backtop


Print 195 comment(s) - last by Magnus Dredd.. on Nov 2 at 4:49 PM


Truckmakers who fail to meet the proposed standards could face fines and financial penalties, which could hurt truckers and raise the average price of commercial goods across the U.S.  (Source: Road Transport)

The Obama administration insists that more market regulation will actually save truckers money and combat pollution.  (Source: Info Wars)
The Obama administration believes that the trucking industry doesn't understand what's good for them

As the U.S. federal government races to combat the shadowy and indeterminate "global warming" threat, it is deploying stricter restrictions which may have a serious impact on both consumers and the business sector. 

Unsatisfied with merely mandating consumer vehicles obey fuel efficiency standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has now announced a proposal to regulate, for the first time, the greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles.

Heavy vehicles are defined as a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight at or above 8,500 pounds.  This includes some heavy-duty trucks, large vans, commercial trucks, and tankers.  The majority of consumer vehicles -- even beefy ones like the Hummer -- are well under 8,500 pounds.

The new restrictions, according to the current plan, would be broken down into vans/trucks whose emissions and fuel efficiency would be measured in gram per mile and gallon per 100-miles; and vocational vehicles/combination tractors (e.g. commercial trucks, tankers, tractors) whose emissions and fuel efficiency would be measured in gram per ton-mile and gallon per 1,000 ton-miles.

Combination tractors (commercial trucks) compared to their 2010 base emissions and fuel efficiency would be expected to "achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year."  Vocational vehicles (e.g. buses, small commercial trucks, etc) would be expected to post a 10 percent emissions cut and 10 percent fuel efficiency gain by 2018.

Meanwhile, vans and heavy trucks would be largely brought in line with the currently regulated standards for lighter consumer vehicles, with a mandated 10 percent GHG/fuel usage reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent, respectively, when accounting for air conditioning leakage).

Don Anair, a senior analyst at The Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program says its about time these gas guzzlers be brought in line.  He states, "These trucks represent only 4 percent of vehicles on the road, but they consume 20 percent of the fuel."

Some advocates argue the new regulations aren't strict enough.

However, others point out that that there's numerous problems with this decision to heap more layers of regulation on the free market.  One problem is that the fines or other financial penalties needed to enforce these regulations could hurt the commercial trucking industry and other vital commercial vehicle contributors to the U.S economy.  Further, the new regulations fail to account for the efficiency of combination tractors' trailer, which can have a key impact on the truck's total fuel efficiency.

EPA regulators claim that the new standards are overall a good measure of the vehicles efficiency, though.  And they claim that by regulating the market they will actually save truckers and other heavy vehicle users money.  According to the EPA these users and the businesses who support them apparently by and large too incompetent to realize what's good for them on their own, so they need the government to provide them a friendly reminder.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Obama's glory shineth
By fezzik1620 on 10/26/2010 9:48:44 AM , Rating: 3
I love the picture of "Saint" Obama.
I think he should be the patron saint of spending.




RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Flunk on 10/26/2010 9:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, using less fuel costs more money. This is why you pay less money to fuel your truck (just guessing) than I do to fuel my compact car.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By invidious on 10/26/2010 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 5
Attach a trailer to your compact car and see how fuel efficient it is. Trucks are for doing work. Work is heavy.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By michael67 on 10/27/2010 8:43:44 AM , Rating: 2
But just like whit cars, you have engines that work efficient and some that really dont.
In the long run forcing trucking company's to go over to efficient trucks will save money in the long run.

Do I would do it by raising the fuel tax year by year, as that would just be the simplest.
Worked in Europe, most people drive small cars but even the big ones are more ore less fuel efficient.

And yeah i hear everyone all ready saying "yeah more taxes thats what we need"

But by raising taxes on some goods can enforce desirable behavior, and you can lower taxes on other tings.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Schrag4 on 10/27/2010 12:50:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But by raising taxes on some goods can enforce desirable behavior, and you can lower taxes on other tings .


HAH! Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By MindParadox on 10/27/2010 3:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by michael67 on October 27, 2010 at 8:43 AM But just like whit cars, you have engines that work efficient and some that really dont. In the long run forcing trucking company's to go over to efficient trucks will save money in the long run. Do I would do it by raising the fuel tax year by year, as that would just be the simplest. Worked in Europe, most people drive small cars but even the big ones are more ore less fuel efficient. And yeah i hear everyone all ready saying "yeah more taxes thats what we need" But by raising taxes on some goods can enforce desirable behavior, and you can lower taxes on other tings.


here in reality land, we know that if you raise the price overall for shipping, then the price of the goods gets raised overall

how does this save money for anyone at all?

and umm, point out to me seriously, where anything that you have seen about obama or his policies or the policies/tendencies of anyone in his cabinet that would logically suggest to you that he would lower taxes on anything?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Indianapolis on 10/27/2010 7:24:32 PM , Rating: 1
Forcing aging, but still perfectly serviceable, vehicles off the road saves NEITHER the environment, NOR money. It is wasteful of natural resources, human effort, and money.

Liberals suck.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By TheEinstein on 10/29/2010 9:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
Dear God!

The DOT has been pushing higher requirements for a while. We now have a liquid additive we must add to new trucks to try to comply with the strict emissions guidelines. An extra 20%... is out of range without gutting the industry. A truck could in theory get 10 miles to the gallon ON AVERAGE if we did not have to burn our soot using Diesel, use additives to reduce content of CO2, run with reduced output from the start as well.

Right now most models get 7. Think of a 50% increase to the efficiency of semi-trucks and this would mean a reduction in costs...

For the record Diesel has been higher than car gasoline for a while now (typically... some places, some times, it is lower)

The price of a new Semi-Truck runs $120,000 to $140,000 on average. Running a truck an extra two years even if it gets 5mpg is cheaper than buying one of these stupid monsters we need to buy now. Worse is the fact that they cost more in maintenance, as well as break down more often (much more sophisticated). The other aspect is the increased actual cost to make these. A semi-truck could be as low as $80,000 if we did not keep forcing new standards upon the truck manufacturers.

VOTE THE BUMS OUT, then fire everyone they have ever hired!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2010 12:16:33 PM , Rating: 3
What world do you live in? Is it nice there?

How do truckers pay less than you? 50-100 gallon tanks with $2.90+ diesel vs. $2.60 regular and a 10 gallon tank?

And using less fuel can cost more money if you have to spend $200,000 upfront to do it. Sure it might eventually balance out but that doesn't help them.

And remember everyone, they're not taxing you more.....
Just making sure everything you buy and use costs more.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By marvdmartian on 10/26/2010 2:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Any time the government, in its infinite wisdom, passes a more restrictive law, it always seems it's the tax payers who end up getting the sh*t end of the stick.

Guaranteed, redesigning tractor trailer engines to improve emissions will be paid in full by the consumers.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By bissimo on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 11:28:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Plus, money spent on social projects goes right back into the US economy


Really!?

Let me clue you in, the government does not "have" money to spend. To spend money, the government must first borrow it or tax it. In other words, Government spending TAKES from the economy.

Is there a factory where you idiots are assembled?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By glennforum on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By bissimo on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2010 12:24:27 PM , Rating: 5
If you play it like that, most defense spending goes right back into the economy too. What is defense spending? Paying military contractors to do work, buying materials to do said work, and the military and DOD itself. Where do ALL of those contractors live? In the US. Where are all those materials made? In the US. Where does the bulk of the US military and DOD personnel live? In the US. Only money given directly to other nations or for troops who live in (not deployed combat soldiers) other countries doesn't come back into our economy. But there's plenty of non-defense spending that is just given to other nations for medicine or whatever reason.

