Comments on: The Podcast: ‘Car Talk’ Edition! Plus Other Important Junk

By: Car Link

Car Link — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:25:08 +0000

Being a car guy does not always mean you know what is best for the economy or other people, he is a car fixer.. stay that way.

Very soon gas is going to rise again and a added .50 cent on the gas price will be a death blow to people who are already living close to the edge.

So Ray Magliozzi, instead of talking about it.. why not donate to my pocket .50 for every gallon you buy of gas. Stop talking and walk it!

By: Scottar

Scottar — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:57:28 +0000

I agree with JoeB and NONO, just raising the gas tax would hurt the economy and the lower wage earners. Incentives would be a better answer with better engineering on vehicles that can be converted from transportation to haulers via attachments.

Electrics and hybrids are iffy, compressed air cars and fluid accumulator driven vehicles would be better with new, lightwight materials like composite carbon graphics or buckeyballs.

And unless you have an efficient, cheep way of producing hydrogen and fuel cells then that’s just a green pipe dream. Most hydrogen is presently produced from fossil fuels which just further exasperates supplies. Algores carbonless society is a fantasy for the near future.

By: nononononoooo

nononononoooo — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:22:07 +0000

Bad bad call by Ray Magliozzi to spout off about national energy policy issues he knows little about. Stick to broken alternators and Wheel Alignment click & clack.

By: Scottar

Scottar — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:01:22 +0000

JimmyP38

I said AGW which is alleged to human caused. Of course GW has been occurring since the last iceage moron. But it not driven by CO2 nor Human activities. Visit icecap.us for the truth behind global warming.

By: Hans Schmidt

Hans Schmidt — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:56:47 +0000

We need to subsidize the purchase of green vehicles with a price rebate from Federal Funds. To incent the change to electric cars with a $2 per gallon tax, which will fund the rebates, and green R & D. I pay plenty of taxes already but support this as realistic problem directed solution.

By: jerry

jerry — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:21:01 +0000

Hey Click and Clack,
I love your show but your idea of adding a 50 cent gas tax is a regressive tax, which would negatively affect the budgets of poor, and other lower wage workers needing their cars to drive to work, while those higher income earners would be less affected. What would be more effective would be to place a luxury car tax to subsidize public transit systems, or give lower income earners tax subsidies to purchase more efficient cars dumping their less efficient vehicles in the scrap yard.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

By: thistleandthorn

thistleandthorn — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:29:15 +0000

But but but, don’t those plants from Home Depot help offset the carbon output?
I think 50 cents is a good, reasonable amount for a gas tax, made less painful if less consumption helps keep the per barrel price down. If only the car guys could have used a different example!

By: jimmyp38

jimmyp38 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:23:35 +0000

The problem is, Scotter, there is no proof that global warming doesn’t exist either. I would like to remind you that anything one may hear, see or read in the media is, simply someone’s opinion.

By: Scottar

Scottar — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:43:39 +0000

There is no proof that CO2 causes runaway global warming, icecap.us, co2science.org. Caps on carbon are another carpetbagging scam embraced by AGW alarmists and promoted by special interests groups who would make money off of the scam!

I think if people know the truth, and it’s forthcoming, the would send half of congress to jail for perpetrating fraud, along with some scientists on the gravy train ticket.

By: Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:47:17 +0000

Of course the people who use the product (here carbon) should pay for all its costs (environmental and military). But to some ears, a higher carbon tax merely means a higher tax. Therefore, to actually succeed in getting an increased carbon tax through Congress, it is also necessary to couple the proposal to the lowering of other taxes (e.g. payroll taxes). Instead of asking “Do we need a higher carbon tax?”, let’s instead ask: “Should we tax carbon instead of work?” I think the vast majority of voters would answer yes to this question.