The New York Times, crib sheet of the MSM, let the cat out the bag this morning on the subject of gas prices, saying that while it's unfortunate that high gas prices harm the average American, they're good in the end because they might provide more support for 'long-term' environmental causes.
In other words: we need to destroy the economy in order to save it:
It’s hard to convince most Americans that there is a silver lining to $4-a-gallon gasoline. But General Motors provided a nugget of good news when it announced that it would shutter much of its production of pickups and sport utility vehicles — and might even get rid of the Hummer, the relative of the Abrams tank unleashed on the streets in the cheap-gas days of the 1990s.
It’s hardly the solution to global warming, or the country’s dependence on imported oil, but it’s a start. [...]
Expensive gasoline is not good news for most American families. In some rural areas where people must drive long distances, and a pickup is more of a necessity than a lifestyle choice, filling up the tank can eat up nearly 15 percent of a worker’s take-home income. Pricey gasoline is acting as a brake on the economy and pushing up the price of food and other goods.
Still, Americans’ response to rising gasoline prices makes an excellent case for a gas tax. It proves that drivers will change their behavior in response to high fuel prices. And even if Detroit doesn’t buy global warming, drivers can help persuade it to embrace fuel efficiency.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator and editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Still, Americans’
June 17, 2008 - 12:01 ET by HypocriteHaterStill, Americans’ response to rising gasoline prices makes an excellent case for a gas tax.
A gas tax???!!! Aren't we already taxed up the wazoo for gasoline? Leave it to the NYT to ask for MORE taxes.
I don't know why you would
June 17, 2008 - 12:26 ET by dscottI don't know why you would object to raising gas taxes, it sounds like you don't trust the government to spend your money wisely or give it back to you later. Besides, why would you think 40% of big oil's cash expeditures in paying taxes is too much??? Come on, they're rich, they can pay 50%, no problem... <sarcasm>
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
you misunderstand
June 17, 2008 - 12:29 ET by wizardjrThe object is to get all of us onto the wonderful public transportation system. Here in the Twin Cities my 35 minute commute of 23 miles will then take me a mere hour and a half instead. However, I will be saving the planet. How can I refuse? After all, what's more important my time or the planet. Silly me.
Yes, another liberal gold
June 17, 2008 - 12:57 ET by dscottYes, another liberal gold plated boondoggle costing the taxpayer billions of dollars on the false premise that if you can stuff enough people in the same space you'll use less energy and it will be cost effective. NOT! on both counts. Very few light and heavy rail systems in the US use less energy per passenger mile than a car and those very few that do are massively subsidized to the point a car is still more cost effective. The only thing that stops the public from making it's own decisions in transportation is the refusal of city planners to allow the building of parking garages, they intentionally created the lack of parking in cities to push public transportation.
There are only three forms of transportation that are more cost effective and energy efficient than a car: Walk (some contend this form is actually more energy intensive based on energy expediture for distance), bike or horse. Economies of scale work for many industrial processes however, humans are not conformable to industrialization, only brain dead zombies are. Look up the origin of word "robot" or "robotnik", hint it's a Czech word.
There are actually four virtually zero cost practical means of significant energy savings that the public could do with no need of the government meddling in people's affairs:
1. car pool, thus doubling the passenger mile per gallon;
2. Four day work week (4 - 10 hr days), a 20% reduction in travel;
3. Telecommute one or more days a week if your desk job would allow it. There is no reason why with the internet and phone lines you can't conduct office business remotely, small business owners do this all the time. This would finally push the idea of a paperless office by shuffling computer files instead of hard copy.
4. Teleconferencing instead of flying to business meetings and conferences.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
That goes double for our
June 17, 2008 - 15:07 ET by kgThat goes double for our Godzilla sized carbon users in the congress and senate.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Public Transportation Myths
June 17, 2008 - 22:38 ET by PopularTech5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture (Reason Magazine)
Dispelling Transit Myths (Cato Institute)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Two most excellent
June 18, 2008 - 09:17 ET by dscottTwo most excellent articles. Great find!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
You know what the libs
June 17, 2008 - 13:00 ET by taterYou know what the libs promise of what alternative fuels will do sounds like...the promise of what the windmill would do in Animal Farm.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Apperently nobody at the NYT
June 17, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Free ThinkerApperently nobody at the NYT has made the connection between its plummeting circulation numbers and its out of touch views.
