I don't believe so, but the fact remains higher costs were shown to increase fuel efficiency in the summer of 2008.
 
I used to. I lived in NM, and drove 66, 550, etc almost daily.
I think he ment the distance.



Some farms out west span more than that.
Yep.







Depends, what is its milage loaded down with cargo and work stuff?


What is its hauling capacity? Can it plow? haul mulch, carry more than 4 people comfortably?
Landrover Defender? - Yep. The Rangerover and Toureg, maybe.

The defender is like the Willis jeep, it can do just about everything.
 
Most commercial transportation firms have special tax rules for fuel. At a rate of a penny per month, nobody is going to see a major period of pain unless of course there are supply implications.

People, like me, that are required to drive large vehicles do not get any special fuel rates. It is deductible as a business expense from income tax, but I pay the same price for gas as someone driving the family minivan.
 
People, like me, that are required to drive large vehicles do not get any special fuel rates. It is deductible as a business expense from income tax, but I pay the same price for gas as someone driving the family minivan.

So it is not a 1 to 1 relationship?
 
I think he ment the distance.



You've never heard of RT 66? ;)





Landrover Defender? - Yep. The Rangerover and Toureg, maybe.

Deisle?


The regulars get less than "40mpg" I think they are in thier 20's, and lets be honest, thats if you don't actually use the gas pedal. :lol:



The defender is like the Willis jeep, it can do just about everything.


the defender 90? Awesome vehicle, a buddy of mine has one, they don't import them anymore.
 
So it is not a 1 to 1 relationship?

I have no idea what you are talking about. All business expenses are deductible, including the cost of the vehicle, its maintenance and fuel, out of town meals and hotels, etc. Always been that way and hopefully always will be. If you use the family minivan for business, it would be deductible.

Cost of fuel is the same for everyone.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about.

The cost of the tax is not the total cost you pay after deducting? If not, it is not a 1:1 relationship.

All business expenses are deductible, including the cost of the vehicle, its maintenance and fuel, out of town meals and hotels, etc. Always been that way and hopefully always will be. If you use the family minivan for business, it would be deductible.

Not sure what you are getting at....

Cost of fuel is the same for everyone.

Not everyone can use it as a business expense.

The point that should be fairly obvious is that higher fuel costs will push towards greater fuel efficiency. With that said, (as previously stated) there is a general time lag; this can be dichotomized into two distinct areas.

The first being that an instant spike in fuel prices will have some negative effects on profitability. The second is the income effect felt by consumers. If a tax is implemented that is extremely gradual; the marginal impact on profit and consumption will be ambiguous. It will however achieve its long run goal of greater fuel efficiency.
 
You've never heard of RT 66? ;)
Where I got my kicks.;)

But I don't think you ment you drove from Chicago to LA all the time.







The real ones are, but they do "Sport" versions of the Rangie and Toureg. 4x4 owners point at them and laugh.


The regulars get less than "40mpg" I think they are in thier 20's, and lets be honest, thats if you don't actually use the gas pedal. :lol:
If you are buying one over here in petrol with the prices what they are, you are most likely not using them for work.
 
Don't tell me you've got a problem with diesel trucks too. What's THAT about?
They're cleaner, cheaper, have loads better torque and have about a 40% longer working life.



I love diesel trucks. I have no issue with them, I was trying to figger out where the other poster saw improvement with a land/rangerover. ;)
 
I love diesel trucks. I have no issue with them, I was trying to figger out where the other poster saw improvement with a land/rangerover. ;)

Ah! Sorry, my mistake.

If people are discussing how stupid a vehicle choice a Hummer is/was then a Land Rover is barely any improvement. They do about 12 MPG and drive like a tractor.
 
Ah! Sorry, my mistake.

If people are discussing how stupid a vehicle choice a Hummer is/was then a Land Rover is barely any improvement. They do about 12 MPG and drive like a tractor.

And according to Consumer Reports, they have a terrible reliability record and repairs cost a fortune.
 
I had a really great hummer in boy's town once...er wait, I am thinking of something else.:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom