RD,

"I hate to say it, but McCain's proposal will draw votes from us while you "liberals" talk about raising gas taxes to push us into purchases that we can't afford. No one is making the obvious connections - we NEED HELP to shift to a new paradigm. Where are the plans for more extensive public transit? Who is providing funds for local small businesses in trouble? What cities are expanding their routes and offering free bus and train fares (since the wealthy can well afford the privacy of their own car)? But no, nobody's suggesting such anti-capitalist proposals and the cities and towns are so broke that they can't afford to help their struggling citizens."

Well the problem is, the extensive public transit was never something of a priority, even though, at least in my state, it's what the state tax was supposed to be FOR!

Who is SUPPOSED to be providing free money to small businesses in trouble - I didn't know this was the job of the government.

The cities CAN'T expand their routes, etc because they never used the tax money the way they were supposed to and NOW it's drying up and they won't offer free bus and train fares because it's part of how they pay for the mass transit.

Of course they aren't suggesting such anti-capitalistic proposals because they wouldn't solve the problem and would actually be a greater burden on those who are already paying for the mass transit transportation now.

"The auto companies and the gas companies should be taxed out the ying-yang to make the shift to a new environmental paradigm, since they are the ones who created this problem, in their greed and short-sightedness. Do not even SUGGEST that we should pay to cover up their crimes. You will not get our votes that way."

And just WHO do you think will PAY this tax? The companies will NOT bear the cost...they will push this onto the consumers...who will decrease their purchasing of the above or in other places and then you will see things only get WORSE.

"Kind of a broad statement. And frankly I'm frustrated with the attitude that ANYTHING that stifles economic growth in ANY way is automatically wrong. Economic growth is simply NOT an ends in and of itself. What about short-term growth that ultimately leads to long-term stagnation? Are you saying that ANY growth is good? Think of cancer and what uncontrolled growth can mean for an otherwise healthy system. And before you jump down my throat, I'm not anti-growth by any means. I just think that simply countering any argument with "but that will slow growth" is not a true debate."

I'm saying that balance is usually obtained by the market automatically and that when we alter things in order to achieve a balance we THINK it should have, we usually screw it up worse. I'm simply wary of trying to regulate the market...there are so many variables that could make things go wrong.

"I never said we should set prices. Government can't set prices. That NEVER works. Totally agreed. What we need to do is enforce a regulatory environment that accounts for some of the externalities that we can practically account for today. I don't think we've done all we can in that regard. That will drive up the costs of manufacturing in the short-term which will then drive up prices to the consumer. But I personally believe that those costs will eventually come back down as our innovative economy comes up with creative technological solutions for better manufacturing. But corporations need to be incented by the government, otherwise they won't go for it. Carrot AND stick."

Eventually the prices would go down, you are correct...but what about poor Joe Snuffy who has to deal with those higher costs on a fixed budget? He will suffer greatly without something to keep the costs down for him.