I've had it with their
June 17, 2008 - 12:09 ET by taterI've had it with their "enviromental" angle. Maybe we should shut down the times in order to save some trees since nobody reads their rag of a newspaper anyway.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Still, Americans’ response
June 17, 2008 - 12:11 ET by NewsbusterbrownStill, Americans’ response to rising gasoline prices makes an excellent case for a gas tax. It proves that drivers will change their behavior in response to high fuel prices.
Hey, let's have a food tax, too. That way, Americans can also change their behavior there!
Idiots.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
But General Motors provided
June 17, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberBut General Motors provided a nugget of good news when it announced that it would shutter much of its production of pickups and sport utility vehicles — and might even get rid of the Hummer, the relative of the Abrams tank unleashed on the streets in the cheap-gas days of the 1990s.
Huh?
Someone needs to send the NYT a memo reminding them that only eveeel Conservatives hate the working man.
Oh goody bear!
June 17, 2008 - 14:00 ET by okiehawk44And now the closed auto factories can concentrate on making clouds, and balloons, and colored air fluff, and funny shoes and all the other things that any peace loving nation really needs. Then we can all sit around and tell each other how much better we are than those evil people who make REAL things. Democrats love the little man and do all they can to inhibit his ability to exist.
Maybe they could use the
June 17, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberMaybe they could use the material that used to be the auto plants that will be shut down to create giant windmills? they just couldn't be placed near any Democrat(ic) politician's vacation home.
Paper of broken record
June 17, 2008 - 12:13 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThis is just the NYT shilling for the empty suit Obama and his take on energy. America needs to sit home and stop stealing the worlds resources, Obama said so.
And yes, I signed the petition.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Isn't it wonderful when a
June 17, 2008 - 12:14 ET by dscottIsn't it wonderful when a group of people appoint themselves as the decision makers over such important matters and relieves the public of straining their brains? Who needs Democracy when elites can just grab power and force the majority to go along? You will like higher gas prices because we said so and just to placate you, we will raise your taxes and give to those whom we believe are most worthy (Not you), and you must believe our assertions that it's worth it in the end EVEN IF CO2 isn't the problem we said it is. <sarcasm>
So right now all of the liberals are holding their collective breathe to see if the public is the dumb sheep they believe them to be to buy their pay now or pay later argument or are they smart enough to realize where all this is going? Up to this point, the public didn't make it an issue because the cost of liberal energy policy was incremental, now that it's doubling every two years, they are thinking the bright ideas of liberals is getting way too expensive and something they would rather do without.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
OK which is it? Are Bush
June 17, 2008 - 12:19 ET by mattmOK which is it? Are Bush and Big Oil evil perpetrators of a diabolical conspiracy, or are they champions of environmentalism? This is just typical of Libs wanting to have everything both ways.
OK fine, let see the Dems all run on increasing energy prices!
"Vote Democrat For Change & $8.00/gallon gas!"
Now there's an honest campaign slogan!
let see the Dems all run on increasing energy prices
June 17, 2008 - 12:36 ET by wizardjrThey did. Remember Al Gore? He said many times he wanted $5 gasoline while he was setting up for his run for president. that was the European price at the time. Today that translates to $10 gas. And... he nearly won! Remember, the average IQ is 100. That explains a lot when it comes to connecting things like saving the planet and the inevitable 'unintended consequences'.
I wonder ...
June 17, 2008 - 12:25 ET by Dave in TexasI wonder if the New York Times is going to feel the same way when the higher gas prices start translating into higher costs for stuff like newsprint and distribution of their product?
The thing that gets me is
June 17, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Darth DutchThe thing that gets me is that the people who deplore SUV's and demand vehicles that get higher gas mileage will be the very same people who cry foul when the tax revenues go down once these high gas mileage vehicles hit the road and less gas is being purchased. They will have to dream up new ways to tax the consumer.