What's the difference? With military spending we actually get a product. Products that potentially turn into private sector industries which in turn produce consumer level products that enhance our lives. Such as the internet. With social spending we get people who are forever dependent on government and bureaucrats just doing busy work because someone said they needed to.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 2:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Back in the old days the way defense used to work, they were building things that had spill over into the commercial economy (think kc 135 tanker and 707), this old model is not longer the case and hasnt been for certainly 30 and argueably for as long as 60 years.
You don't know your history. The KC-135 evolved from a CIVILIAN design, the dash 80. Yeah the one Tex Johnson barrel rolled and was thankfully caught on film. The airlines saw that and then believed that the DH Comet's problems were confined to the Comet. The dash 80 became the 135 because General LeMay wanted a jet tanker immediately. KC-97s had a horrible time going fast enough to refuel the new thirsty jet bombers and fighters. The 707 is a dash 80 with the cabin widened a few inches to make room for 2+2 seating rows to better serve the commercial needs. The commercial version came first.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By EddyKilowatt on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 4:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes war does advance technology. The ideas for all of these aircraft came from NACA research. To say the dash 80 was a ground up new design, yes because it was meant as a commercial airliner first and formost, even though it was based on lessons learned from prior aircraft. The milk bottle pins in the 135 came from lessons learned from the B47 pin failures. (They hold the wings to the fuselage)

The original comment was the military purpose of the 135 came first and it did not. But to take your bomber led to the civilian analogy to the nth degree. The Wright brothers built the first functional aircraft without a military designation but the military/war always pushes all technological advancements faster than periods of peace. The same could be said for Frank Whittle's turbojet engine design.

And yes I know a little about Lockeed's winning contract for an unbuilt idea. Boeing, right place, right time, with a flying sample and significant knowledge base of inflight refuling. I did work on 135s for 9 years, you?.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/2010 7:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yea and the engines came from the B-52 and the fuselage from the KC-97.

The original comment was not which came first, it was that the military used to drive technology advancement.

Military R&D has gone from leading the commercial sector to trailing.

To take the historical decendant of the kc135, the "newgen" tanker from Boeing, it is a 767 deravitave. The B767 began service in 1982. I would find it hard to justify the position that a 28 year old airframe design is pushing the envelope.

That was the beauty of the dash80/kc135/707, it pushed the envelope. And although the dash80 was clearly privately built, the benefit the aircraft had from military R&D is undenyable.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By tng on 11/1/2010 7:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
You all know that Boeing had to ask permission from the DOD to use the KC135 design as a commercial airliner? So it was designed purely as a military product. Boeing has not looked back from what was still one of the biggest commercial successes ever in transitioning a military product to the public.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/27/2010 1:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where does most of that money go? Iraq? Afganistan?

I'd much rather spend money on building something that improves efficiency (like better roads, improved health care, smart grids), than making bullets and bombs that just blow up, disappear, and result in nothing beneficial.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2010 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 5
What is investing? Spending money that in turn potentially grows to even more money which in turn can be invested again and again.

Giving someone money to buy an iPod helps Apple's bottom line and no one else's. Letting people keep their money to invest it (either through a 401K, stocks, or opening a business) does far more to help the economy as a whole. As proven time and time again.

Tax revenues do not go up and stay up when the government taxes heavily. Businesses close down or move overseas. People invest less. Everyone has less money to spend. Well at least those who actually earned it instead of were given it by the politicians they elected for the sole reason of wanting to be given things because they were told they deserve it.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/27/2010 1:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
Tax cuts only increase concentration of wealth and the divide between the rich and the poor, as proven time and time again.

Where did the money go that the banks "lost"? Goldman Sachs owners/investors - i.e., rich people? Meanwhile, regular people lost their jobs and homes. Great story.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 12:39:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This principle of economics is NOT AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL. Economonists on the left, right and center agree with it. So the man is 100% correct in his assertion. You can disagree with the policy. The statement is correct.
I beg to differ. The Government siphons wealth it cannot create from the private sector that CAN and DOES create wealth. When the private sector is over taxed, i.e. Government punishment of those who are successful, they are unable to create more wealth. Why, because the money they would use to expand has been stolen by the government. This is not to say they shouldn't pay taxes but that they shouldn't be over taxed.

