Benefits to higher gas prices?

[HuckleB]

OK. OK. I know that the cost of fuel is hurting many in the nation. However, I just thought it might be interesting to list some possible benefits of higher gas prices. Here's a small start:

1. Increased health through the use of more human-powered transportation (walking and bicycling).

2. Increased community through the use of more human-powered transportation. More neighbors will actually see each other, be able to look one another in the eye, greet each other, and, perhaps, even converse.

3. Increased levels of community policing, including more contact with non-criminal community members for the police, as bicycle and pedestrian patrols increase in order to cover territory that used to be covered by motorized vehicles.

4. Decreased commute times as traffic diminishes through the use of alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, mass transit) and car pools.

5. In the long run, perhaps more human-sized communities will be built, decreasing the cost of building an ever expanding infrastructure via traditional sprawl.

OK. That's my start. Anyone care to add to the list?

I do wonder if we won't save money in the long run, when one really looks at the conservation and development measures that might occur as a result of higher gas prices. A healthier public, with shorter commute times and a more human-sized community, would save us a heck of a lot of dough.

[galadrium]

1. The possiblity that Bush might get kicked out because of it.

[HuckleB]

5. That would be nice.

[leftyandproud]

2. what about the ENVIRONMENT

great benefit if you ask me...now all we need to do is raise taxes $3.00 a gallon to bring our prices in line with the rest of the civilized world.

[rastignac5]

25. First we need create the public transportation infrastructure

that the rest of the world has.

[Kanary]

3. Thousands lose their jobs because they can't get there, costs of food rise

so thousands die, which reduces the overcrowding of the planet.

********

It used to be that Dems cared about those on the bottom rungs.

Those days have obviously come to an abrupt halt.

So, the benefits may well be that EVERYONE will end up on the bottom rungs, and will develop some compassion.

Kanary

[HuckleB]

7. Huh?

Are you saying that things are compassionate as they are? Sorry, but compassion includes short and long-term planning. And the long-term planning has been anything but compassionate for years. Ridiculous commute times and development of workplaces so far from home that the issue you bring up even exists is not compassion. Not by a longshot.

[Kanary]

8. I'm not talking about the middle class

Over and over, I see stated here how there are "benefits" to higher gas prices...... even the call for higher taxes on fuel.

Very few mention that those who will be hurt by this are poor folk. Middle class people mostly don't even think about what will happen to poor people anymore. It simply doesn't occur to them.

So, have your higher taxes, and turn your backs on the effect this has on poor people.

But, don't talk to me about "compassion". It went the way of the dodo.

Kanary

[HuckleB]

9. Neither am I.

I don't think you're responding to my posts, but to something else that you would prefer to respond to. The problems regarding transportation for everyone, including the poor trying to get to work derive from the development of communities too spread out for any form of transportation other than the automobile, which already sucks up far too much income of the poor. I'm sorry. But the status quo is not compassionate for the poor. Working to change the way we get around and how far we must get around seems awfully compassionate for everyone. Why is that wrong?

[Kanary]

13. rising prices don't really hurt those with money

It hurts poor people.

Those with money AREN'T going to drive less.

Always, the discussion gets back to rising the prices of fuel, in the mistaken idea that this will "encourage" less consumption. It just doesn't work that way. Very few will cut back on their consumption, except those who simply cannot afford to continue to get around, which means they will lose whatever marginal job they have.

If you want to talk about cutting back on consumption, then talk about rationing.

But, the middleclass "moderates" don't want to consider that, because it would affect THEM.

Kanary

[HuckleB]

21. Hogwash.

If they can drive less, they're going to drive less. It's ridiculous for anyone to think that it is compassionate to continue to force the poor to have to own an automobile in order to keep a job and barely survive. That's not compassion. That's anything but compassion. Do you have any idea the percentage of income that must go to keeping an automobile for a poor family?

You take a very narrow view of the situation. Again, both short-term and long-term thinking is needed. Maintaining the status quo will lead to an even more serious problem for the working poor down the road. That status quo will only lead to even longer commutes and a higher percentage of income going to automobiles. That's compassion? Sorry, but I don't think so.

[Kanary]

48. who even said anything about "the poor having their own car"??????

