# The Affordable Car Act 2014



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 2, 2012)

I have been thinking a lot about the Affordable Care Act and I have come to the conclusion that it's the best thing ever.  I wanted to do my part, so I came up with the Affordable Car Act, and I'm going to send it to my elected representatives in Washington DC so they can introduce it as a Bill and hopefully vote it into law.  Now that we know that individual mandates are Constitutional so long as they fall under the 'tax' category of federal powers, there is no reason not to extend this to cover other social needs.

Whereas we need affordable cars to get to work, and many people do not have access to affordable cars, it is incumbent upon a rich society such as ours to provide affordable cars to everyone,

And,

Whereas it is important that we cut our dependence on foreign oil, and domestic drilling and 'fracking' are bad and known to cause heartburn in tree-huggers, it is incumbent upon the government to require everyone to drive an alternative-fuel vehicle,

Be it then resolved that the United States of America will, beginning in 2014, require every American over the age of 16 to purchase and maintain an alternative-energy car.  This will also require the purchase of automobile insurance appropriate to the state of residence, and the storage and regular maintenance of same.

The majority of Americans who already own cars will be unaffected, except that they will be required to 'phase out' their use of internal combustion vehicles which burn fossil fuel and purchase alternative-fuel vehicles which burn renewable fuels or run on alternative sources of power such as electricity.  To make this affordable, all citizens of driving age who earn less than an amount to be determined later will receive subsidies from the federal government for the purchase of an alternative-fuel vehicle.  These subsidies will be based on income and will be received as a reduction in income tax owed at the end of the year when filing taxes.  Citizens regardless of income will need to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles prior to filing for tax breaks based on income.

Those citizens deemed able to afford to purchase new alternative-fuel vehicles will not receive any tax assistance from the federal government.  In addition, they will pay a new use tax based on miles driven, as determined by mandatory GPS transceivers mounted in all new vehicles sold after 2012, and they will be required to pay a new fee on all automobiles purchased from auto manufacturers not owned by the federal government.

The subsidies to low-income citizens for new alternative-fuel vehicles must be paid for by an individual mandate.  So even those who prefer to bike or take public transportation or live in large cities where driving is impractical will be required to purchase a new alternative-fuel vehicle.  Failure to do so will result in a 'fee' charged by the IRS on taxes due at the end of the year.  It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will call this a 'tax', but the federal government will require all citizens to call it a 'fee' instead.  Failure to call the tax a fee will be punishable by law.

Since alternative-fuel technology is still increasing and there is currently no major infrastructure to provide charging stations and alternative-fuel filling stations across the USA, the federal government will embark upon a grand expansion of these stations, based on studies which show where Americans need to drive, and paid for with a new 'national alternative fuel infrastructure tax' levied on all American wage-earners, regardless of whether or not they drive their required alternative-fuel vehicles.

All vehicles sold in the USA after 2013 will also be designed to stop running at the 80,000 mile mark, requiring the owner to puchase a new vehicle.  This will ensure that the economy is kept in motion with new vehicle purchases.  A new branch of government, the Department of Recycling, will ensure that all cars past the 80,000 mile mark are properly recycled to be made into new alternative-fuel vehicles.  Since it costs more than the raw materials required to build such a vehicle to recycle the old parts, a new tax will be levied on all citizens to pay for this necessary work.

*************

Now, while may seem on the surface to any intelligent person that the average citizen will be required to fund the purchase of a wildly-expensive vehicle every couple years whether they want one or not, that they're being forced to purchase a car even if they don't drive or have no license, that they will be paying a multitude of increased fees and taxes, and that even those who will supposedly receive 'free' cars will have to front the money and then MAYBE get a percentage of that refunded at the end of the year, I assure you THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

This entire purpose of this ACA is to make cars affordable, even if math, logic, and the rules of the universe prove this is not the case.  How do you know?  Because that's what the Act is called, dummy.

And it will be against the law to argue that 'affordable' does not actually mean 'huge new taxes and fees'.  This Act will be popular and make citizens happy, by Act of Law.