We do have historical evidence of what overtaxing produces. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/a... Read the chart. The high part on the left is just before JFK's tax reduction. At that time the wealthy paid 4% of net revenues to the Government, today its over 40% because of the PERCEIVED fair taxation. When Obama wants the Wealthy to pay their "FAIR SHARE," his words not mine, he is woefully ignorant of history and human behavior. The LOWER the top bracket the MORE those with high incomes pay as revenues received to the IRS.
quote:
There is this thing called "the multiplier effect". When demand is low (geez, does that remind you of anything we could be experiencing now?) it pays almost 2-1 in terms of gdp growth to put money in the hands of people that would spend it. And who are the people that would spend it? Well, of course it is not people making $1M per year, they typically have what they need and will save/invest extra $. People on fixed incomes or very poor will spend what they get.
That example is a gross distortion of GDP. Government spending is nothing more than removing money from one part of the economy to funnel it to what politicians think is the right place. Remember Government CANNOT CREATE WEALTH it only consumes it. If it consumes too much of the private sector's wealth it WILL collapse the private sector. Those WITH money will hide it offshore EVEN IF IT COSTS THEM MORE than paying taxes. They do this because OVER TAXATION generates an emotional response to unfair treatment.

Your example of the poor spending what they get from Government or ANY other source is misleading because they ALWAYS spend ALL of what they have regardless of the source.

Economics is far more than "just numbers" it has an emotional side that is all too often ignored for political gain.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By NovoRei on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 1:44:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its another way to warm the economy and do social balacing.
Social balancing? Yep you're a Socialist. Sorry to burst your bubble, socialism, communism, fascism, et al fail because they ignore human behavior and run out of other people's money.

quote:
Invest in the poor people, what an absurd /irony.
Invest is good! Invest in our schools, invest in our roads, and invest infrastructure. Yes INVEST, the new liberal guilt reducing word. To invest with borrowed monies on projects that do not repay the investment has a problem when it comes to paying off the loan interest, let alone the principal.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 4:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If socialism fails on its own why did we need cold war ?
Remember the Soviet Union? Cuban missile crisis? Thought not, if you had you wouldn't have said that.
quote:
Give them jobs and a chance to contribute to economy.
Exactly how do you give someone a job? You need an employer with a growing company to expand further and hire. The government doesn't do that, yes they hire but at the expense of the private sector.

As to tax cuts, again when tax rates are high on the wealthy they pay very little in actual revenues. When taxes are low and appear fair they pay a significant share. With the bottom 50+% not contributing to Fed income taxes yet receiving a refund bigger than what came out of their checks, i.e. 2500 in FICA but received 5000 back. Where did that 2500 handout come from? Casper?

To increase IRS revenues drop the tax rates.(Dropping tax rates puts more money into businesses growing GDP) To fix the debt cut the spending. You can't tax your way out of massive spending growth.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/27/2010 1:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
<quota>
Exactly how do you give someone a job? You need an employer with a growing company to expand further and hire. The government doesn't do that, yes they hire but at the expense of the private sector.

As to tax cuts, again when tax rates are high on the wealthy they pay very little in actual revenues. When taxes are low and appear fair they pay a significant share. With the bottom 50+% not contributing to Fed income taxes yet receiving a refund bigger than what came out of their checks, i.e. 2500 in FICA but received 5000 back. Where did that 2500 handout come from? Casper?

To increase IRS revenues drop the tax rates.(Dropping tax rates puts more money into businesses growing GDP) To fix the debt cut the spending. You can't tax your way out of massive spending growth.
</quota>
You're not making any sense. Increasing tax rates on wealthy means they pay more (I mean also closing loopholes such as offshore accounts, yadda ,ya... write off business expenses etc...) In other words make the tax system fair.

Business grow GDP ? yeah right. Cut social spending ? And realistically if middle class has to pay for all kids education, private insurance, basic survival costs skyrocket who do you think will buy all the products/services ? Basic economics tells me that 100,000,000 people buying $200 product is a hell of lot more than 10,000 buying $200,000... Arm chair economists have been running this country for last 20 years and where do you think it has gotten us ?

Taxes and spending have been continously cut since Reagan, and look at reality kids have gotten dumber, people have gotten poorer and sicker... and we have sh&tl&oads more homeless and crime. What direction do want to head into ? Bladerunner world or sustainable stable society?

I have to do fundraising locally so my son can have used textbooks at his school ?! In supposedly 1st world country ?!

WAKE THE HELL UP:-!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By AssBall on 10/26/2010 9:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Like Tesla Motors.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Targon on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By rcc on 10/26/2010 6:03:10 PM , Rating: 3
Just out of curiosity, why is it 'fair' for the wealthy to pay more in taxes? Most of them consume less in government services. If they own more property they are already paying more.

