|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Japan? They've been in deflation for the over 10 years. 0% interest rates and they still can't get it going. |
not cause of gas taxes
| Quote: |
| Both countries also have a very high population density (especially compared to the US) and much better public transportation. Point is, you can't use just tax rates as the only determinate in analyzing economic growth. |
Ok - goes both ways
[quote]
| Quote: |
| Hmm, last time I worked in the US my medical insurance was tax deductible. At least a certain percentage was. But I was self-employed. Did they ever renew the medical savings accounts? That was a good idea. Overall, that's a pretty small component of the tax laws though. |
In agreement
| Quote: |
I would keep short term capital gains (under 1 year) taxes higher. With a lower rate for long term gains. But still higher than earned income tax rates. Reward the real workers. Give the tax breaks to IRA holders.
I'd propose an alternative minimum tax for businesses. Too many Fortune 500s dodge taxes altogether. Allow deductions for reinvestment, but hit the cash horders. |
that seems close enough to what I would like to see.
| Quote: |
| Personally, I'd support raising the gas tax. I don't own a car, and I don't plan on owning one again. Realistically, it's not going to happen. Americans already whine enough about $3 a gallon gas. And a $5 a gallon gas tax would undoutedly send the US economy spiralling down, down, down. Sounds like spiting our face to save our nose. |
but there would be big pluses in the gas tax - I think the US could do fine with such a tax. And it would cut the US trade deficit , get Americans to use a lot less gas and give a lot less money to those who hate the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hanson wrote: |
...in other words, the world would be better off! 
I am one of the so-called "Bush Bashers" often referred to on Dave's, and proudly so. There were no major wars during Clinton's 8-year term (Kosovo doesn't count as a major war, does it?) and the world seemed to be more amiable towards the US during those years.
Clinton wasn't a saint, and he had his flaws, but he was about as good as it gets for diplomacy and treating war as an absolutely last resort. I miss Bubba! |
I agree. I, too, do not like Bush. Who do you think has the "Bubba" personality that may run in the next election term? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mastaoos69
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| is it true Lewinsky was/is a Mossad agent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
but there would be big pluses in the gas tax - I think the US could do fine with such a tax. And it would cut the US trade deficit , get Americans to use a lot less gas and give a lot less money to those who hate the US. |
So you're basically proposing that we return the US to cart and buggy days to spite Osama bin Laden. Hmm. Okay.
Just for the sake of curiousty, I loked up the sources of US oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
| Quote: |
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-06 May-06 YTD 2006 Jun-05 Jan - June 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 1,799 1,868 1,763 1,705 1,606
MEXICO 1,734 1,576 1,679 1,616 1,568
SAUDI ARABIA 1,549 1,457 1,443 1,598 1,526
VENEZUELA 1,008 1,169 1,156 1,292 1,329
NIGERIA 996 1,075 1,111 1,012 1,040
IRAQ 617 666 547 608 548
ANGOLA 525 379 448 397 430
ALGERIA 474 350 294 292 195
ECUADOR 282 239 279 288 289
RUSSIA 216 255 92 116 253
COLOMBIA 211 185 169 227 142
KUWAIT 201 220 163 184 186
UNITED KINGDOM 185 174 132 269 227
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 114 46 74 66 53
LIBYA 110 26 54 87 38 |
Just wondering which of these countries you consider "the enemy"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no we get Americans to use Hybirds.
and it is not only to go deal with Bin Laden. Downing the oil price would deal with just about every US enemy from Iran, to Hizzbollah , to Syria , to Al Qeada and even Venezuela .
The US needs to deal with the problem with the same effort that it put into World War II, just as it needs to fight the war on terror with the same effort as WWII.
Cutting the price of oil is a neccessary part of the war on terror
Who the US buys oil from is not the problem so much. The price of oil is .
Low oil prices would shatter the economies of Iran , Syria and Venezula.
It would also mean a lot less money for groups like Hizzbollah and Al Qadia.
Low oil prices in the late 80's were a major reason for the fall of the Soviet Union.
The US does not need to go to horse and buggy days either.
See below for what is possible.
| Quote: |
Middle East
Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
March 7, 2005
The most important statement made last week came not from Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush but from Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia's shrewd oil minister. Naimi predicted that crude prices would stay between $40 and $50 throughout 2005. For the last two years OPEC's official target price has been $25. Naimi's statement signals that Saudi Arabia now believes that current high prices are not a momentary thing. An Asian oil-industry executive told me that he expects oil to hit $75 this decade.
We are actually very close to a solution to the petroleum problem. Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following speech: "We are all concerned that the industrialized world, and increasingly the developing world, draw too much of their energy from one product, petroleum, which comes disproportionately from one volatile region, the Middle East. This dependence has significant political and environmental dangers for all of us. But there is now a solution, one that the United States will pursue actively.
"It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per gallon. This revolution in energy use will reduce dramatically our dependence on foreign oil and achieve pathbreaking reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions, far below the targets mentioned in the Kyoto accords."
Ever since September 11, 2001, there have been many calls for Manhattan Projects and Marshall Plans for research on energy efficiency and alternate fuels. Beneath the din lies a little-noticed reality�the solution is already with us. Over the last five years, technology has matured in various fields, most importantly in semiconductors, to make possible cars that are as convenient and cheap as current ones, except that they run on a combination of electricity and fuel. Hybrid technology is the answer to the petroleum problem.
You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a battery and petroleum. The next step is "plug-in" hybrids, with powerful batteries that are recharged at night like laptops, cell phones and iPods. Ford, Honda and Toyota already make simple hybrids. Daimler Chrysler is introducing a plug-in version soon. In many states in the American Middle West you can buy a car that can use any petroleum, or ethanol, or methanol�in any combination. Ford, for example, makes a number of its models with "flexible-fuel tanks." (Forty percent of Brazil's new cars have flexible-fuel tanks.) Put all this technology together and you get the car of the future, a plug-in hybrid with a flexible-fuel tank.
Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless�and independent�advocate of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)
If things are already moving, why does the government need to do anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large companies�in the oil and automotive industry�have vested interests in not changing much. There are transition costs�gas stations will need to be fitted to pump methanol and ethanol (at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per station). New technologies will empower new industries, few of which have lobbies in Washington.
Besides, the idea that the government should have nothing to do with this problem is bizarre. It was military funding and spending that produced much of the technology that makes hybrids possible. (The military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All new naval surface ships are now electric-powered, as are big diesel locomotives and mining trucks.) And the West's reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what we spend in Iraq in about three months.
Smart government intervention would include a combination of targeted mandates, incentives and spending. And it does not have to all happen at the federal level. New York City, for example, could require that all its new taxis be hybrids with flexible-fuel tanks. Now that's a Manhattan Project for the 21st century. |
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=263303&attrib_id=7400
There is no magic bullet but
Gas taxes
Hybrid cars.
ethanol
Public transportation
Alternative energy research
Hydrogen fuel Cells
wind power
nuclear power
Solar power
Oil from coal , shale, the tar sands and Plastics.
all together would provide a way for the US to get free.
and the US ought to borrow 25 TRILLION dollars to put it into place.
Better to be live under debt then to be threatened by terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