Darth Dutch
Looks like this is the Enron
June 17, 2008 - 13:21 ET by goldbarLooks like this is the Enron scandal all over again.
Not good news for the workers
June 17, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Mike SBut General Motors provided a nugget of good news when it announced that it would shutter much of its production of pickups and sport utility vehicles.
That's not exactly good news for the thousands of workers in those plants. Tell me again which party gets virtually 100% support from the labor unions.
Marie?
June 17, 2008 - 14:12 ET by okiehawk44>>That's not exactly good news for the thousands of workers in those plants. Tell me again which party gets virtually 100% support from the labor unions.<<
As Marie Obama is famous for saying back in the day "Let them eat cake."
These out-of-touch elitists
June 17, 2008 - 13:38 ET by Jack BauerThese out-of-touch elitists are just crazy, arrogant clucks with more money than sense.
In consecutive paragraphs we get the twit and dumbdom of an anonymous NYTimes editorial writer...
So... GET THIS... despite the fact that expensive gas is bad for all you working stiffs out there... the NYT wants to PILE ON the rising price with A GAS TAX HIKE
This is an Obama level disconnect with reality.
For instance, Oilbama prattles on about the need for long-term solutions to "solve" America's energy problems.
Yet over the past week, the political chatfests were full of Democrat surrogates who, when challenged on on why their party was against drilling in the US, specifically ANWAR all said like programmed spokesbots..
But that's not a relevant solution as it would take 10 years to tap.
Oh you mean -- that's a long-term solution?
Ok Jack, let me explain the
June 17, 2008 - 13:59 ET by dscottOk Jack, let me explain the liberal thinking process behind these two seemly contradictory statements:
Starting with #2, the AGW agenda is to completely and totally end the use of oil in any form. Because we're sooo smart, know better than anyone else and since the dumb yokles won't do as we say by asking them to, we will force them for their own good. #1, We know that we can force them to by jacking up the price of oil and we prefer to do that by taxing it. If the price goes up without us taxing it then we will be deprived of the money which means we won't get the credit for our great ideas to save the country from itself as a Centrally Planned economy is better than the messy choices of capitalism. As we all know Capitalism is a zero sum game in which you dumb little people are perpetually victims and in need of saving from the likes Bill Gates. He is a billionaire because he stole it from millions of you. We intend to spend your tax money on your behalf without your permission because you lack the vision and foresight to go along with our game plan in the first place. If the price of oil goes up and we didn't tax it, how would we be able to spend it on your behalf? Now shut up and do as we say.
That Jack is the distilled essence of liberalism and you can apply this principle to any other endeavor such as public schools, public transportation, high density cities, etc...
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Nugget
June 17, 2008 - 13:40 ET by rmellerThat is sure a "nugget of good news" for the people of Janesville, WI that are going to lose their jobs. Not just at GM but also at the feeder companies that supply GM.
but think about how they'll feel
June 17, 2008 - 15:44 ET by wizardjrThink about how wonderful they'll feel knowing that they have saved the Earth by giving up a job that was killing Mother Gaia.
How do these schmucks
June 17, 2008 - 13:58 ET by fonzie2178propose to collect taxes on high gas prices when in the same breath they say Americans can't afford the prices the way they are, so we should tax it more? This is too good to be true, the walking oxymorons show their true colors. THEY were the ones who wanted these prices, THEY got them, THEY blame them on President Bush and "big oil" when THEY see the public reaction to their own pipe dream. Then, THEY propose a solution by taxing it more. Give me a friggin break.
"This fall I'm voting for hope and change. I hope to change the members of congress in order to handcuff whichever liberal president we end up with." Me, 2008.
Gas prices
June 17, 2008 - 16:20 ET by WR JonasAh, that sigh you hear from the NYT is Thomas Friedman , the creator and originator of addicted to oil seeing his dream of a permanent punishing tax on consumers come true. It is his policy which has been embraced by the liberal thinkers as a step to achieving energy castrophe . The ultimate goal is to destroy private production and have it completely under government control . Sorta like Communism. Do any of you remember what communism was all about?
Democrats will squander billions to fight a global warming crisis that is a hoax but won't lift a finger to solve an oil crisis threatening to destroy our nation