Most of them would be happy with a flat percentage tax, which while it wouldn't be 'fair', it would beat the heck out of the current tiered system. You'd need to close all the high end and low end loopholes for it to stand a chance though.

I doubt that taxes will ever be fair in this or any other country. But it's a nice dream. Perhaps we should just have the government declare a monopoly for itself on the gambling industry? Then again, the goverment would probably make that a money loosing proposition as well.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By dubldwn on 10/26/2010 6:59:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just out of curiosity, why is it 'fair' for the wealthy to pay more in taxes?...Most of them would be happy with a flat percentage tax, which while it wouldn't be 'fair', it would beat the heck out of the current tiered system.

Every time the flat tax rears its head we end up having the same discussion. Even flat tax proponents concede that if implemented, it would have to be revenue neutral. The last time this came up, that meant around a 17% federal income tax rate. People who currently pay 17% federal income tax make maybe 80-100k/year. That means if you make less than that, your tax rate will go up. If you make more than that, your tax rate will go down. WAAAY down if you’re making big money. Just stating facts here; some people are ok with that.

Hey, how about if we ditch income tax all together and do the VAT thing? Anyone?
quote:
Then again, the goverment would probably make that a money loosing proposition as well.

LOSING damn it!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By rcc on 10/29/2010 4:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
No really, everytime the Gov gets money it gets loose.

But I'll grant you that they can lose money on anything.

As far as VAT goes. Bleech. So we tax the people that want to spend their money, so they won't want to spend as much, which equals less jobs, etc, etc. And this is a good thing? Even the poverty striken would loose out. Unless you give out an ID card to people making less than $xx,yyy per year that makes them exempt.

BTW, the 2010 rate for peeps making $100k is 25-28%. Granted only the single people that aren't home owners actually pay that.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Jeffk464 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By rcc on 11/1/2010 4:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well, duh! Thank you captain oblivious. Of course they want to make themselves richer. That's what we call a non sequitur, it has nothing to do with fair taxation.

Frankly, we'd be in a lot more trouble if the rich didn't want to get richer. They'd pile that money in a bank and you'd be SOL. That doesn't mean we don't keep tabs on them; however, as "human history" has shown us, nothing good comes to society as a whole by overtaxing the wealthy.

As Donald Trump pointed out in an interview, paraprased. "If you create an atmosphere that is uncomfortable to the very wealth, they will just go somewhere else". Unlike you and me (presumably), they can just pack up and move to Monaco, or wherever, and they you'll get a net 0 from them in income tax.



RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Jeffk464 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By AssBall on 10/26/2010 10:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah punish them for succeeding. Great idea.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/27/2010 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
They 'succeeded' at whose expense?

For the society to work, the poor need to be the focus; otherwise, desperation will breed instability and crime. Those with the means will have to foot the larger portion of the bill - higher taxes don't affect their quality of life as much as they would for those with less.

Sorry if that sounds like redistribution of wealth to you, but the way I see it, 'redistribution of wealth' has been going on for a long time in the wrong direction, and now the rich are richer than ever. It's time that the pendulum swings in the other direction. Otherwise all hell breaks loose


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Melted Rabbit on 10/28/2010 7:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just out of curiosity, why is it 'fair' for the wealthy to pay more in taxes? Most of them consume less in government services. If they own more property they are already paying more.


Well, first off in, the extreme case higher taxes on those with lower income and fewer assets means that they may end up going to food shelves to feed themselves, which may not cover all of their food needs. On the other hand, an equivalent increase on taxes for those with higher incomes and more assets may force these individuals to drive their sports car for five or six years as opposed to two or three, I really can't feel to bad about that compared to what a lower income family might experience. Or, maybe these better off individuals would also need to take that vacation in the US instead of Europe, but only in a three star hotel as opposed to five star. Once again, cry me a river.

Counterintuitively, a flat tax is actually a regressive tax. In order to collect the same amount in taxes under flat taxation those with less money will find that their taxes go up. This will ending putting some in a tough spot when it comes to buying just essential items. There is a limit to how little one can spend of food, shelter, and alike. For those with more money, an increase in the tax rate for their bracket would only cut into their money for luxury spending. Those with higher incomes have much more flexibility when saving attempting to money by spending less on items. Those with more money may feel that they might be under more stress due to higher taxes, but it is easier for them to cancel their country club membership, take their children currently in private primary or secondary schools and put them back in the public school system, or for that matter, skip extravagant spending on vacations, houses, and cars.