BTW, "hogwash" --- such a great debating term. Especially when we're talking about real, live PEOPLE. This all reminds me of just how much the RW in this country cares about what is happening to the Iraqi people. PEOPLE. HUMAN BEINGS.

You lecture me about the "thinking" that is needed... yet you can't seem to make the short connection between higher fuel prices and the costs of not only ALL TRANSPORTATION, but the costs of ALL GOODS being transported to market and HEATING costs, to name just a few.

From your words, it's clear that YOU won't be affected to a serious degree by these problems. What is so upsetting is that you can't seem to find it anywhere in your heart to be concerned about those who will be SERIOUSLY affected. Your cavelier dismissal is depressing, and speaks volumes for just how far the Democratic Party has detoured from caring about those who are NOT in the sights of the RW.

You propose NOTHING for helping those who will inevitably lose jobs and everything else. Even the children of these people don't seem to register on your radar. Does it ever occur to you that there are single mothers raising children who are RIGHT NOW on the very edge, and this will push them right over? Does that matter at all? Have you thought that many of these women may be cleaning toilets of the unconcerned well-to-do, and have to have that beat up car they own to get from one cleaning job to another, because public transportation can't get them there???? Does ANY of this register on your compassion meter at all?? What will happen to those children???? Is there any room in your heart for that thought?

I made the decision a long time ago not to argue poverty issues with people stuck on RW talking points. There is simply no connection, because caring for someone besides their own hide is simply not on their list of things to do. So, you can continue with your self-satisfied rationale for why it's OK for many people to fall through the cracks and simply not be albe to hold on any longer. Feel free to show your lack of thought for someone besides yourself all you wish..... it reflects on you, and if you are active in the DEM party, it reflects on the party. That alone will provide much for many to think about.

Kanary

[BiggJawn]

17. Because you want to unfairly burden the Poor...

"Working to change the way we get around and how far we must get around seems awfully compassionate for everyone. Why is that wrong?"

Because you seem to think that raising taxes on fuel/base price for fuel is the way to accomplish this social change.

Look, the Wealthy aren't gonna give a shit about changing the staus quo because they're not gonna be hurting if gas goes up to 5-6 bucks a gallon. Big Deal. $2 to them is like 5 cents to me.

The Poor? Well, the Poor are gonna feel it, and feel it very acutely. How are they going to effect change? By writing to their wealthy out-of-touch congresscritters? No. By sending money to some ad-hoc group that claims to care about them? WHAT money? it's all gone into the gas tank so they can get to work. By banding together and torching a few gas stations and over-turning rich people in their SUV's? Oh, maybe....

But all that will do is to effect a change in the Prison Industry, as they build more to lock-up these poor bastards until the rest of the masses get the message that you don't raise your hand against "Mr. Oil"...

I guess you were never in the situation that I was back in the 80's when I had to work 1/2 an hour to afford ONE gallon of gasoline and had to "call in sick" to work occassionally because it was the day before payday and I was broke with an empty gas tank.

Yeah, we sure got a lot of mass-transit and economical vehicles out that "crisis", didn't we?

[HuckleB]

22. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You are arguing against a phantom of your own creation. If you choose to respond to what I actually write, I'll spend some time responding to you. In the meantime, you'll have to track down that phantom of yours.

[BiggJawn]

26. why not? You seem to have no problem putting them in MY mouth...

"I can't answer you, so I'm gonna point at the straw man and say 'thanks for playing, wrong answer'..."

[HuckleB]

27. I haven't put any words in your mouth.

You talk about strawmen, but you refuse to address what I actually write. God forbid that I don't take on the caricature you've created. Whatever will you do? Someone actually expects you to address what they actually write? How horrible?

[uberotto]

12. The people you are talking about...

are the same ones who are hurt when the summer is hotter than normal, the winter is colder than normal or the spring or fall are drier than normal.

People who are truely compassionate, have long since learned that you can't help everyone, because by trying to do so you only wind up hurting the ones that you can help.

[Kanary]

14. Nice rationale for turning your back on those who are being hurt by this

Then, will come the call to "get out the vote", and "why are those poor people so dumb they don't vote against *?"

Because, They Are Smart Enough To See That "Liberals" Have Turned Their Backs Also.

Your whole argument makes no sense, except for turning your back.

