In this interesting article from Newsweek progressivism is seen more as a pragmatic cause than an altruistic one. Comment, please, on your sense of where things are going. Do you agree with author Daniel Gross? (Click picture to enlarge)
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Well, I guess I'm the first person. I found it interesting that the article was so relevant to so many things that we read about in the previous chapter. I'm just going to point out the parallels that I saw between the 21st century and the Gilded Age. First of all, this Andrew Taylor guy, the CEO of Enterprise seems like a big businessman from long ago who created a large fortune of off his customers' money. Enterprise doesn't pay for gas, one costly fee when renting a larger vehicle. This causes the renter more, and saves the guy who already has 7 billion more of his own money. After the author explained the amount of wealth held by Taylor, he went on to say that Taylor donates to the Republican campaign, and they clearly said in the textbook that McKinley's campaign was funded largely by big businesses. The article also spoke about how Taylor wants a uniform gas price set by the national government so various people/companies can predict what consumers will want in the near future. This is obviously not socialism, but maybe something closer to the fist stages of nationalism as talked about in "The American People." The author brings up a progressive movement that he says now seems pragmatist, or sensible and realistic. They say that big businesses' embrace of Obama's plan is "as much profit as politics." The big companies today just as the one's of yesterday, clearly have a national image they don't want to disturb, but are also in the business for profit, and their goal is always to make that profit the largest safely possible. And of course at the end they do bring up William Jennings Bryan who we just learned about. The new view of progressivism (if that's a word) is no longer to satisfy people who might be struggling, but now simply because if makes the most sense, or at least that's what they say. Ever since this idea of nationalism, then socialism, and before you know it communism popped up, people have slowly been getting closer to them. Our country seems to think more and more everyday that everything ought to be spread out fairly and equally. Is the middle and lower classes overwhelming the upper class, or are the upper class's views just changing? Maybe people from a hundred years or two hundred years would look at us now, and say this was what they were fighting against, trying to stay away from the was we currently are. Who knows, maybe someday we'll end up in place we don't think we want to be in right now.
Well, I do think that is true how much Taylor is similar to the larg buissness owners of the late 1800's, both in his actions and his ideas. I saw this as Taylor and buisness owners, acting like the people of the 1890's with expantionism. Not a direct parrallel, but similar in basic ideas. During that time in history politicians, like Roosevelt, always said that they wanted to help everyone and that they were being kind to Cuba and other contries, policing the world. But there was always an underlying benifit to the US, such as sugar in Cuba. Similarly now, Taylor wants the gas tax because it will help buisnesses and get people to drive more fuel evicient cars, good for everyone. But there is always the fact that he will greatly benifit from this. His buissness will get regulated and as Jake pointed out, now some burden is shifted to the consumer. Also, when you rent a car sometimes you pay for a tank of gas a head of time or if you leave it empty. If gas prices go up, that price goes up and he gets more money, however I dont know if that enough profit for him to really matter. Well that's how I saw it relating.
To me, this idea of progressive business is very interesting. It appears that these businesses are trying to please the consumer in an attempt to create profit for themselves. In relation to gilded age politics and business, progressive business appears to be just a new way to profit. The upper class of the gilded age took their money straight from the source, that being their sales, and leaving little to none for producer. The business of today seems to have just adapted to fit new modern changes. Progressive business seems to consist of changes to fit a modern consumer while still gaining profit. I don't think this is necessarily meant to gain an increase in profit, just to keep the profit at a steady rate, and with a little luck, an increase. It also appears that these new "progressive" ideas are meant to convince the consumer to buy from ones company. The text said that Taylor often donates money to the Republican party. Jake mentioned the idea that business has become more "nationalistic", or "socialistic". In the past, I have found that modern Republican ideals seem very anti-socialism. Currently, there has been an increase in more "liberal" ideas and a decrease in conservatism. A pole that came out recently said that only 36% of America have a favorable view of the Republican party. It seems that these new changes in business are also meant to appeal to a new wave of consumers. Therefor, I do agree with Gross that these new "progressive" ideas are pragmatic; adapting to new changes by using what works and changing old methods. I also agree with Gus that these new business changes are less altruistic then they are pragmatic. We will have to see how all of this works out.
So Taylor basically epitomizes capitalism in him being a large and successful business man. Yet, his desire to work with the government to mandate one (somewhat high) standard gas rate is pretty socialistic. Taylor is progressive in that he wants change. He's willing to work with the government in order to improve the future (remember that progressives want change for the better, he wants change so that and through this fixed price of gasoline. He believes that a fixed gasoline price will spur this new coming of innovation.) Also, Taylor rents out cars and like mentioned before, the burden is shifted to the consumer when it comes down to the gasoline. This "pragmatic progressivism" Taylor represents has a lot to do with self interest, since he would have more money coming into his pockets, as well as helping spur new innovations in hybrid-type and fuel efficient cars, through the need and demand of them when the fuel prices are known to be at a certain (high)standard rate.
Personally I agree with Andrew Taylor that the government should set a national gas price. $3 dollars isn't that much higher than what we have now, and it will provide stability. Stability is very important to have, especially with car dealers like GM on the verge of bankruptcy. With a set gas price, companies can predict what kind of cars will be in demand (very fuel efficient), and produce accordingly. Also people might be unsure about what kind of car to buy because they don't know if gas prices will spike up or down. A set gas price takes away those doubts, and like the article says "might spur innovation and hasten the shift to electric cars". We know that gas won't last forever, so it is crucial that new technologies for electric cars are developed. If more focus is put on it now, it won't be as much of a problem later down the road. I also agree with the author that Taylor is a pragmatist because even though set prices can potentially benefit all, the only reason he is supporting it is because he is among the beneficiaries. But who doesn't keep self interest in kind when making decisions? Just because he is looking out for himself doesn't void his point. It works in Europe, so why can't it work here?
In my opinion, Taylor is not only a successful business man he is also a smart one. His idea of a set gas price would not only help him and other car renting companies but America as a whole. There would be no more questions of whether or not people would be able to afford driving to work next month. They would know exactly how much money they would need far in advance. Whether or not Taylor actually cares about the people he rents the cars to is not clear to me, but I do feel that his idea would actually help them. Taylor's idea is described as an idea of a progressive business man. I feel that most of America has a similar idea to that of Taylor's. The idea of using technology to improve systems and being open to change and working with the government. America as a whole has obviously become more open with change by electing Obama into office. Still, if America wants to continue to grow it is essential for it to be open to change and work with new technology efficiently and that is exactly what it is doing in my opinion.
Before starting my commentary, I have to say that it's funny that they mention fair-trade, Huffington post progressives... my dad works for a fair-trade company and the Huffington Post is the news source of choice in my house... my family are such hippies... Anyway, to me it seems as though both the progressivism in the era we are studying as well as the "progressivism" in this article are driven by greed. (Be warned, less than two hours ago I saw the new Michael Moore movie about capitalism) Although in the short term this system seems to be profitable for those on top, it pushes the people at the bottom of the economic ladder even farther down. In the Gilded age a select few rose to the top and became almost unimaginably wealthy. The same thing has happened in current corporate America. As these people become wealthier they are less and less concerned with the affect their business has on the consumers at the bottom. In this article it seems that Andrew Taylor is advocating a similar approach, we supply the car, which you pay for, and then to boot, you have to pay to make it run.
i agree with tessa, not only is Taylor the CEO of enterprise Rent-a-car rich, but he's very smart. and im guessing that smartness has helped him a lot over the years. his idea that the government should have a fixed gas rate of 3$ makes sense. from this idea, basically everyone would somehow benefit from it. the companies would be doing better financially because they would now know what the average person wants in a car, and that most likely be a fuel efficient car, that saves them money. but it would also cost more then the average car which would benefit the car companies because they'll be making a bigger profit then they were before. because now the person them self also knows what they want. i also think and agree with the writer and think that taylor is pragmatist. because like kevin E. said even though this plan would help everyone as a whole it the main purpose of it for taylor is to make profit from it...self interest. but he also does want to improve things for the future & wants to spur innovation with having a fixed gas rate. and yeah, i hope i made sense which i doubt i did.
I agree with Daniel Gross that Taylor and the other CEOs are not doing the things they do for an altruistic cause. Gross gives the example of big companies embracing Obama's economic plans "for profit, not just for politics." Other CEOs think that higher taxes or prices would help make a higher profit. Taylor wants higher gas prices for the same reason. These businesses will make a lot of profit while other people get stuck paying the higher prices. This reminds me of the Gilded Age where a few people got rich at the expense of others. They got to live life and go to parties while their employees worked long hours for little pay. Their employees had to pay taxes and for the essentials, but still ended up in debt. There was no way they could have ended up rich like their employers. Taylor's idea was for gas prices to be around $3-4 per gallon, but these days, it's between $2.50-$4, making it possible for prices that are lower than $3. I know 50 cents is not a lot of money, but it adds up with all the gallons you buy. I don't think making gas prices higher will be better even though it makes future spending more predictable. It's worth it to pay less for a while and not know what prices will be in the future.
I found out that on average, Americans use about 142.5 gallons of gas a year and that they spent huge amounts of money on gas. If prices at set between $3-4, then people would want to buy more fuel-efficient cars and that would help our economy a lot. Also if the companies know that people are more interested in buying more fuel efficient cars they would be making more, also companies would be making more profits (as these cars cost more), and they might not need as much bail out money with could go towards other things like the economy. Although this seems like a good idea there are some problems with it. What if the cheapest gas we can find is sold at $4 a gallon? Then we are losing money and something would have to be done, and now you can't change the price because it is set by the government. Also with the way the economy is right now and the war, gas is one of the smaller topics right now. Many people are losing there jobs, not many people can afford gas prices to go up and many people can't afford higher priced cars. I also feel that one reason why Tyler wants this to happen is that he is very rich and could get richer if this happens and with him being one of the main men behind this idea his party will also gain a lot of support. I do believe that this is a good idea and should be noticed but this is just not the right time for it to take place.
Republicans are mostly not in favor of socialistic ideas, especially rather well-off republicans who don’t have to worry about health insurance and want lower taxes. To see a CEO of a big, successful business, who donates mostly to republican candidates, like Andrew Taylor, advocate for a fixed gas price even if it means a high national gas tax, shows how threatened even people in high places are by the recession and today’s economy. Someone who commented before me mentioned how the number of people looking favorably on the Republican Party is rapidly decreasing and this article seemed to point out some of the many flaws in the way things in our capitalist markets have been run under the Bush Administration. It seems to me that people, even people who’ve profited the same way big companies in the late 1800s to early 1900s profited from the labor of others, are coming around to the notion that there has to be some sort of safety net for the economy. The Great Depression of the 20th century was not so long ago and the Hooverville that was inhabited by thousands of people sleeping in cardboard boxes in Central Park was just a few miles away from where the bronze bull of Wall St. stands today.
Taylor's idea of a set national price for gas does not seem that smart to me. Yes, some people will be happier knowing that it's 3 dollars but that is just human nature to be scared of the unknown. Can we really predict the actual price of gas and even if we do, gas does not come from the U.S. anyway. America is in a war, and with the money for gas, it is supplying the "enemies". Can we really be sure that after the price is set on 3 dollars it will be stable? This to me, seems like a temporary tool to making profit to a set group of people, that excludes the lower and middle class. Taylor serves as a classical representation of that group and as many people have pointed out, it is very similar to the GIlded Age and will result in even a larger gap between classes. In addition, it is umlikely that Taylor, who is on the list of Fords 400, has much in common with those he claims to help. It is one thing to talk about something, and another to experience it. His idea of help and stability is not the same for many others.
I don’t really think the working and middle class could afford this additional tax, right off of a recession. Even though the tax itself wouldn’t make gas cost too much more than it does presently, the results of the tax could be much worse for the average American. First, with higher gas prices, it would probably be a good idea to buy a more fuel efficient car. Cars are very expensive, and I’m pretty sure hybrids/electrical cars cost even more than regular cars. Second, all of the businesses that aren’t already fairly fuel efficient, or aren’t able to adapt quickly will go bankrupt. Not only will tons of people lose their jobs, but there is also a good chance that only the most fuel efficient companies will survive, and monopolies will be even bigger than before. Another point is that not all Americans want to buy fuel efficient cars, because if they did there would be no need for this tax. Forcing this tax to be paid will force Americans into buying cars they don’t want. Lastly, is there anyway to guarantee that the gas price will remain below four dollars? I’m not sure if it would be impossible to raise it that high or not, but with more fuel efficient cars Americans could afford to pay more, and those who proposed the tax may be keenly aware of this.
the gas tax would be a bad idea right now because Americans as a whole cant afford to pay extra with already high prices. the tax could in the future, once the economy is better, be successful. then again maybe not. its not really up to someone with a 7 billion net worth, Andrew Taylor, to say what he thinks is best for the average American. personally i don't consider 7billion the average American.
14 comments:
Well, I guess I'm the first person. I found it interesting that the article was so relevant to so many things that we read about in the previous chapter. I'm just going to point out the parallels that I saw between the 21st century and the Gilded Age. First of all, this Andrew Taylor guy, the CEO of Enterprise seems like a big businessman from long ago who created a large fortune of off his customers' money. Enterprise doesn't pay for gas, one costly fee when renting a larger vehicle. This causes the renter more, and saves the guy who already has 7 billion more of his own money. After the author explained the amount of wealth held by Taylor, he went on to say that Taylor donates to the Republican campaign, and they clearly said in the textbook that McKinley's campaign was funded largely by big businesses. The article also spoke about how Taylor wants a uniform gas price set by the national government so various people/companies can predict what consumers will want in the near future. This is obviously not socialism, but maybe something closer to the fist stages of nationalism as talked about in "The American People." The author brings up a progressive movement that he says now seems pragmatist, or sensible and realistic. They say that big businesses' embrace of Obama's plan is "as much profit as politics." The big companies today just as the one's of yesterday, clearly have a national image they don't want to disturb, but are also in the business for profit, and their goal is always to make that profit the largest safely possible. And of course at the end they do bring up William Jennings Bryan who we just learned about. The new view of progressivism (if that's a word) is no longer to satisfy people who might be struggling, but now simply because if makes the most sense, or at least that's what they say. Ever since this idea of nationalism, then socialism, and before you know it communism popped up, people have slowly been getting closer to them. Our country seems to think more and more everyday that everything ought to be spread out fairly and equally. Is the middle and lower classes overwhelming the upper class, or are the upper class's views just changing? Maybe people from a hundred years or two hundred years would look at us now, and say this was what they were fighting against, trying to stay away from the was we currently are. Who knows, maybe someday we'll end up in place we don't think we want to be in right now.
Well, I do think that is true how much Taylor is similar to the larg buissness owners of the late 1800's, both in his actions and his ideas. I saw this as Taylor and buisness owners, acting like the people of the 1890's with expantionism. Not a direct parrallel, but similar in basic ideas. During that time in history politicians, like Roosevelt, always said that they wanted to help everyone and that they were being kind to Cuba and other contries, policing the world. But there was always an underlying benifit to the US, such as sugar in Cuba. Similarly now, Taylor wants the gas tax because it will help buisnesses and get people to drive more fuel evicient cars, good for everyone. But there is always the fact that he will greatly benifit from this. His buissness will get regulated and as Jake pointed out, now some burden is shifted to the consumer. Also, when you rent a car sometimes you pay for a tank of gas a head of time or if you leave it empty. If gas prices go up, that price goes up and he gets more money, however I dont know if that enough profit for him to really matter. Well that's how I saw it relating.
To me, this idea of progressive business is very interesting. It appears that these businesses are trying to please the consumer in an attempt to create profit for themselves. In relation to gilded age politics and business, progressive business appears to be just a new way to profit. The upper class of the gilded age took their money straight from the source, that being their sales, and leaving little to none for producer. The business of today seems to have just adapted to fit new modern changes. Progressive business seems to consist of changes to fit a modern consumer while still gaining profit. I don't think this is necessarily meant to gain an increase in profit, just to keep the profit at a steady rate, and with a little luck, an increase. It also appears that these new "progressive" ideas are meant to convince the consumer to buy from ones company. The text said that Taylor often donates money to the Republican party. Jake mentioned the idea that business has become more "nationalistic", or "socialistic". In the past, I have found that modern Republican ideals seem very anti-socialism. Currently, there has been an increase in more "liberal" ideas and a decrease in conservatism. A pole that came out recently said that only 36% of America have a favorable view of the Republican party. It seems that these new changes in business are also meant to appeal to a new wave of consumers. Therefor, I do agree with Gross that these new "progressive" ideas are pragmatic; adapting to new changes by using what works and changing old methods. I also agree with Gus that these new business changes are less altruistic then they are pragmatic. We will have to see how all of this works out.
So Taylor basically epitomizes capitalism in him being a large and successful business man. Yet, his desire to work with the government to mandate one (somewhat high) standard gas rate is pretty socialistic. Taylor is progressive in that he wants change. He's willing to work with the government in order to improve the future (remember that progressives want change for the better, he wants change so that and through this fixed price of gasoline. He believes that a fixed gasoline price will spur this new coming of innovation.) Also, Taylor rents out cars and like mentioned before, the burden is shifted to the consumer when it comes down to the gasoline. This "pragmatic progressivism" Taylor represents has a lot to do with self interest, since he would have more money coming into his pockets, as well as helping spur new innovations in hybrid-type and fuel efficient cars, through the need and demand of them when the fuel prices are known to be at a certain (high)standard rate.
Personally I agree with Andrew Taylor that the government should set a national gas price. $3 dollars isn't that much higher than what we have now, and it will provide stability. Stability is very important to have, especially with car dealers like GM on the verge of bankruptcy. With a set gas price, companies can predict what kind of cars will be in demand (very fuel efficient), and produce accordingly. Also people might be unsure about what kind of car to buy because they don't know if gas prices will spike up or down. A set gas price takes away those doubts, and like the article says "might spur innovation and hasten the shift to electric cars". We know that gas won't last forever, so it is crucial that new technologies for electric cars are developed. If more focus is put on it now, it won't be as much of a problem later down the road. I also agree with the author that Taylor is a pragmatist because even though set prices can potentially benefit all, the only reason he is supporting it is because he is among the beneficiaries. But who doesn't keep self interest in kind when making decisions? Just because he is looking out for himself doesn't void his point. It works in Europe, so why can't it work here?
In my opinion, Taylor is not only a successful business man he is also a smart one. His idea of a set gas price would not only help him and other car renting companies but America as a whole. There would be no more questions of whether or not people would be able to afford driving to work next month. They would know exactly how much money they would need far in advance. Whether or not Taylor actually cares about the people he rents the cars to is not clear to me, but I do feel that his idea would actually help them. Taylor's idea is described as an idea of a progressive business man. I feel that most of America has a similar idea to that of Taylor's. The idea of using technology to improve systems and being open to change and working with the government. America as a whole has obviously become more open with change by electing Obama into office. Still, if America wants to continue to grow it is essential for it to be open to change and work with new technology efficiently and that is exactly what it is doing in my opinion.
Before starting my commentary, I have to say that it's funny that they mention fair-trade, Huffington post progressives... my dad works for a fair-trade company and the Huffington Post is the news source of choice in my house... my family are such hippies...
Anyway, to me it seems as though both the progressivism in the era we are studying as well as the "progressivism" in this article are driven by greed. (Be warned, less than two hours ago I saw the new Michael Moore movie about capitalism) Although in the short term this system seems to be profitable for those on top, it pushes the people at the bottom of the economic ladder even farther down. In the Gilded age a select few rose to the top and became almost unimaginably wealthy. The same thing has happened in current corporate America. As these people become wealthier they are less and less concerned with the affect their business has on the consumers at the bottom. In this article it seems that Andrew Taylor is advocating a similar approach, we supply the car, which you pay for, and then to boot, you have to pay to make it run.
i agree with tessa, not only is Taylor the CEO of enterprise Rent-a-car rich, but he's very smart. and im guessing that smartness has helped him a lot over the years. his idea that the government should have a fixed gas rate of 3$ makes sense. from this idea, basically everyone would somehow benefit from it. the companies would be doing better financially because they would now know what the average person wants in a car, and that most likely be a fuel efficient car, that saves them money. but it would also cost more then the average car which would benefit the car companies because they'll be making a bigger profit then they were before. because now the person them self also knows what they want. i also think and agree with the writer and think that taylor is pragmatist. because like kevin E. said even though this plan would help everyone as a whole it the main purpose of it for taylor is to make profit from it...self interest. but he also does want to improve things for the future & wants to spur innovation with having a fixed gas rate. and yeah, i hope i made sense which i doubt i did.
I agree with Daniel Gross that Taylor and the other CEOs are not doing the things they do for an altruistic cause. Gross gives the example of big companies embracing Obama's economic plans "for profit, not just for politics." Other CEOs think that higher taxes or prices would help make a higher profit. Taylor wants higher gas prices for the same reason. These businesses will make a lot of profit while other people get stuck paying the higher prices. This reminds me of the Gilded Age where a few people got rich at the expense of others. They got to live life and go to parties while their employees worked long hours for little pay. Their employees had to pay taxes and for the essentials, but still ended up in debt. There was no way they could have ended up rich like their employers. Taylor's idea was for gas prices to be around $3-4 per gallon, but these days, it's between $2.50-$4, making it possible for prices that are lower than $3. I know 50 cents is not a lot of money, but it adds up with all the gallons you buy. I don't think making gas prices higher will be better even though it makes future spending more predictable. It's worth it to pay less for a while and not know what prices will be in the future.
I found out that on average, Americans use about 142.5 gallons of gas a year and that they spent huge amounts of money on gas. If prices at set between $3-4, then people would want to buy more fuel-efficient cars and that would help our economy a lot. Also if the companies know that people are more interested in buying more fuel efficient cars they would be making more, also companies would be making more profits (as these cars cost more), and they might not need as much bail out money with could go towards other things like the economy. Although this seems like a good idea there are some problems with it. What if the cheapest gas we can find is sold at $4 a gallon? Then we are losing money and something would have to be done, and now you can't change the price because it is set by the government. Also with the way the economy is right now and the war, gas is one of the smaller topics right now. Many people are losing there jobs, not many people can afford gas prices to go up and many people can't afford higher priced cars. I also feel that one reason why Tyler wants this to happen is that he is very rich and could get richer if this happens and with him being one of the main men behind this idea his party will also gain a lot of support. I do believe that this is a good idea and should be noticed but this is just not the right time for it to take place.
Republicans are mostly not in favor of socialistic ideas, especially rather well-off republicans who don’t have to worry about health insurance and want lower taxes. To see a CEO of a big, successful business, who donates mostly to republican candidates, like Andrew Taylor, advocate for a fixed gas price even if it means a high national gas tax, shows how threatened even people in high places are by the recession and today’s economy. Someone who commented before me mentioned how the number of people looking favorably on the Republican Party is rapidly decreasing and this article seemed to point out some of the many flaws in the way things in our capitalist markets have been run under the Bush Administration. It seems to me that people, even people who’ve profited the same way big companies in the late 1800s to early 1900s profited from the labor of others, are coming around to the notion that there has to be some sort of safety net for the economy. The Great Depression of the 20th century was not so long ago and the Hooverville that was inhabited by thousands of people sleeping in cardboard boxes in Central Park was just a few miles away from where the bronze bull of Wall St. stands today.
Taylor's idea of a set national price for gas does not seem that smart to me. Yes, some people will be happier knowing that it's 3 dollars but that is just human nature to be scared of the unknown. Can we really predict the actual price of gas and even if we do, gas does not come from the U.S. anyway. America is in a war, and with the money for gas, it is supplying the "enemies". Can we really be sure that after the price is set on 3 dollars it will be stable? This to me, seems like a temporary tool to making profit to a set group of people, that excludes the lower and middle class. Taylor serves as a classical representation of that group and as many people have pointed out, it is very similar to the GIlded Age and will result in even a larger gap between classes. In addition, it is umlikely that Taylor, who is on the list of Fords 400, has much in common with those he claims to help. It is one thing to talk about something, and another to experience it. His idea of help and stability is not the same for many others.
I don’t really think the working and middle class could afford this additional tax, right off of a recession. Even though the tax itself wouldn’t make gas cost too much more than it does presently, the results of the tax could be much worse for the average American. First, with higher gas prices, it would probably be a good idea to buy a more fuel efficient car. Cars are very expensive, and I’m pretty sure hybrids/electrical cars cost even more than regular cars. Second, all of the businesses that aren’t already fairly fuel efficient, or aren’t able to adapt quickly will go bankrupt. Not only will tons of people lose their jobs, but there is also a good chance that only the most fuel efficient companies will survive, and monopolies will be even bigger than before. Another point is that not all Americans want to buy fuel efficient cars, because if they did there would be no need for this tax. Forcing this tax to be paid will force Americans into buying cars they don’t want. Lastly, is there anyway to guarantee that the gas price will remain below four dollars? I’m not sure if it would be impossible to raise it that high or not, but with more fuel efficient cars Americans could afford to pay more, and those who proposed the tax may be keenly aware of this.
the gas tax would be a bad idea right now because Americans as a whole cant afford to pay extra with already high prices. the tax could in the future, once the economy is better, be successful. then again maybe not. its not really up to someone with a 7 billion net worth, Andrew Taylor, to say what he thinks is best for the average American. personally i don't consider 7billion the average American.
Post a Comment