All the bud I smoked in college came from KY and CO. And I drive a SUV. Oh god, the guilt......I am such a supporter of terrorism.
That's the point. Choice. I love how some people think that they can tell consumers what is wasteful or not. EDIT: Next they'll tell you that you are being wasteful because you can afford a house that is X number of square feet. Perhaps they'll start burning houses down. People are spending they're hard earned money for these completely legal, roomy, cool-looking, gas-guzzling vehicles. And they pay for the oil and gas used to power them. Freaks like Huffington are truely terrorists. Instead of dealing with the system, they launch an assault on the public.
Why can't we buy oil from these countries without them flying planes into our buildings? Is that too much to ask? Are they that screwed up? Just some questions.
I guess we should stop flying since planes and jets use fuel too? Let's get back to using steams ships and trains. I have a Grand Cherokee that is paid for. I'm not selling it.
I am waiting on the Hydrogen powered SUV...in the mean time, my family will happily drive our gas powered SUVs. DD
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday on the back of a Volvo that said... SUV=WWIII ... it was also covered with rainbow stickers, = stickers, Clinton Gore stickers, and a calvin peeing on bin laden.
This morning's <a href="http://www.democracynow.org">Democracy Now!</a> has an interesting discussion about this commercial and SUVs in general.
mas links: The Detroit Project http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/ads/headshots.ram http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/ads/george.ram http://www.marketplace.org/play/aud.../08_mpp&start=00:00:13:56.0&end=00:00:17:00.0
I don't mind SUVs in principle... I have an old beater that I drive in the snow and around the woods... but I do think your typical suburban SUV owner is being sold a bill of goods they don't need. Also, the ruse that SUVs are farm trucks and therefore not subject to fuel economy standards is ridiculous. I don't see why we can't have a middle way that keeps our SUVs and improves their fuel efficiency. I think the same reasoning that allows SUVs to be classified as farm trucks allow businesses to use SUVs as company cars and then claim a deduction for a work vehicle, though I don't know the particulars on this. Anyway, SUVs are not inherently bad, but they can be stupid purchases and IMHO, if we tightened up the regs a bit we'd all be better off.
I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with oil or buying oil from terrorists who hate us. 9/11 was about troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (at the Saudi's request - no matter what they say they still don't trust Saddam) and Bin Laden's megalomania (he was a big fish fighting the Russians and after the Russians left, he's got to rally the troups around <i>somthing</i>). You know, Bin Laden has made a big effort to tie his causes into other Islamic causes to rally people around him and he's been somewhat successful (i.e. many Moslems may think he is fighting against Jews for Palestine or that he's trying to keep America from it's "mission" of destroying Islam). However, his causes have nothing to do with the other Middle East concerns (whether legit or made up). Just because some poor, uneducated hick in the Middle East buys Bin Laden's propoganda doesn't mean we should.
I drive an SUV (as does my wife) for several reasons. 1) We have 4 kids. Throw in the occasional carpool to soccer practice or to a birthday party and you got a definite need for a bigger car with 3 rows of seats. 2) SUV's, IMO, are safer. Whether I am driving in the city or on the highway, I feel safer in a bigger, higher vehicle where I can see better. Do the statistics support my claim? Maybe, maybe not... I have no clue. My common sense tells me that if I were to get into an accident (especially if, God for bid there were kids in the car) that the people in my car would incur less damage than if I was in a smaller car. 3) Unlike most on this bbs, I live in the northeast, where weather is a factor as well. Granted, we don;t get as much snow as Green Bay or Denver...but I can assure you that over the course of a winter, I am glad that I have an SUV. I think its silly to advertise that an SUV is more of a terrorist-supporting item than say, a Honda civic. They use the same gas. To compare the ad with the one that links drugs to terrorism is a joke as well. Drugs are illegal...gas is a necessity.
Companies are allowed to take the section 179 deduction once a year ($20,000 for tax year 2002). This deduction is basically accelerated depreciation against business property placed in service during the tax year. There are severe limitations to the deduction for passenger automobiles such that it makes more sense to just use regular depreciation for you car. The loophole is that a passenger automobile is defined (for tax purposes) as a car or light truck under 6000 lbs gross vehicle weight. Therefore, a truck or vehicle built on a truck frame that has a gross vehicle weight of over 6000 lbs. is exempt from the limitations, and you can use the section 179 deduction against it. That's why you'll see so many self-employed people driving larger trucks and SUV's. (1 ton and 3/4 ton pickups, half ton extended cabs, Expeditions and larger, Tahoe's and larger, etc.) 4-runners, Rodeo's, and half-ton regular cabs don't quite make it.
BTW---I've kind of been on the fence about a war with Iraq. I think Saddam needs to be ousted, but I'm little bit waffling when it comes to doing something most of the world might be against. I hate to see us open ourselves up to more terrorism. BUT THESE COMMERCIALS make me want to go out and.. 1) Buy a Hummer 2) fully support any and every war on terrorism
When I drive around in my SUV I feel good that I use extra gas so somewhere out there, there's another Texaco, Shell, Pennzoil, ect. employee living in Houston that will be able to pay rent, buy food, send kids to College, and buy Rocket's tickets.
I find it funny that regular car owners who complain about SUVs don't go out and buy Geo Metros. I mean, what would make a bigger impact on the environment: (A) Going from a 17mpg SUV to a 25mpg car (B) Going from a 25mpg car to a 40mpg car
The point that SUV drivers pay for the gas is a bit flawed, because gas prices in the US are artificially low compared to the rest of the world. If SUV drivers shelled out what people in, say, the UK pay per gallon (excuse me, liter), then a more sensible economic equilibrium would follow. Our government, hand-in-hand with our culture, has (and has had for a long time, from both political parties) a policy of supporting the maximization of gasoline comsumption.
