Extremely little, but 90% of the world's heroin comes from there. farmer s depend on growing poppies for their livelihood. If we can make them produce all the world's MEDICAL HEROIN, we can outdo Al Qaeda.
US Troops are in Iraq because Saddam promised to help fund Al Qaeda. I heard him (actually his translator) say so on TV two months before the invasion.
We are also in Iraq because Saddam used a ruse to smoke out a double agent. He told him about his weapons of mass destruction cache (which really did not exist).When we started making demands about weapons of mass destruction, he knew which aide to kill.
Now we are in Iraq because we can't figure a way to get out without causing a bloodbath by removing our troops, and without leaving Al Qaeda in charge of the government.
You can't just go, "Waaaah! We want the war to end!" and expect everything to be alright afterwards.
If the goal is to stretch our available fuel supplies, I don't know if adding cash to our government's coffers is the way to do it.
I agree that adding to the cost of the fuel at the pump will encourage people to use less, or find more economical ways to use fuel.
My concern would be where the money went. I would not be the first to point out that our current administrations record with regard to oil and the conservation there-of is somewhat questionable.
What I would like to see is whatever disincentive that goes into the pump price go directly into exploring/creating alternatives.
Ray might be able to afford $6+ for a gallon of gas. I can't. I already work at home and my husband's commute is only 5 miles one way, which is lower than most people's commutes that we know. If gas gets that expensive it's going to hurt the economy because only the wealthy will be able to afford gas for their cars, and stores and restaurants will be closing for lack of customers, thus putting people out of work.
Given that your taxes already provide $billions in subsidies to the oil industry, and the fact that you use less gas than the average driver, you're already paying for gas you don't even use. I would think a more direct tax such as this might stand a chance of evening things out.
Or, maybe that's putting too much faith in our "government for the sheeple."
I know this is a pretty un-American thing to suggest, but how bout investing in a bike if you really can't afford gas? If your commute is only 5 miles, that's a real short ride.
Also, while I can sort of sympathize with you, I'm not sure the logic you present, that destroying the enviroment is best for economy and society overall, really holds. It's that kind of myopia that have gotten industrialized nations into this mess.
I'm told that today Illinois and its counties and cities have the highest gas taxes in the U.S. Something close to a dollar/gallon is tax. With ALL the technology existing since the beginning of the Space Program (I remember the gas turbine engine came out around 1955!) America's dinosaur car makers still refuse to immediately put out a fuel efficient vehicle. Like the urban legend that General Motors and Standard Oil of California were in cahoots to get rid of L.A.'s trolley system in favor of freeways and cars Detroit says a solution is still years away. But the Chevy B.U.V. Suburban is selling like crazy. At least Toyota, Honda and Nissan know what's up and they're not waiting. They have the technology and cars already to go. Ray's proposal is unfortunately unrealistic. It would hurt so many industries and businesses that only Uncle Sam would prosper. Nice try Ray!. Love your show. Been listening for a long time. Don't stop telling the truth, guys. America needs more programs that tell the truth.
The main reasons most alternative fuel vehicles aren't built are:
- There isn't enough supply of most of the fuels developed so far to justify mass-producing the vehicles. Ethanol is the only one off the ground, and it is energy-inefficient.
- Hydrogen as a fuel is a total scam. There are no natural sources of hydrogen (unless you want to mine space, and that irretrievably removes oxygen from the air if it is burnt). It takes away 40 percent of the energy just to convert any other fuel into hydrogen. It's more efficient to use the other fuel as it is.
- The other cars would cost too much for anyone but the rich to afford.
As I recall, the guy who invented the internet proposed this and ended up playing second fiddle to Slick Willie.
I thought it was a good idea then, and I think it is now. The only issue I have is that I would want the money to fund development of alternative-fuel transportation systems, and a cash cow like that would be used for all kinds of other stuff.
Europe has very high gas taxes that dwarf ours, so it could be done. However, the public would not go for it.
The bridges of this county are in horrible condition and they need repair. If Congress were committed to paying for their spending with concurrent taxes then an extra tax could be used for bridge repair. But Congress being Congress & the Republicans spending more than Democrats, whatever they do will only be good for the short term, not the long term. Our kids will pay for our excesses.
So to answer your proposal, there will not be an increase in gas taxes, Congress will continue to take bribes and somehow some alternative fuel will slowly be developed (i.e.: ethanol). The poor and middle class will be forced to pay more for whatever is developed while the rich will find a way to write it off their income taxes so we can pay for their fuel use.
Have a nice day, Al
"So to answer your proposal, there will not be an increase in gas taxes, Congress will continue to take bribes and somehow some alternative fuel will slowly be developed (i.e.: ethanol). The poor and middle class will be forced to pay more for whatever is developed while the rich will find a way to write it off their income taxes so we can pay for their fuel use."
06/10/2007 7:08:34 PM