In the case of the flat tax, the only thing "fair" about the tax is that everyone pays the same percentage. There is nothing "fair" about what a flat tax would do to the standard of living and quality of life for those with lower incomes.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By gamerk2 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting - can you give some more detail on how exactly the wealthy end up paying a lower marginal tax rate? that just sounds completely counter-intuitive to me.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Take particular note of the only presidents post FDR to oversee increases in the Gross Debt levels of the US government: Regan
Regan was unable to stop the Democratic Senate and Congress from spending. His tax reduction did increase IRS revenues. If you don't cut spending you will never conquer the debt.

The reason Clinton looks good is Gingrich and the Repub Congress cut spending.

Without dramatic spending cuts, think 1921, the debt will never go away. By 1926 97% of Americans DID NOT pay Federal income tax. Your spewing half of of the issue is grossly misleading.

quote:
GDP grows when consumers spend. As such, any government action that creates a growth in GDP over the course of its existence that offsets the total economic loss of said spending should be activly encouraged, as it shrinks the size of the Gross Debt. Of course, supply-siders so often ignore the positive side of government spending, focusing only on the dollar amount.
Dude, government spending does not create growth in GDP. I know its used in the equation but as a function of GDP it is only a transfer of private sector wealth through taxes to where politicians think wealth should go. Nothing more than a fallacious argument.

The more politicians steal, over-taxation is stealing think 1773, the closer we come to collapsing the private sector, the closer we come to falling into fascism. The banks and GM's bailout falls into this category. Don't think so? Look at fascist governments and how they came to power, history is a real bitch if you don't pay attention to it.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 5:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regan's tax reduction caused a dramatic FALL in government revenue. As the economy grew (and it grows no matter what), it came up to the levels it was before his cut in taxes.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/...
quote:
Conclusion The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
For those too lazy to look up the link here's the conclusion.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/2010 6:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
Well, you quoting the conculsions of a Republican Committee to justify growth in tax revenue is like quoting cheech and chong that pot is good for you.

Fact is that tax receipts, when adjusted for inflation fell after the Regan tax cuts. The following is the actual record of Federal tax recepts. In nominal dollars the tax collection increases, but remember those were the days of 10% annual inflation. On a constant $ bases tax receipts were lower from 82 to 85.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:39:13 PM , Rating: 3
>Stating that moving from 36 to 39 percent constitutes the move from appropriate to over taxation is outlandishly rediculuous!

No, it's not. Not when you consider where that bracket starts. Thanks for giving us your opinion on half the story.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/2010 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 1
You are kidding, right?

So the bracket starts @250K per year.

That means that income OVER 250K is taxed at 39 not 36.

So if you make 350K the difference is 36000 vs 39000?

If you are making $350K per year, $3000 is a rounding error.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Schrag4 on 10/27/2010 1:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Translated:

Since you made 350k, you don't "need" that 3000 bucks so I'll take it. (To hell with the fact that you'll have to lower wages as a result.)

Where have I heard this sort of talk? Oh yeah, Obama's campaign trail.

Sorry, I'd rather my employer not have taxes increased so my wages won't necessarily decrease!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/27/2010 3:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not kidding. 250k a year is for married couples. In a dual-income family with 3 kids in a high cost of living location (for example, Washington D.C.), a family of five with a $250k annual income is a couple things - not uncommon, and not wealthy.

The fact that the bracket starts there is bad enough without having the marginal rate increased.

If you want to tax the wealthy, then tax the wealthy (without loopholes) and stop destroying the upper-middle class.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:30:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obviously you have never taken one single class in basic economics.

He refuses to post his southern education, as if having one was a bad thing. You see the same behavior with white supremacists, they know it all, but typically never finish high school.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/27/2010 1:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and that's why the tax cuts for the wealthy were paid for with borrowed money, while spending was increased for the Iraq Oil War. Yeah, those tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy - that worked out so well.

