You mean the gas taxes that fund road maintenance? That tax is a tyranny imposed by how much we rely on cars, not by climate change.
Gas tax is much better in this regard, but all of these are pretty extortionary.
New York has even taken to explicitly charging higher rates to out of state residents, which is of questionable constitutionality.
You can take a bus, taxi, or airplane to travel.
The question in that case is whether someone's license can be suspended after conviction of traffic offenses without a separate hearing on the suspension. Denial of rights is common practice upon conviction of a crime, e.g. unless you've been convicted of a crime you generally have a right not to be incarcerated.
> You can take a bus, taxi, or airplane to travel.
So if you're a farmer in New Jersey and have to deliver your produce to a farm-to-table restaurant in New York City, which of these is supposed to apply? Also notice how little this has to do with tolls. If your license was suspended you could pay an employee to drive your truck into the city but the E-ZPass tag doesn't care about that.
Perhaps you could cite the basis upon which you conclude they are legally a right.
But people say "driving is a privilege, not a right" as if these things are alternatives to each other. Requiring you to pass a driving test is quite a different thing than discriminating against you based on your state of residence.
Here's a quote from your own case:
> The nature of the private interest involved here (the granted license to operate a motor vehicle) is not so great as to require a departure from "the ordinary principle . . . that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action," Eldridge, supra at 424 U. S. 343, particularly in light of statutory provisions for hardship and for holders of commercial licenses, who are those most likely to be affected by the deprival of driving privileges.
Strongly implies that constraints exist on what the government can deny. What's that about, if there isn't a right to be implicated?
There are plenty of contexts where cars are the only realistic mode of travel and then it isn't a matter of preference because there isn't any viable alternative.
Which tolls on which road? At least where I live there's more than one toll road in the area.
Being a such a populous big state with only tiny, regional public transportation systems means everyone and their cousin drives everywhere, all the time. That's how.
[0]https://blog.cubitplanning.com/2010/02/road-miles-by-state/
[1]https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/sta...
California can do better, it just doesn't.
Californians only pay $0.68/gallon. You up for an additional $2.08/gallon in taxes to pay for those sweet, German roads?
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/gas-taxes-in-europe-20...
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-gas-tax-rates...
I'm sure somebody has written a book already about how ostensibly wealthy societies can fail at basic infrastructure that they previously mastered, driven by greed and complacency and other socioeconomic factors. I think this has happened over and over again (Rome, and many other societies).
How about Foundation by Isaac Asimov.
'Just' stop wars short of surrendering is easy to say. No evidence Republicans actually could deliver or prevent. Just talk.
The tariffs were largely kept in place between Biden and Trump. The criticism here would apply equally to both but also ignores trade wars.
The pipeline bit is perhaps viable, but a drop in the bucket (with respect to at least the keystone XL [1])
[1] https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-895299166310
"Even if the Keystone XL pipeline had been completed, the amount of oil it was designed to transport would have been a drop in the bucket for U.S. demand, experts noted. The U.S. used nearly 20 million barrels of oil a day last year, while global consumption of oil was near 100 million barrels. The pipeline would have contributed less than 1% to the world supply of oil, according to AP reporting.
“The total volume of additional supply is negligible in a market that uses 100 million barrels of oil every day,”"
The right still has them as talking points, where the left has failed miserably. Talking about any potential solutions seems to have enticed American voters more than trying to sweep it under the rug.
Also easy to observe that it would be better than conducting wars and surrendering anyway.
Strategically and economically stupid. Buy oil when everyone has it, sell oil when everyone else has ran out.
> * Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas.
The US military is the largest socialist jobs program in the world and is the single greatest creator of skilled labor for our economy.
> * Change the tariff structure so that American goods are worth something against Chinese imports that raises the value of the dollar which lowers the cost of goods
Lets say you make widgets for $9 and sell them to me for $10 (a healthy 10% profit). The government comes along and tells you there is a $2 tariff on widgets. Are you going to sell me widgets at $8 (a $1 loss) or raise the price to $12? Tariffs are a tax on goods paid by the buyer and a way to de-incentivize overseas production. But here is the problem - do you want to make 39 cents an hour sewing soccer balls or do you want to pay 10x for that soccer ball so that an American can have a livable wage doing the sewing for you?
The "American Dream" is exploitation of cheap overseas labor because of our superior economic position. Regardless of how you feel about that morally, Trump's economic plan is to try and figure out how to on-shore the lowest paid factory jobs.
This sounds an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. Wars are destructive and any amount spent on that destruction is lost from the economy no matter how many people you hire in the process. Surely funding schools would be a more direct way of creating skilled labour.
