Driver ticketed for using biofuel

[Firethorn]

You watch. The govt will start head hunting Willie Nelson here soon. He's one of the biggest proponents of biofuel and makes it well known all his vehicles run on it.

Yes, but from what I understand Willie runs on biodiesel, not SVO or WVO.  He's getting it from a commercial manufacturing plant, not a homebrew still/transformer type system.

He's very likely to be paying the road taxes on his fuel.

Honestly enough, even if we switched to a 100% biodiesel/ethanol system it wouldn't be a problem.  You wouldn't get more than a few people making their own fuel anyways, because the commercial manufacturers can make it better for less.  Don't forget the time&hassle to process the stuff!

[Strings]

Wait a sec. This whole "pay by the mile" thing: what about vintage vehicles (a '55 Chevy, or a '60s Harley)? What about bikes in general? Or do we get screwed (again)?

[Firethorn]

Wait a sec. This whole "pay by the mile" thing: what about vintage vehicles (a '55 Chevy, or a '60s Harley)? What about bikes in general? Or do we get screwed (again)?

Hard to say; the proposal I saw had you pay gas taxes at the pump, then apply for a rebate if the GPS/Odo said you owed less.  Still, that'd require tracking your gas purchases(many receipts)...

Didn't see any comparative figures or sample cases.

Still, a motorcycle's not going to do much damage to the road, and vintage vehicles aren't exactly known for their gas milage, so you'd tend to be less screwed under a odo system than a simple increase in gas taxes to make up shortfalls.

[Tallpine]

You know ... they used to have these things called "toll roads" ...

Better yet, just privatize the hiway system.

Works for me.  Like I said, I don't think the county gets any gas tax money, so all the county road maintenance (if you can call it that - that's a whole other issue) comes out of the property taxes that I already pay.  So most of the gas taxes that I pay don't benefit the roads that I mostly drive on.  Isn't that the same with city streets: paid for by property taxes and not gas taxes...?

Though I'm not sure how they would handle the myriad side roads accessing 2-lane state/federal hiways...?  For instance, to get to the nearest "major" city - we drive about 25 miles on back country gravel/dirt county roads and then pop out on the hiway about 10 miles outside of the city limits.

[Firethorn]

You know ... they used to have these things called "toll roads" ...

I dislike toll roads; far too much effort is spent merely collecting the tolls.  The fastpass systems are better, but for the occasional long trip I'd quickly get tired of paying tolls.

Like I said, it's unlikely that any vehicle with enough range to significantly use the highway will still be liquid fueled, thus can be taxed in the traditional manner.  Just might have to up the gas tax a bit* to compensate for higher efficiency vehicles.

*Yes, this would suck for people with fuel inefficient vehicles.

[kldimond]

Amazing stuff. Another dimension no one has mentioned yet (to my knowledge from a quick scan here) is that the business of the British Royals is... you guessed it--oil. British Petroleum, to be specific.

And look at all the kissy-face Bush has done with the British. I think they'll knight his ... brass... once he's out of office. This would be, of course, in gratitude for his contributions to the Queen's income generating capacity. British Petroleum, or "Basically People," as they like to aver. Yeah, so was soylent green.

No one (government or oil industry) wants you not to have to buy their grossly over-priced, over-taxed cash cow. And they'll beat you to death if you try.

[Matthew Carberry]

You're saying the British royal family owns shares in BP?

So?

[grampster]

Headline in today's paper says that refiners are changing their minds about building new refineries.  They had decided to start building a few more, but since Bush and Congress have been pushing the corn fuel idea, the believe building the refineries will not be cost effective for the future.

So now we'll continue to have high gas prices and food prices will spiral out of control because they is more money in corn for fuel than food. 

Why do all the dumb asses run for government...Oh, yeah, never mind.

[K Frame]

Yep, biofuels will cause civilization to collapse back to the pre brick age.

[onions!]

Yep, biofuels will cause civilization to collapse back to the pre brick age.

Not to mention what'll happen to the price of drinkin booze.

[Gewehr98]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Mike.

Never mind the fact that had corn prices not been held artificially low since the 80s, we'd be paying $5.00+ per bushel these days after adjustment for inflation. 

[jselvy]

Like my grandfather found out back in the thirties, Revenuers are bad people.

Jefferson

[kldimond]

You're saying the British royal family owns shares in BP?

So?

I'm saying the British Royals OWN BP, if not in toto, then disporportionately heavily.

Are you saying you don't see how a war on two oil-related fronts is benefiting the people perpetuating it?

And, as a side factor, don't you think it's odd that there's at least one "price driving" oil refinery fire every year and no investigation?