----------



## Steve (Jul 2, 2012)

If I drive my car for 12 to 14 years, it will have saved ~$25k in fuel, which means that an effectively free car is already available.    the idea that alternative fuel cars are expensive is a myth.  
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> If I drive my car for 12 to 14 years, it will have saved ~$25k in fuel, which means that an effectively free car is already available.    the idea that alternative fuel cars are expensive is a myth.
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



Exactly the government's point.  Who cares if you *can't afford* the *upfront cost* to buy such a car?  If you're poor, the government will help you buy one (after you front the money and file your taxes later) and if you're not poor, you should be forced to buy one anyway.  I can see how this kind of bully-boy tactic, er, oops, I mean enlightened and benevolent leader theory works.  

But in reality - no.  Electric and dual-powered vehicles need new batteries, which are a huge expense.  Insurance costs are much higher when you have to insure a financed car than one that is paid for and can legally carry only liability insurance.  Older cars can be repaired far less expensively by local mechanics who do not have or cannot afford the specialized equipment required for the most modern hybrid and electric vehicles.  And so on.  Fuel costs are only a small part of per-mile amortization of the cost of driving.

And in any case, even if were 'cheaper' to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle, that is not a valid reason to force citizens to buy one.  My post was meant to be sarcastic and point out the evil logic of the Affordable Care Act, apparently lost in translation?


----------



## zDom (Jul 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My post was meant to be sarcastic and point out the evil logic of the Affordable Care Act, apparently lost in translation?



Nah, I got it 

I want to tack on the Fourth Pillar amendment.

Everybody is going to read news eventually and it is important to democracy (the fourth pillar of democracy!).

So everybody needs to buy a newspaper every day even if you aren't going to read it that day. Otherwise, those who do read everyday will be subsidizing those who won't buy one until they want to read the news.

We could set up news exchanges for those unable to find a reliable and affordable news source on their own.


----------



## Steve (Jul 2, 2012)

It was obviously sarcastic, but it is also built on some popular but untrue premises.  Such as that alternative fuel cars are expensive.  If I save as much over 12 years as I did last year the savings in fuel have effectively paid for the car.  That's just the difference in what I did pay for gas and what I do pay for the electricity.

  Every car has maintenance costs.   It's only an insightful observation if it's grounded in reality.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Jul 2, 2012)

http://newamerica.net/user/115

Lisa Margonelli had an interesting presentation a while back on the cost of cars etc, and how the lower financial echelons suffer.

You really only can safe money if you can afford to drop it in purchase price first.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> http://newamerica.net/user/115
> 
> Lisa Margonelli had an interesting presentation a while back on the cost of cars etc, and how the lower financial echelons suffer.
> 
> You really only can safe money if you can afford to drop it in purchase price first.



Little did I know that there would be people who thought my sarcastic commentary would be be embraced as a good idea.  Good grief!  Yes, poor people have a human right to own a car, and those not poor should be forced to buy it for them.  Right.  NO!


----------



## granfire (Jul 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Little did I know that there would be people who thought my sarcastic commentary would be be embraced as a good idea.  Good grief!  Yes, poor people have a human right to own a car, and those not poor should be forced to buy it for them.  Right.  NO!



LIEK ZOMG...


hey, you might have been sarcastic, but the math is still there.

However, somewhere in the base of the idea, there is that notion that we don't need no stinkin electric cars...the consumer don't want them....

More of the same old same old....until the numbers are presented. Saving money on gas is really cool...forget about the eco deal as long as the bottom line improves. 

But I get it, you were sarcastic.

(but the lady still had an awesome presentation on why the middle class got screwed on the car deal in the last 4 years, effectively shrinking their networth, by driving alone)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> LIEK ZOMG...
> 
> 
> hey, you might have been sarcastic, but the math is still there.
> ...



The point you make that *freaks me out* is the notion that since the math is right for electric cars, and consumers refuse to make the 'right' choice, they should therefore be forced to.  That gacks me double hard.  I'm serious, my head wants to explode right off my shoulders.  It's like every ultra-conservative's accusation about liberals come true with a vengeance, and the liberal in question going _"Yeah, so?"_

I like you, but inside I'm going OH MY FREAKING GAWD!