The U.S defense budget would be a fraction of its budget if used for defense.
There is an upside in wining wars. But since the U.S has been losing them, it's funding jobs that provide no value. Would better be spent elsewhere.
The Japanese unique economic boom after WWII was mostly due to having little to know defense budget. Germany's was less impressive but also benefited from focusing on the economic performance.
Not necessarily. Tariffs are a limited tax, in this case maxing out at 100%. Making soccer balls from China cost twice as much is not going to bridge the gap between viable and non-viable for onshore production. It really only bridges the gap where the off vs on shore savings are much closer, which tends to apply to more complex manufacturing processes, which incorporate more automation in the process, as cost gaps between developed and undeveloped countries tend to be greatest in the cost of labor. Automation is often cheaper in more developed countries, in fact.
Onshoring those kinds of jobs/infrastructure would provide a range of national security and economic benefits.
I genuinely don't understand how tariffs have become so poorly understood and divisive. Every argument about them I see framed seems either highly biased or pure misinformation, from both sides. They are not free tax money, but they also can have benefits for low and middle class people.
I also think its disingenuous to call tariff induced price increases inflation. That's like calling a sales tax inflation. Maybe its technically correct, maybe not, but if your going to apply it here, make sure you are also applying it to carbon/gas taxes, environmental regulations (they also increase costs), and capital gains taxes (they lower asset supply).
Current admin did this at record rates
>Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas
The US is a net exporter of energy so the instability is helpful
>Create pipelines
We have already entered the late stage hydrocarbon era. Massive imminent domain projects for a decade or two of utility are I advised
>Change the tariff
We cannot go to a pre-globalization time. Alea iacta est. The only way for tariffs to work against BRICS would be a unilateral tariff which would affect all American commerce.
Go read some Peter Navarro. He explains desperately how important it is to be protectionist (to a limited extent) with certain industries. Especially if they link to security and health of the nation. You do not want a hostile nation to make all of your pharmaceuticals. You do not want them to hold you hostage over your lack and their surplus of steel. This is basic, basic stuff.
And the whole point is that other countries are not engaging in fair trade practices. If they aren't engaging in fair trade, then they can't engage in this fabled myth of "free trade". This is literally the Trump trade doctrine. He has spelled it out and acted on it. If the CCP hadn't manipulated the price of steel to wipe out American steel producers, they wouldn't be subject to extreme tariffs. Simple, simple stuff.
The whole point is that people buy shit from the US by making the German stuff more expensive.
When he speaks of broad-based tariffs, he is using one of his framing techniques that he unironically explains in the Art of the Deal.
With all that said, the tariffs have me concerned, but allowing our industrial base to continue to evaporate has me more concerned.
> he unironically explains in the Art of the Deal
He didn't write that book. Based on his numerous failed businesses and his history of poor negotiations (Afghanistan as a very obvious example), we should be operating on the assumption that he isn't actually good at this, and pray his advisors are.
> With all that said, the tariffs have me concerned, but allowing our industrial base to continue to evaporate has me more concerned.
Then you should have been happy with Biden, who worked towards things like the CHIPS act, which moved manufacturing of critical supply chain back to America.
The economist, the financial times, and large numbers of economists have said that his plans are going to fuel inflation and will reduce GDP. Elon Musk said we should be prepared to make sacrifices. People are telling you what's coming, and that's what you should be concerned about.
Blaming Trump for Biden giving the Taliban 80 billion dollars in military equipment is about what I expected.
What is it?
But I guess that explains why people voted for Trump.
- Drill for oil: oil production is at all all-time high. Drilling more doesn't drop local prices.
- Stop the wars: 100% agree we should end all wars. Except that Trump has no control over this. Also, the one thing that both parties agree on is increasing the military budget (Congress voted for more than Biden proposed).
Even more incomprehensible that even if Trump’s policies were sound that Americans would vote to have such a reprehensible person as their leader.
Climate change aside, you do realize that States decide on gas taxes, not the Federal government, right? Which means that neither Trump nor Harris can do anything about what gas taxes CA decides to add, or any other State.
* Drill for oil, lower the price of gas, prices at the store come down.
* Stop the wars that make for unstable access for gas.
* Create pipelines so that instead of "flaring" Natural gas, we transport it cheaply to be used for electricity generation
* Change the tariff structure so that American goods are worth something against Chinese imports that raises the value of the dollar which lowers the cost of goods
* Stop the insane energy policies that raise gas prices by 45 cents per gallon (in CA for example) for 0.0001% change in climate
NONE of these were democrat talking points.