Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 5:15 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 4 hrs 15 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Westport Innovations Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • bigfatty_guns bigfatty_guns Mar 8, 2012 7:27 PM Flag

    REP. CANTOR VOTES NO

    Again, just like in 2008, the gov-Enron-ment doesn't want you to be anything but a slave. This is tyranny. Why wouldn't people vote for nat gas vehicles and more options for consumers?

    Same crooks and corruption today as in 2008.

    Well, without things to get nat gas vehicles here and now, get ready for the gas bubble to burst.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Cantor, in voting against the Natgas act, restates that governments shouldn't pick winners and losers. He further emphasized the free market was ALREADY driving the adoption of natural gas.

      A letter from a group of conservative organizations states “The goals of the NAT GAS Act are being achieved by the free market without the additional government involvement mandated by the NAT GAS Act,”.

      • 2 Replies to johnmumford22
      • I agree. No govt involvement, period.

        Nat gas at $2.24??? That's roughly $.29/gallon equivalent (in gasoline) with oil @ $107.

        Assuming:
        $2.24 for 1,000,000 BTUs in 1,000 cu ft of nat gas
        $107 for 5,487,000 BTUs in barrel of oil

        Undeniably, the argument is done. It's simply corruption and "f the people/consumers" in the way now. Of course, those put out of business supplanting coal or oil (incl fuel oil)...lots of tears.

        Bigger hurdle is consumers coming up with money to convert/buy NGVs. Consumer is tapped out. So with econ like it is now, demand is sketchy and supply (infrastructure) not good. No filling stations.

      • <<Cantor, in voting against the Natgas act, restates that governments shouldn't pick winners and losers. He further emphasized the free market was ALREADY driving the adoption of natural gas.

        A letter from a group of conservative organizations states “The goals of the NAT GAS Act are being achieved by the free market without the additional government involvement mandated by the NAT GAS Act,”.
        Rating : >>

        Even though the nat gas act is a rare "sensible subsidy" rather than bad subsidies like the rest of the Obama/Chu green energy program imho, we should be looking at removing the latter subsidies rather than adding this new subsidy. Our Federal government has been spending like a drunken sailor with Obama adding more to the debt in one term than reckless big spender George Bush added in two terms.

        This growing debt is setting up a catastrophe waiting to happen. Washington needs to implement serious tax reform a la Simpson-Boyles bipartisan debt commission recommendations, where tax preferences and loopholes are removed from the tax code, overall rates lowered to make us more competitive internationally, but overall tax revenue increased. And we need to reform our unsustainable entitlement programs like both Simpson-Boyles and CBO says we have to do as well. If we do not do this in the near future, our Greece like fate will be sealed.

 
WPRT
13.19-0.24(-1.79%)Apr 23 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.