Kanary

[Baltimoreboy]

20. Damn good posts

The poor get screwed but it's supposed to be OK because it helps the spotted owl or some such.

[wuushew]

23. Global mass extinctions have the ability to kill everybody

We are currently in the midst of a major die off and the unforeseen climate changes also affect complex ecosystems, agriculture etc.

These changes will affect everyone not only the poor. Is your opinion that human technology/civilization has reached a point where human ingenuity can overcome these problems?

[Baltimoreboy]

31. Lots of things can kill people

Starving is one. Unemployment can lead there as well.

Actually, I do believe mankind can fix the current problems. But that will take time.

[QC]

15. That's a very Bushian notion of compassion.

"Well, we can't help everyone, so the truly vulnerable need to just get out of our way and stop griping."

And if we were truly a compassionate society, people would not be forced to choose between heat/air conditioning and food.

[Kanary]

18. Thanks, QC

There are a few of you who give me a glimmer of hope that maybe there is still some humanity in the Democratic Party.

Kanary

[treepig]

29. ok, let's destroy the planet

for the short-term benefit of the poor.

brilliant! :crazy:

the poor also have to eat, too (right?) therefore, here's a bunch more liberals you might want to castigate: http://bushmeat.net/

[QC]

4. Here's a thread on this very same topic from yesterday.

Some good discussion there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1664119

[Trailrider1951]

6. Excellent subject!

Also:

Added incentive for the further development of wind and solar power. I am currently saving money to add solar panels to my home. I live in my 30 foot, 20 year old motorhome (I rarely drive it, especially now with the price of gas), and all the systems except the air conditioner and microwave run on dc and/or propane. One or two 50 watt solar panels will keep my batteries charged without electrical hookups or running the gasoline engine or gas generator. (I can also make 50 gallons of fresh water last all week.) The way the wind blows here in Texas, wind power is a viable alternative energy source also.

Added incentive for the car manufacturers to switch to hybrid or all-electric technology. The demand will make it profitable.

Anyone else?
>on edit, I already commute the 4 mile trip to work by bicycle.

[BiggJawn]

10. Damn Urbano-Centrists.

It's all about the cliff-dwellers in the big city, isn't it?

Let me blow holes in your thesis, point by point.

"1. Increased health through the use of more human-powered transportation (walking and bicycling)."

No big argument there, just want to point out to you that in my small town, it's a 20-mile ONE WAY trip to the jobs. 4 hours a day spent commuting (and that assumes a "fast recreational" cyclist) No locker rooms, no shower facilities, how long before the rich boss starts bitching about the hired help being all sweaty and yucky?

"2. Increased community through the use of more human-powered transportation. More neighbors will actually see each other, be able to look one another in the eye, greet each other, and, perhaps, even converse."

That doesn't happen NOW, amongst people out for exercise, why should it happen between people stressing about getting to work, can I get a side-trip in to the store and still get home B4 dark, etc. We don't wave at each other in our cars, why would it be any diferent just because we're traveling at lower speeds on more exposed vehicles. In fact, I see even further possibility for "cocooning", via headphones or whatever, because of the sense of vunerability from not having 6,000 of steel and rubber surrounding you anymore.

"3. Increased levels of community policing, including more contact with non-criminal community members for the police, as bicycle and pedestrian patrols increase in order to cover territory that used to be covered by motorized vehicles."

I live in a community of 2500. We have 4 town marshalls. they're gonna cover the whole town on FOOT?

"4. Decreased commute times as traffic diminishes through the use of alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, mass transit) and car pools."

Bullshit. My commute takes 20 minutes by car. best I would be able to do on a bike is around 80 minutes, and I'd need a shower and complete change of clothing before I was "business-like", too.

"5. In the long run, perhaps more human-sized communities will be built, decreasing the cost of building an ever expanding infrastructure via traditional sprawl."

What, little shanty towns, or trailer parks on the outskirts of the larger cities, filled with us folks who used to live in the so-called "Bedroom Communities"?

I could make the same argument that rising healthcare costs and the lack of affordable insurance for the working poor is a GREAT idea, because it provides a PERFECT incentive to start living a healthier lifestyle, right?

[Kanary]

16. Thanks for saying it like it is, BiggJawn

Your last sentence certainly puts it in perspective, and addresses that "You can't help *everyone*" crap.