----------



## granfire (Jul 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The point you make that *freaks me out* is the notion that since the math is right for electric cars, and consumers refuse to make the 'right' choice, they should therefore be forced to.  That gacks me double hard.  I'm serious, my head wants to explode right off my shoulders.  It's like every ultra-conservative's accusation about liberals come true with a vengeance, and the liberal in question going _"Yeah, so?"_
> 
> I like you, but inside I'm going OH MY FREAKING GAWD!




LOL, no, not like you can make Americans do anything unless you make it look like it was their own idea.

it's the same with photo cells on the roof. it would make sense to put them up in most parts of the country. The upfront cost is prohibitive for most people.

(I didn't think you are easily freaked, let alone by something that is not real :lol


----------



## Omar B (Jul 2, 2012)

Interesting thread.  I will write more later when I'm home.  A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable.  What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.


----------



## billc (Jul 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks, this whole thing will look a lot better after you drink this nice glass of obamacare kool-aid and place this complementary Obamacare "pod," under your bed tonight before you go to sleep.  It will all make much more sense in the morning.


----------



## Balrog (Jul 2, 2012)

Excellent!  Promptly stolen and reposted!


----------



## Gentle Fist (Jul 2, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Interesting thread.  I will write more later when I'm home.  A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable.  What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.



Well said!


----------



## granfire (Jul 2, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Interesting thread.  I will write more later when I'm home.  A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable.  What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.



Communist!


----------



## 72ronin (Jul 3, 2012)

So, something like an electric "volkswagon"


----------



## Omar B (Jul 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> Communist!



What the hell?

In any case, the government is not here to make sure you can drive around in some crap economy car subsidized to heck and back with all the saftey, fuel saving technology and high tech matrerials priced out to the lowest bidder.  Makes me wonder how much more awful a car can get.  If the government is gonna pay for cars then we are all gonna get some damn crap cars.


----------



## shinbushi (Jul 3, 2012)

Omar B said:


> Interesting thread.  I will write more later when I'm home.  A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable.  What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.


Did you actually say L.A. and rapid transit in the same sentence?  mass transit in L.A. is horrible.  also the county with the BEST mass transit is Japan AND all the buses trains and subways are PRIVATELY owned.  From what I head from Japanese was when the government ran it was horrible.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 3, 2012)

Oh I agree that public transport and such should be the realm of private enterprise.  Same for health care and a lot more.  I'm an objectivist, I don't want government in anything.

But the conceit of the thread is a government/car thing so that's the sandbox I'm playing in.


----------



## granfire (Jul 3, 2012)

Omar B said:


> What the hell?
> 
> In any case, the government is not here to make sure you can drive around in some crap economy car subsidized to heck and back with all the saftey, fuel saving technology and high tech matrerials priced out to the lowest bidder.  Makes me wonder how much more awful a car can get.  If the government is gonna pay for cars then we are all gonna get some damn crap cars.



:lfao:

You don't lay around in the Study often enough.

or you'd know that everything not GOP is communist...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> If I drive my car for 12 to 14 years, it will have saved ~$25k in fuel, which means that an effectively free car is already available.    the idea that alternative fuel cars are expensive is a myth.



I dunno... to me that's like saying "That Cancer treatment isn't expensive because it will extend your life by 10 years and you can earn that kind of money at your job in the extra 10 years you get"  But that still doesn't make the Cancer treatment cheap.  

An alternative fuel car is ****ING expensive to purchase.  Its much cheaper to operate.  Does it eventually balance out?  Probably.  Does that mean anyone can afford one over a "normal" car?  Hell no.  Shelling out 40k up front and maybe 15 bucks a month beyond is a hell of a lot different then shelling out 2,000 - 13,999 up front and then an extra 60-100 bucks a month beyond.  In the place I live (I like to call it "The Real World") the Second option, while more expensive in the long run, is the more affordable of the two plans.