I'll be blunt: this is the filthy rich using tax dollars and government policy to jack prices against those who are forced to bear the cost of the war. If not for that motivation, a few teams of Seals would have offed Hussein in a month, and bin Laden in less time than that. And then we'd have gotten out. I was behind such a thing, but not what we have.

We're paying for the war twice: once by taxation and once at the pumps. And if you want to count the detriment to our quality of life that the USA PATRIOT Act supplies, make it three of four times we're paying for it.

Conspiracy? NO! Just the power elite doing what the power elite always do: bend us over and take us repeatedly.

[Matthew Carberry]

You're saying the British royal family owns shares in BP?

So?

I'm saying the British Royals OWN BP, if not in toto, then disporportionately heavily.

It's a publically traded company, has been for decades.  Do you have any documentation of a majority shareholder stake on the part of the Royals?

[Sergeant Bob]

Got to say one thing for him. He didn't manage to mention Haliburton anywhere in there!

[kldimond]

You're saying the British royal family owns shares in BP?

So?

I'm saying the British Royals OWN BP, if not in toto, then disporportionately heavily.

It's a publically traded company, has been for decades.  Do you have any documentation of a majority shareholder stake on the part of the Royals?

I have a source that is usually reliable. So I usually don't check up on him any more. Let me see if I misinterpreted his charge, and I'll come back to this thread, with clarity.

For Sergeant Bob,

I just didn't want to try to list everyone specifically. Haliburton is part of it, sure. Name an oil company, speculator, or refinery, and I'll probably make you giddy as you laugh at my "paranoia," or whatever you choose to call it.

I don't like what I see as corporations bend public policy to their purposes. And for those who want to deny this, let me point you to an OLD book on management by "The Godfather of Modern Management," Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

Anything that can be used for good can be used for bad. And having worked a LOT in corporate America, I'm here to tell you that Drucker's admonition to professional managers to use the "Primum non nocere" rule is flatly ignored, especially in the trans-national companies. I see plenty of "proof in the pudding" that they have cynically influenced policy, and I see not one reason to believe they're above it.

So, laugh it up, Bob. I'll laugh at the same time. But am I laughing with you?

[Sergeant Bob]

Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

I'd like you to tell me when it hasn't been a practice of corporations and businesses to try to influence laws and rule making. Why is it so much more insidious now than it was in the days of the railroad and robber barons?

[kldimond]

Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

I'd like you to tell me when it hasn't been a practice of corporations and businesses to try to influence laws and rule making. Why is it so much more insidious now than it was in the days of the railroad and robber barons?

What?? Are you trying to say it SHOULD be happening now, because it happened then?

Business and government were much more divorced between the late 1700s and the (un)Civil War than since. Since the Civil War, it has become increasingly an epidemic, running full throttle these days.

I suppose an argument could be made that it is indeed more insidious now, because trans-national companies, with litle or no loyalty to any country, have gained an incredible status at the expense of everyone worldwide.

But that's not my point. It was bad then, it's bad now, and it'll be bad in the future. If you want things to improve, you have to point up what's wrong. And wrong isn't made right just because "everybody's doing it" or "we've always done it that way."

[Sergeant Bob]

Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

I'd like you to tell me when it hasn't been a practice of corporations and businesses to try to influence laws and rule making. Why is it so much more insidious now than it was in the days of the railroad and robber barons?

What?? Are you trying to say it SHOULD be happening now, because it happened then?

Business and government were much more divorced between the late 1700s and the (un)Civil War than since. Since the Civil War, it has become increasingly an epidemic, running full throttle these days.

I suppose an argument could be made that it is indeed more insidious now, because trans-national companies, with litle or no loyalty to any country, have gained an incredible status at the expense of everyone worldwide.

But that's not my point. It was bad then, it's bad now, and it'll be bad in the future. If you want things to improve, you have to point up what's wrong. And wrong isn't made right just because "everybody's doing it" or "we've always done it that way."

So, how would you rectify the situation? At what level does one not have the right to attempt to influence policy?

[kldimond]

Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

I'd like you to tell me when it hasn't been a practice of corporations and businesses to try to influence laws and rule making. Why is it so much more insidious now than it was in the days of the railroad and robber barons?

What?? Are you trying to say it SHOULD be happening now, because it happened then?

Business and government were much more divorced between the late 1700s and the (un)Civil War than since. Since the Civil War, it has become increasingly an epidemic, running full throttle these days.

I suppose an argument could be made that it is indeed more insidious now, because trans-national companies, with litle or no loyalty to any country, have gained an incredible status at the expense of everyone worldwide.

But that's not my point. It was bad then, it's bad now, and it'll be bad in the future. If you want things to improve, you have to point up what's wrong. And wrong isn't made right just because "everybody's doing it" or "we've always done it that way."

So, how would you rectify the situation? At what level does one not have the right to attempt to influence policy?