No wonder so many of us have come to the conclusion that the Dems have lost their way.

Kanary

[HuckleB]

19. You're funny.

You assume that small towns were always this way? The problems with sprawl affects both small towns and cities, and every single "roadblock" you try to put in the way in order to defend the status quo that feeds the GOP love machine can be overcome. After all, without cheap gas and the automobiles, those infrastructure issues wouldn't exist. Ah, but it's better to stay the course, because gas will always be plentiful and cheap, right?

Nevermind the ridiculous notion that every single person must benefit from a change in order for that change to be worthy. As you chose to ignore in my first post, I fully understand the issues at hand. However, I am not going to sit back and forget that there are many problems with the status quo of transportation in this nation. God forbid if anything good actually came of out of the current crisis. That would be terrilble.

As for your so called holes, nice try.

"1. Increased health through the use of more human-powered transportation (walking and bicycling)."
No big argument there, just want to point out to you that in my small town, it's a 20-mile ONE WAY trip to the jobs. 4 hours a day spent commuting (and that assumes a "fast recreational" cyclist) No locker rooms, no shower facilities, how long before the rich boss starts bitching about the hired help being all sweaty and yucky?

OK. You can't use human-powered transportation for the job you currently hold, so therefore its a bad thing if those who can do so actually go that route? And it's a bad thing for you to use a bicycle for trips that are closer to home? As for those locker rooms and showers, they're a lot smaller than parking spaces, and cheaper to provide than most big business "share-the-ride" programs currently cost. Oh, but I forgot, since it doesn't work for you, then it couldn't possibly benefit society as a whole.

"2. Increased community through the use of more human-powered transportation. More neighbors will actually see each other, be able to look one another in the eye, greet each other, and, perhaps, even converse."

That doesn't happen NOW, amongst people out for exercise, why should it happen between people stressing about getting to work, can I get a side-trip in to the store and still get home B4 dark, etc. We don't wave at each other in our cars, why would it be any diferent just because we're traveling at lower speeds on more exposed vehicles. In fact, I see even further possibility for "cocooning", via headphones or whatever, because of the sense of vunerability from not having 6,000 of steel and rubber surrounding you anymore.

Pure hogwash. I live in a community, where walking to the store and bicycling to work are possible. And guess what, far more neighbors know each other and spend time with each other than anywhere else I've lived. Sorry, but your sourpuss attitude is blocking your way from seeing that change can actually happen.

"3. Increased levels of community policing, including more contact with non-criminal community members for the police, as bicycle and pedestrian patrols increase in order to cover territory that used to be covered by motorized vehicles."

I live in a community of 2500. We have 4 town marshalls. they're gonna cover the whole town on FOOT?

Foot and bicycle patrols are already on the increase in small towns in Nebraska. What makes your town so different from them?

"4. Decreased commute times as traffic diminishes through the use of alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, mass transit) and car pools."

Bullshit. My commute takes 20 minutes by car. best I would be able to do on a bike is around 80 minutes, and I'd need a shower and complete change of clothing before I was "business-like", too.

Ah, yes. Your commute won't shorten because "rush hour" isn't an issue for you. Therefore it's a bad thing if the commutes of others are shortened. And you talked about self-centeredness? That's funny.

"5. In the long run, perhaps more human-sized communities will be built, decreasing the cost of building an ever expanding infrastructure via traditional sprawl."

What, little shanty towns, or trailer parks on the outskirts of the larger cities, filled with us folks who used to live in the so-called "Bedroom Communities"?
I could make the same argument that rising healthcare costs and the lack of affordable insurance for the working poor is a GREAT idea, because it provides a PERFECT incentive to start living a healthier lifestyle, right?

Before the advent of the automobile, communities and jobs were built on a more human scale. But, of course, we could never do that again. No, we must maintain the status quo, because it's so wonderful, and gasoline and automobiles will always be "cheap." Please, try to imagine how much dough you'd have left over if you didn't have to maintain a car and drive so damn much. The automobile has added more expense to everyday living than many of us want to admit. As for your last little analogy, nice try. Doesn't work. Everyone off your bicycles and back into your cars! Now!

[BiggJawn]

24. Why doesn't it work?

"As for your last little analogy, nice try. Doesn't work. Everyone off your bicycles and back into your cars! Now!"