Now, when I can go to a police Auction and pick up an alternative fuel car for 1800 bucks cash like I did my current car, we can talk.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 8, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I dunno... to me that's like saying "That Cancer treatment isn't expensive because it will extend your life by 10 years and you can earn that kind of money at your job in the extra 10 years you get"  But that still doesn't make the Cancer treatment cheap.
> 
> An alternative fuel car is ****ING expensive to purchase.  Its much cheaper to operate.  Does it eventually balance out?  Probably.  Does that mean anyone can afford one over a "normal" car?  Hell no.  Shelling out 40k up front and maybe 15 bucks a month beyond is a hell of a lot different then shelling out 2,000 - 13,999 up front and then an extra 60-100 bucks a month beyond.  In the place I live (I like to call it "The Real World") the Second option, while more expensive in the long run, is the more affordable of the two plans.
> 
> Now, when I can go to a police Auction and pick up an alternative fuel car for 1800 bucks cash like I did my current car, we can talk.



It's that "Let them eat cake," response, literally.  The old story behind that line was that Marie Antoinette asked why the peasants were revolting (insert Blazing Saddles line here for laughs) and she was told that they were revolting because they could not afford the price of bread.  Her response was 'then let them eat cake'.

There are many who do not understand the words that come out of their mouths.  To them, if option B is cheaper in the long run than option A, you should do it.  Oh, you don't have the upfront money to pay for option B?  Gallic shrug.  Oh, well, guess you should have saved your money then.

I'm with you; bought my last car on eBay.  $500.  Runs great, 30-35MPG.  It just looks like hell and my neighbors hate it.  Oh well.  When they chip in to buy me a fancy alternative energy car, I'll get rid of it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 8, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I dunno... to me that's like saying "That Cancer treatment isn't expensive because it will extend your life by 10 years and you can earn that kind of money at your job in the extra 10 years you get"  But that still doesn't make the Cancer treatment cheap.
> 
> An alternative fuel car is ****ING expensive to purchase.  Its much cheaper to operate.  Does it eventually balance out?  Probably.  Does that mean anyone can afford one over a "normal" car?  Hell no.  Shelling out 40k up front and maybe 15 bucks a month beyond is a hell of a lot different then shelling out 2,000 - 13,999 up front and then an extra 60-100 bucks a month beyond.  In the place I live (I like to call it "The Real World") the Second option, while more expensive in the long run, is the more affordable of the two plans.
> 
> Now, when I can go to a police Auction and pick up an alternative fuel car for 1800 bucks cash like I did my current car, we can talk.



Well, I don't think it's anything like cancer treatment, because it's a car and we're not talking about medical treatment or the possibility of death.  I'm a little surprised you didn't bring up the nazis... that was someone else with their reference to the VW.  Nothing like alarmism and association with things that are negative to strengthen one's position, eh?

Second, it's not anything like the math in your analogy.  There's no "possibility you can earn that kind of money at your job in the extra 10 years you get."  Rather, it's like, I paid X and now I pay X-$200.   

But I'll gladly talk to you about my "real world" experience with both ICE cars and an EV, because, you know, in the real world, I actually have owned both.  What about you?  Here in the  real world, where we both apparently live, how much ACTUAL experience do you have driving alternative fuel cars?  Ever even seen one in person?   I paid $25k for my Nissan LEAF, out the door, including tax, title and licensing fees (which can add thousands depending upon your local sales tax).  It would have been $32k without the $7500 tax credit.  

Also, I'm not sure where you live or how much you drive, but gas in Washington is the most expensive in the country right now.  We were up into the $4/gallon range and have recently dropped back down to the $3.10 to $3.25 range per gallon.   Now that they've broken the $4/gal mark, it will make its way there for good within a year.

It's about apples to apples.  If you're in the market for a new car, $25k isn't that expensive, particularly if you consider cost of ownership.   And I've posted the statistics in another thread about new car ownership and the average monthly car payments.  This is not an issue of what people can afford.  It's about priorities.  And that's okay.  The original premise of this thread was tongue and cheek.  I certainly don't think that the government should mandate that everyone drive the same car.  Drive what you want and pay what you can.  If you can afford to pay gas prices that will be up in the $4/gallon range soon, more power to you.  I can't.  I have three kids and would rather spend my money on other things.  

