Originally Posted by Chris
The windfall tax is this, can you fathom why Oil-Money-George is against it?
What a ....ing .......... he is.
"Gas prices got you down? Clearly, you just need a new, more efficient car and all of your worries go away!"
A windfall tax is a short-term solution with long-ranging benefits. It's a great idea that we'll probably never see in law, but is worth fighting for. Mandatory higher fuel efficiency standards is a long-term solution that'll be a pain in the ass to impliment as we'll have to fight Detroit every step of the way, will probably be rife with loopholes, and would be a lot easier to impliment if funded by a windfall tax, but is still worth doing even if it'll be about 15-20 years before most of the cars on the roads will be impacted by these improvements and we all know that Congress won't be able to legislate anything truely groundbreaking and will probably have to settle for baby steps incentivising automakers into improving their most efficient cars while leaving SUV's essentially untouched.
The difference, of course, is that the former would be VERY unpopular with GWB's oil-rich constituency and would have a huge impact on political contributions, while the later, while not exactly something the auto industry will embrace with open arms, can at least be turned to their advatage with a good eco-friendly "look at these improvements" ad campaign, and would give Bush wide bipartisan support.
Considering the impending oil crisis we'll find ourselves in within the next 50 years tops is, IMO, probably the single greatest threat facing our nation (considering our infastructure is totally dependant upon cheap, plentiful oil), the fact Bush is playing politics but making little real change is absolutely infuriating.
As an aside, my brother's trying to talk me into getting into environmental law, and the idea's beginning to grow on me. Of course, he's also trying to get me into hard drugs as it worked for Pete Doherty's music career and if you can only self-destruct with enough conviction the whole world will watch, if only for fifteen minutes, and that idea isn't half-bad either.
Originally Posted by zimbloth
I don't trust the youth (as a whole) to take up causes. Look how many 18-35 people voted in 2004 compared to in 2000. No difference.
I'll have to touch base with my buddy down in a political media firm down in DC (my source for all political queries, the dude's a godsend), but off the top of my head I want to say that despite initial reports to the contrary, there actually were some fairly interesting changes in voting trends in our age bracket. More this afternoon after I talk to him.