From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:00:31 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.autos.driving, paul@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Paul Fidler) writes:

>Ron, I've been following your arguements for awhile, and there's one thing
>I'm sure of: You are absolutely unqualified to speak for the 'poor'. You

Maybe so, IYHO, but perhaps I was only refering to the majority? Geez,
have a general discussion and have someone throw specifics and exceptions
into it. Yes, I'm aware of those, and I'm aware that some poor people
will feel it. I don't think it will be a majority.

>are also mistaken in assuming that the demographics of the densely populated
>Northeast apply to the 75% of the country that is rural/semi-rural/small-
>to-medium-sized-townish.

I grew up in Texas, in Houston, College Station and Dallas. I now live
in DC, have been to Baltimore, New York city, and have stayed for a
period of time in Canada, in a place called Medicine Hat, which is about
as far out in the boonies as you could reasonably get were you to be
in the US. Talk about a naive statement. (I'm sorry, but I just couldn't
help putting a micro-flame in there.:)

>People in this category cannot just move to the place that makes the most
>sense, nor can they go out tommorrow and upgrade their car, just because
>it would be more practical.

Nope. I also like the idea of the government paying a $1000 for each
old clunker turned in. (after all, the reduction in pollution might
make the emissions controls they add to the next car I buy cost much
less)

>?????   Did you REALLY miss THAT point?!  Would you have said what you
>said (whatever it meant) if he had used the words, "who feels it more"?

No, I didn't miss it, but you did. My point was that the comparison
was virtually immaterial in the first place, as it wouldn't have anywhere
near the same considerations for the two parties involved. That and
the fact that the "poor" person is spending a $100 a month on gas would
hopefully encourage him to switch to an econobox which would cut his
costs considerably if he's using that much gas in a gas hog.

>$250, *maybe* $400 if you can borrow some money from ex-spouse, etc.  What
>do you come up with?  I will be very suprised if there's anything more
>fuel-efficient/reliable than an early '70's BIG American car.....

Just about anything is more fuel-efficient. Hell, the space shuttle
fully loaded is probably more fuel-efficient. As for reliable, anytime
a $300 car is reliable, I'd have to question why it is only priced at
a scrap price. It isn't worth any more, and it can't be reliable. By
the way, I'm also in favor of removing all unsafe cars from the road
(ie cars with bad tires, bad brakes, bad transmissions) until they are
fixed. I think these are a danger to the rest of us, but you'd probably
argue that it is their right to drive those and endanger us because
they can't afford better.

>You would do alot better to see the majority of your own country. Your model
>of "poor" people seems based only on what you've seen in large urban areas.

Not hardly, as the above mentioned locales should suggest.

>>The irony is priceless.

>Indeed.

Nice out of context quote.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving