Originally Posted by ralphie
I've had trouble with up to 10% ethanol in my boat, as have many others. The older the motor, the worse it is. The problem will be, as the amount of ethanol increases, it will force us, the consumer, to get rid of older but otherwise perfectly usable equipment. Oh yea, that's what the nanny state wants us to do. And, without the subsidy, won't the higher cost of ethanol also increase our overall fuel prices?
That's exactly like the "Cash for Clunkers" program wanted... stimulate auto sales at the expense of removing many good vehicles from circulation (supposedly helping air pollution too?). The road to "you know where" is paved... nanny government seems to be increasingly involved in everything to what end?
This is where my comment earlier (in the $8.00 a gallon blog) about installing electric mono-rails down the center of major highways came in. I read one comment about California being "broke", well do ya think I'm not aware of this? You left Calif. in disgust and I wish I could leave, but selling my house at a loss won't fly.
"All those high taxes and we are still broke"; but remember California has an ADDITIONAL 40 cents a gallon in taxes on their cost of gas which (thankfully) doesn't end up in the general fund! Now my comment regarding those mono-rails was directed at this enormous amount of money which is only being used to build more roads, rather than an ELECTRIC mono-rail system which is really a no~brainer. Instead, the legislature in Sacramento is trying to get a "bullet-train" passed.
Just like the ethanol debacle it seems the majority of our elected officials are not using good sense when it comes to spending our hard-earned money (taxes) and continue to cry for more to fund these programs that benefit a small percentage of the population.
I haven't heard any comments or questions about the high cost of diesel fuel (higher than premium gas!), when it is the least expensive to make relative to gasoline blends.
fix that car