My comment was strictly to point out that there are some myths about alternative fuel cars and EVs that aren't true.  That they are expensive is one of them.  They just aren't, and if you are truly frugal, you'll understand that the car literally pays for itself in savings on fuel, if you can drive it for 15 years.  The batteries have a 10 year warranty, so if I drive the car for just the 10 year period, I'll have saved somewhere in the area of $20,000 on gas, and that's if it stays in the low to mid $3/gal range... which it won't.  I, frankly, can't understand how you can say that $20,000 in 10 years is other than enormous savings.  It's mindblowing, to me.  

Ultimately, you should be free to drive whatever the heck you want.  But, I personally had reached my threshold dealing with the monopoly that the oil companies have on gas and fuel prices.  It literally pissed me off to fill up my car.  My threshold was $3 per gallon.  I predict that most peoples' threshold for the same will be the mid-$4s to $5/gallon range.  At that point, I see the rhetoric changing from reasons (true or not) to not buy an EV or other alternative fuel car.  

The phenomenon is interesting to me.  It's like telling some people that they don't actually need to get their oil changed every 3000 miles on a new car.  Use synthetic oil and you can go 15,000 miles, but they insist.  "Nope.  Jiffy lube says every 3000 miles, and that's what I'll do."  Waste of money?  Yeah.  Is it true?  Maybe for some cars...  I know that my air cooled VWs needed frequent oil changes, but for most people?  No, it's a blatant falsehood.  You just flat out don't need to change your oil that often.  Most car manufacturers recommend 5000 for conventional oil and between 10 and 15k miles for synthetics.  the entire thing better resembles superstition than any actual consideration of cost.  And that's okay.  Just don't confuse superstition for, you know, the real world.  



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jul 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's that "Let them eat cake," response, literally.  The old story behind that line was that Marie Antoinette asked why the peasants were revolting (insert Blazing Saddles line here for laughs) and she was told that they were revolting because they could not afford the price of bread.  Her response was 'then let them eat cake'.
> 
> There are many who do not understand the words that come out of their mouths.  To them, if option B is cheaper in the long run than option A, you should do it.  Oh, you don't have the upfront money to pay for option B?  Gallic shrug.  Oh, well, guess you should have saved your money then.
> 
> I'm with you; bought my last car on eBay.  $500.  Runs great, 30-35MPG.  It just looks like hell and my neighbors hate it.  Oh well.  When they chip in to buy me a fancy alternative energy car, I'll get rid of it.



Of course, there is significant evidence that Marie Antoinette never actually said anything of the sort, but as Mark Twain said, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story."   It's chuckle worthy that you guys are using myths to support other myths, though.  

There will always be a place for cheap, practical transportation.  In the short term, you can absolutely get around on a good condition Geo Metro for very little initial cost.  But as long as gas prices stay above $3/gallon or higher, and energy prices remain regulated, there is an inevitable breakeven point on cost of ownership between ICE and EV vehicles.  Driving a less expensive, more economical gas powered vehicle just pushes that point out a few more years. 

And the snide, back handed insults are unnecessary.  "There are many who do not understand the words that come out of their mouths?"  What sort of passive aggressive crap is that?  Particularly since you and I have discussed these things in the past.  You know I understand your point.  I'm not so sure you truly understand mine.    


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 8, 2012)

Steve said:


> There will always be a place for cheap, practical transportation.  In the short term, you can absolutely get around on a good condition Geo Metro for very little initial cost.  But as long as gas prices stay above $3/gallon or higher, and energy prices remain regulated, there is an inevitable breakeven point on cost of ownership between ICE and EV vehicles.  Driving a less expensive, more economical gas powered vehicle just pushes that point out a few more years.



I actually don't dispute what you're saying.

I think there is a disparity in the way people think the market should move, or be made to move.