This s*it was caused by the republicans; Obama/democrats had an impossible task to try to fix the screw-ups of the previous administration. They HAVE to borrow to do that - something the Bush Administration was more than happy to do for projects that don't benefit the taxpayers.

It sounds to me like you were assembled in the tea party idiot factory.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/27/2010 1:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Really!?

Let me clue you in, the government does not "have" money to spend. To spend money, the government must first borrow it or tax it. In other words, Government spending TAKES from the economy.

Is there a factory where you idiots are assembled?

Really ? Ey is there a factory where you idiots are assembled ? Where do you think company's profit goes ? Shareholders pockets or CEO's outrageous wages. And stays there.

Social projects at least money recirculates goods are bought, etc, etc..


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By pyeager on 10/27/2010 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shareholders pockets or CEO's outrageous wages. And stays there.


It *stays* there? They never spend it or invest it?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By menace on 10/27/2010 2:34:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Plus, money spent on social projects goes right back into the US economy, unlike most defense spending (no matter what General Dynamics would have you believe).

That statement has no merit.

Social programs burden an economy while an industry that produces useful goods will generally benefit an economy.

The "social projects" (more correctly called social welfare programs) that you generically refer to are all basically forms of income redistribution (even the guy appointed to run Obamacare admits that the system is "necessarily redistributive").

How a "needy" person uses money (or goods or services that money provided) transferred to him by the government is of no more benefit to the economy than it was for the productive (working, self-supportive) person it was taken from. Redistribution can be at best a zero sum game. However in reality it is not even close to zero sum because of the reasons that follow.

In the US, rather than funding our social welfare programs only from redistributive taxes, we also keep borrowing money from the future generations, robbing our own children to maintain an unsustainable system (or a system we are not politically willing to sustain). But even if it were a balanced game (sustainable by taxes without excessive borrowing) it still is a losing proposition...

Essentially welfare can be compared to giving unemployed people money to dig ditches in the morning and then fill them back up in the afternoon. Giving a person money (whether they do such useless "work" or no work at all) actually does significant harm to the economy. If you don't believe that, take it to the extreme. Suppose everyone in the country starts quitting their jobs to get paid for digging holes and filling them back up. There would then be no economy because there would be no production of goods or services to support it. In other words before long it becomes unsustainable as social programs tend to ever expand for various reasons (like "The Blob").

Thus any unproductive (or under-productive) citizen who is supported by welfare always presents a source of burden on the economy. Sometimes this burden is justified (i.e. care for the disabled). But paying people money when they don't contribute equal value back to the economy is never as good as paying someone to produce something of value to others (yes even if it is military goods). Another way to think is that just as a person who works for a company that goofs off all the time is a hindrance to the company's success, so an non- or under-productive citizen is a hindrance to the success of a nation's economy.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By 91TTZ on 10/26/2010 10:09:43 AM , Rating: 5
To be honest, Obama promised that he'd change these "Republican" notions.

Once in office, not only has he continued the policies started by Bush, he has increased the government's powers. He even supported a troop surge that he criticized Republican lawmakers of supporting.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By 91TTZ on 10/26/2010 10:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the people didn't vote on that issue, and didn't really have any say about that. That was one of those bills that were hidden from the public eye for the most part.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:04:16 PM , Rating: 3
Did you seriously just ask where was the Tea Party in 2001? Nearly 7 years before it was ever formed?

I dunno - where was Einstein when an apple fell on Newton's head?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By rvd2008 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Spuke on 10/26/2010 11:22:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
a) to die in the terrorist attack
"It's better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Quotes deseperately needed here by Ben Franklin:

quote:
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.


quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


And there were people like W in his day as well

quote:
A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.


One more from Ben, way too smart for most people on this board.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 11:26:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you want a free society you have to be willing to die in a terrorist attack and accept that they will happen if you truly value the open, free society. You can't have both.


That has to be the dumbest thing I've read on Daily Tech in...well ok, a day. But a WHOLE day.

If you want to be free you have to be willing to die? Not die FOR freedom mind you, but just die because someone want's you dead?

And you're wrong, the voters who were dumb enough to actually vote for Obama weren't voting for this. Go back and read his campaign promises. They are RADICALLY different than what he's done since day 1. He's a liar.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 12:49:20 PM , Rating: 1
If you're not willing to die then you're willing to give up your freedom.