Why doesn't it work?

"rising healthcare costs and the lack of affordable insurance for the working poor is a GREAT idea, because it provides a PERFECT incentive to start living a healthier lifestyle, right?"

How is that opinion any different to the argument YOU put forth that rising gas prices are "good" for us because it will "increase health"?

Same damn argument, except that few would argue that economically blockading access to healthcare to the poor is a good idea. why is doing the same with fuel diferent? Because it's "GOOD for US"?

instead of engaging in a dialog, you choose to paint me as some kind of apologist for the "GOP love machine" Why, thank you very much!

BTW, Look who's putting words in who's mouth.

[HuckleB]

30. Did I put forth that argument?

No. Please reread my first post very carefully.

And it doesn't work because you assume that the only way to solve the problem is by maintaining the status quo. There are more ways to solve this problem. This makes your analogy hopelessly flawed.

[Baltimoreboy]

28. Urban or clueless?

No, small towns weren't always this way, but they are now. And there's a hell of a lot of infrastructure built up that depends on driving. In many places, the wealthy live close in and the poor live farther out.

Gas won't always be plentiful. Sooner of later it will be hydrogen or something else, but the car is an essential feature of the American landscape.

As for the holes:

"1. Again, you seem to think bicycle transport works when in most of the U.S. it doesn't. Roads aren't designed for it and people don't own the bikes. An increase in bike traffic would mean a major increase in accidents. Oh, and closer to home still means several miles for many people.


"2. I too live in a community where you can walk. But we all get home so late and are tired that walking rarely happens.

"3. We already have bicycle patrols. We also have car patrols. No change at all with this.

"4. I live near Washington. Nothing, including an act of Congress, will fix rush hour. It's a fantasy if you think everyone will suddenly take bikes. They will simply get stuck paying more.

"5. What exactly is a "human-sized" community? Does that mean that similar businesses should not locate near one another? Should we relocate the several million men, women and kids around D.C. to South Dakot so we can spread them out into towns of 50,000 each?

I think you either already live in Utopia or imagine a little tax increase will pave your way there.

[HuckleB]

32. Hmm. The status quo must stay. Why? Because you say so.

OK. Yeah, sure, you betcha. Let's keep making life more and more expensive and time consuming for ourselves. Great idea. Very compassionate.

[Baltimoreboy]

33. Status quo rarely stays, but it shouldn't change over night

And simply boosting the tax on the poor is not a good idea.

[HuckleB]

35. You talking to me?

Did I say we should raise a tax on the poor? Where?

[Baltimoreboy]

38. This whole thread is about taxing the poor

Increase the price of gas and it is a huge regressive tax on the poor.

[HuckleB]

39. Nope. It's not.

Your assertion is correct as far as it goes, of course. However, this thread was begun with the simple curiosity of looking at some positives that might come out of the current gas crisis. Never did a say that such gas prices were a good thing or that we should raise gas taxes.

It's interesting to see people react to that which isn't even there.

[Baltimoreboy]

40. This is a follow-up thread

To another on higher gas prices. So you need to see it in that context. It attempts to put a positive face on what amounts to a huge, regressive tax.

[HuckleB]

41. Nope.

I hadn't seen that thread. I started this one as a creative exercise. Others chose to try to make it something it wasn't.

It does scare me to note this, actually. I would have imagined seeing more creativity here at DU.

[wuushew]

42. Also the electorate has chosen politicans that favor regressive taxes

If people truly cared about progressivity we would look more like Europe or Canada. Instead the country is becoming more like Florida, Texas or Oregon. As long the status quo is in vogue I say hike gas prices and compensate with a drop in payroll taxes. At least the environment would be better for it.

[HuckleB]

44. Hmm.

I guess my hope for an exercise in creativity is gone.

It's true that progressive taxes are currently difficult to pass, but it seems foolish to propose them ourselves. Rather than raise gas taxes, it makes more sense to put in a progressive tax on auto registrations, keeping a base rate at current levels for vehicles worth less than, say, $10,000, with increasing rates of registration for more expensive vehicles. One could also have a lower rate for vehicles that are truly used for business, though this would be difficult to monitor. Anyway, I'm not sure if I buy this proposal myself. It just makes more sense than raising the gas tax.