Hey, attempt all ya want. Free speech, right? The problem is when there is a place on the government side of it for them to "dock."

We don't have a free market economy. We have the Fed, myriad regulations, statutes, and "It's the economy, stupid." We have a command economy, borderline socialist, but most definitely mercantilist.

If I had the reigns, I would systematically eliminate corporate welfare (including various exemptions, incentives, etc., etc., etc.) and opportunities for that mischief. I would study each move to make sure I didn't create a new sick mischief, but I'd be pretty aggressive.

There's a lot to this kind of discussion, but there's a starting point.

[roo_ster]

Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

I'd like you to tell me when it hasn't been a practice of corporations and businesses to try to influence laws and rule making. Why is it so much more insidious now than it was in the days of the railroad and robber barons?

What?? Are you trying to say it SHOULD be happening now, because it happened then?

Business and government were much more divorced between the late 1700s and the (un)Civil War than since. Since the Civil War, it has become increasingly an epidemic, running full throttle these days.

I suppose an argument could be made that it is indeed more insidious now, because trans-national companies, with litle or no loyalty to any country, have gained an incredible status at the expense of everyone worldwide.

But that's not my point. It was bad then, it's bad now, and it'll be bad in the future. If you want things to improve, you have to point up what's wrong. And wrong isn't made right just because "everybody's doing it" or "we've always done it that way."

So, how would you rectify the situation? At what level does one not have the right to attempt to influence policy?

Hey, attempt all ya want. Free speech, right? The problem is when there is a place on the government side of it for them to "dock."

We don't have a free market economy. We have the Fed, myriad regulations, statutes, and "It's the economy, stupid." We have a command economy, borderline socialist, but most definitely mercantilist.

If I had the reigns, I would systematically eliminate corporate welfare (including various exemptions, incentives, etc., etc., etc.) and opportunities for that mischief. I would study each move to make sure I didn't create a new sick mischief, but I'd be pretty aggressive.

There's a lot to this kind of discussion, but there's a starting point.

Yeah!  'Cause folks who own businesses or shares of business shouldn't be able to speak or seek redress from the gooberment.

The USA has a schizophrenic, technocratic trade policy, with all sorts of contradictory regs & subsidies.  But mercantilism is ain't.

[kldimond]

Peter Drucker, wherein he ADVISED corporate leaders to influence laws and regulatory rulemaking: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.

I'd like you to tell me when it hasn't been a practice of corporations and businesses to try to influence laws and rule making. Why is it so much more insidious now than it was in the days of the railroad and robber barons?

What?? Are you trying to say it SHOULD be happening now, because it happened then?

Business and government were much more divorced between the late 1700s and the (un)Civil War than since. Since the Civil War, it has become increasingly an epidemic, running full throttle these days.

I suppose an argument could be made that it is indeed more insidious now, because trans-national companies, with litle or no loyalty to any country, have gained an incredible status at the expense of everyone worldwide.

But that's not my point. It was bad then, it's bad now, and it'll be bad in the future. If you want things to improve, you have to point up what's wrong. And wrong isn't made right just because "everybody's doing it" or "we've always done it that way."

So, how would you rectify the situation? At what level does one not have the right to attempt to influence policy?

Hey, attempt all ya want. Free speech, right? The problem is when there is a place on the government side of it for them to "dock."

We don't have a free market economy. We have the Fed, myriad regulations, statutes, and "It's the economy, stupid." We have a command economy, borderline socialist, but most definitely mercantilist.

If I had the reigns, I would systematically eliminate corporate welfare (including various exemptions, incentives, etc., etc., etc.) and opportunities for that mischief. I would study each move to make sure I didn't create a new sick mischief, but I'd be pretty aggressive.

There's a lot to this kind of discussion, but there's a starting point.

Yeah!  'Cause folks who own businesses or shares of business shouldn't be able to speak or seek redress from the gooberment.

The USA has a schizophrenic, technocratic trade policy, with all sorts of contradictory regs & subsidies.  But mercantilism is ain't.

jfruser, cute. Redress, yes, advantage, no. Get real.

Mercantilism it is. How do you say it ain't, when the collusion between government and industry to so patently obvious, and when corporations and their officers are supercitizens? Let's see an argument; not just a contradiction.

[kldimond]

You're saying the British royal family owns shares in BP?

So?

I'm saying the British Royals OWN BP, if not in toto, then disporportionately heavily.

It's a publically traded company, has been for decades.  Do you have any documentation of a majority shareholder stake on the part of the Royals?

Carebear, my source isn't sure exactly how much of the Royals' wealth is tied up in oil, or what degree of ownership they hold in BP. And I don't really have time to research it, so I'm going to concede on the point of degree.

However, oil interests are without a doubt driving much of the Bush Administration's agenda. Producers, drillers and refiners alike.