In time, existing vehicles will age and be unable to be repaired.  Newer alternative energy vehicles will become older and less expensive, if the market embraces them.

And there's the rub.  If the market does not move to alternative energy itself, is it incumbent upon government to move it?  And assuming that it is, how best to move the market?

Typically, mandating that people buy something based on what's good for them doesn't play well in the USA.  That's why so many people like a lot of the provisions of the health care modifications, but don't like being told what to do.


----------



## Steve (Jul 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I actually don't dispute what you're saying.
> 
> I think there is a disparity in the way people think the market should move, or be made to move.
> 
> ...



And sometimes, people fear change, particularly when they're being persuaded to do so.  We (humans) are creatures of momentum.  I just got back from DisneyWorld with the family.  Our 3 year old was fearful of many of the rides.  It's a balancing act, though, as her parent.  I know she'd like a lot of rides.  So, I push her.  I convince her to get on rides I know she'll like.  And she does... in the end.  After we're off the ride, she wants to do it again.  She wasn't afraid of the ride.  She was afraid of the unfamiliar.  But there is a point.  If she's adamant she doesn't want to ride something, there's only so far I'm going to push.  I certainly won't drag her crying onto rides. If, after sharing all of the information I have about how fun and cool the ride is, she still didn't want to do it, we didn't do it.  We'll try again next time.

On a larger scale, moving away from oil is the same thing.  Is the Tower of Terror for everyone?  Certainly not.  But there are a LOT of people out there who would LOVE it, if they would get past their fear of the unknown and give it a try with an open mind.   And as I did with my three year old at DisneyWorld, I'll share what information I have.  In the end, I'm not going to make anyone do anything they don't want to do.  It doesn't keep me from enjoying myself on the rides.  

Edit:  And isn't the mandate to buy the alternative auto a work of fiction?  Didn't you make that up?  Why are you now bringing it up as though it's a bill in Congress?  I thought you wrote the OP as a joke.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 8, 2012)

Steve said:


> Edit:  And isn't the mandate to buy the alternative auto a work of fiction?  Didn't you make that up?  Why are you now bringing it up as though it's a bill in Congress?  I thought you wrote the OP as a joke.



I did, but it really highlighted something I had not intended.  A basic difference in core philosophy.  Not one side good and one side bad, but enlightening nonetheless.  What's it to be, the invisible hand, or the guidance of the government?


----------



## billc (Jul 8, 2012)

> It just looks like hell and my neighbors hate it. Oh well. When they chip in to buy me a fancy alternative energy car, I'll get rid of it.



You forget option "B" Bill Mattocks.  Your neighbors pass an ordinance about cars that look like hell, and they send in government agents to confiscate the car if you refuse to get rid of it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did, but it really highlighted something I had not intended.  A basic difference in core philosophy.  Not one side good and one side bad, but enlightening nonetheless.  What's it to be, the invisible hand, or the guidance of the government?


So, we're going to discuss it now, as though it's real?  Abraham Lincoln kills vampires in the latest movie.  Doest this highlight a basic difference in core philosophy?  Should the Federal government should be involved in the killing of the undead?  My opinion is that it's indulgent and leads to giving more stock to boogymen superstition.  

You:  
"Let's presume for a second that the government is mandating that everyone own a golf cart."  
Me:  
"But it's not."
You:
"Yeah, but let's pretend that it is."
Me:
"But it's not."
You:
"I... get that.  But say it is."
Me:
"Okay.  Fine.  Let's pretend it is."
You:
"I hate the government and it's because they mandate that I own a golf cart."
Me:
"But they don't."
You:
"Yeah, but they MIGHT.  It could happen!"


----------



## billc (Jul 8, 2012)

Yeah, Bill Mattocks, it is kind of silly.  Saying that the government might mandate that you buy an electric car would be like them saying what kind of toilet you had to use, what kind of light bulb you could use, what kind of washer and dryer you could have, what size soda you could sell in your business, how much salt you could have in your restaruant  or for goodness sake thinking that the government could mandate that you get health incsurance...er tax you for not having health insurance...you're just being silly.


----------