[QC]

46. Your "exercise in creativity" is someone else's ability to live.

That's why feelings run high. For those of us who are barely getting by as it is, paying out the nose for gas means genuine sacrifice, not simply an interesting but pointless intellectual parlor game.

And for someone who objects to straw men, you sure do sling around a lot of them.

[HuckleB]

47. Again, responding to phantoms.

Please read my posts.

I don't need your faux lecture, though I suppose it makes you feel superior somehow. Apparently there are many on these boards who need that feeling to get through the day.

Gas prices are what they are, and, as I noted from the first, they are hurting a great many people. God forbid that anything positive happen to come out of that. God forbid that we actually think about ways to help those hurt by this problem that vary from going back to the old status quo. We all want this problem to be there to hit us in the face again, I guess. Why is that? There are many factor underlying the problem at hand, especially for the working poor. If we find a way to lower gas prices now, we have to find a way to keep them there. Finding ways to lower demand is one way to do that. But apparently that's not compassionate. There's only way to be compassionate: Maintain the status quo.

Not in my world. I don't find that compassionate at all.

[QC]

50. Please come down from your cross.

And honestly, for you to accuse anyone of being condescending is the height of hypocrisy, given how you have dealt with those who disagree with you here.

The point, one that seems to elude you, is that while conservation is a great long-term goal, the way to get there is not to put the big purple shaft to those who are already hurting. We need a public transportation infrastructure first. Then we raise gas taxes to encourage people to use public transport.

Doing it this way does nothing but enrich the oil companies at the expense of the poor.

[PeaceProgProsp]

51. And enriching the oil industry is utterly contradictory to long term goal.

What are they going to do with their immense profits? They're going to buy politicians who legislate an environment which allows them to continue to shift the money earned by their middle class consumers to the pockets of huge, multi-national corporations through a largely uncompetitive market for energy.

[Baltimoreboy]

43. Either intentionally or not

It has played out that way. Clearly, hiking the price in gas will harm the lowest paid the most.

[HuckleB]

45. Yes, it has "played out that way."

Largely because people failed to read what I actually wrote, and they chose to respond to phantoms, apparently, largely because they wanted to make themselves feel "more compassionate" than others. That's not what I call "playing out that way." That's what I call responding disingenuously. It makes it very difficult to have a genuine discussion. God forbid that anyone actually try to do something different.

Anyway, it's quite frustrating.

[wuushew]

34. What about the Metro?

If you live near D.C. you have to appreciate the number cars it keeps off the roads. It is a good design and could adapted to medium-large cities across the nation.

[Baltimoreboy]

37. DC Metro is a horrible design

It was done to be expedient, not rational.

For those unfamiliar with DC Metro, a few points:

* They dug deep to save money tearing up streets. But it is hard to add anything to the system.
* Most of the system is only one line either direction. Any difficulty anywhere and it all falls apart.
* The system is spokes of a wheel, not the rim. To travel anywhere in the suburbs from the suburbs takes a huge amount of time. You have to go in town and back out again.
* The system hasn't maxed out, but some lines are close until added cars arrive in the next few years. Even then, it has severe limits.

Don't get me wrong, I love Metro, but it would take billions to fix it.

[Wcross]

11. Less roadside litter!

Less drunks driving by my place throwing out beer and liqueur bottles!

[PeaceProgProsp]

36. More profits for oil companies, so they can buy more politicians.

And continue to control the world.

The increased cost of oil isn't being caused by increased costs for oil companies right now.

It's not a market-determined increase.

Chavez said recently that he (and I presume he's speaking about OPEC producers) would be happy with $30/barrlel -- I presume that's where OPEC countries would make a reasonable profit, and where developing economies can still afford to defelop without paying a huge tithe to the oil companies for the opportunity to develop.

Yes, there are benefits to more expensive oil, provided the prices really reflect market costs (whether the cost of production, or through taxation, which is required to allocate the costs and benefits of the petroleum business sensibly).

Personally, I'd like to see higher sales taxes on oil causing higher pump prices rather than seeing whim (and the desire for greater private profits) causing the increase. In fact, higher profits for oil companies counteracts all the potential social advantages of higher prices.

[Kanary]

49. BINGO!!