How hard is that to understand. If you won't fight for it or passively die for it then you will have none.

Just becasue you don't understand philosophy doesn't mean you get to say something is the dumbest thing you've ever heard. Think about the implications and the depth of the statement first.

Oh wait, it's you.... perhaps one of the most short sighted people on the site. I see your name splashed all over things and you're generally wrong about it too. Go figure.

I know I'm outnumbered badly on this site. Bunch of libertarian wannabes that haven't figured out what no social safety net really means.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
Again, you said nothing about "fighting" for freedom. You simply said, and I quote, "you have to be willing to die in a terrorist attack." That's quite a different thing than what you are saying now.

This isn't the 1800's anymore, ok? Nobody in America has to "die" for their freedoms. Stop being so dramatic.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Anoxanmore on 10/26/2010 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 1
Tell that to the thousands fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both places at this point are a loss cause and it is time to leave.

I originally agreed with taking out the Taliban that was in power in Afghanistan and I have never supported that lies that brought us into Iraq. Time to bring our service men and women home and let them help us here, not in some stupid country that honestly neither one of them matter anymore, if they ever did.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 7:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
Where in my statement do you see me supporting the wars oversees? I'm honestly baffled at your response.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 2:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
<sigh> They can down rate me all day, don't care.

Did Ghandi fight? Did the Sikhs fight?

I think they both did. One in a literal way, another in a figurative way. Why is one more right or wrong than the other?

Yes, people do have to die for their freedoms. Someone has to sacrifice. Just because you think it's solved by war it's not. How many slaves died not fighting?

Did MLK die fighting as you put it, or like I put it.

Love the short sightedness here. Down vote me again. See if I care. I'll sacrifice some 1's and 0's to the cause.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/2010 6:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I feel for this guys statement.

You can rate people down all day it is a free country/blog.

But I would ask you to think about what you are doing. When you rate someone down, not for their facts (responses with extensive quotes were down rated), or their tone (I have seen some disrespect on both sides, but generally a civil tone to all blog posts), but just because they are pointing out someting uncomfortable to your beliefs, you are promoting ignorance.

I was prompted to write this because I read about what a Rand Paul supporter did before the debate last night. They beat up a moveon individual. They were caught on video tape keeping her down with a foot on her head while Rand Paul entered the debate. She required medical attention.

This SUCKS. This is wrong. Our political process works best when we listen to both sides, when we hear the other sides arguements, and come to a reasonable position.

The political process, the discussion process, any process, does not work when one side metaphorically puts its foot on the head of the other side to hold them down.

This is not how I like to debate issues. Tell me why I'm wrong. Engage me. Shine the light.

Dont just attempt to drown out uncomfortable opinions (those that cause harm to your world view)

Now, I'm pretty sure this post will be down rated too, if anyone even cares to read it.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/27/2010 1:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
Amen. +5


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
And when did Retread ever actually listen?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/26/2010 3:10:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Again, you said nothing about "fighting" for freedom. You simply said, and I quote, "you have to be willing to die in a terrorist attack." That's quite a different thing than what you are saying now.

This isn't the 1800's anymore, ok? Nobody in America has to "die" for their freedoms. Stop being so dramatic.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... conservatives who scream about dying for freedom while their own happily skip drafts, avoid being in military, etc... think of Bush and others:-).


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hr824 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
If that's all you've got to say, then you've also let your emotions get the better of your ability to construct a rational arguement.

Not trying to be a dick, but just sayin...


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
The ironic part is the Bush era in over spending was nothing more than "Dem lite." Obama criticizes Bush for overspending but his own spending makes Bush look like a rank amateur in that category. BTW even the iconic liberal FDR had his Treasury Secretary tell him in a letter in 1939 that all of these big spending programs not only failed to help but perpetuated the depression. So why does Obama think it will work now?

As to the increase in powers; where is the ACLU now that Obama is doing what Bush did and then some... Where are the media to point out the hypocrisy? Is the behavior suddenly OK just because Obama is in charge?

On these subjects I think BOTH way over stepped their Constitutional bounds.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/28/2010 8:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
The big difference is where the two spend the money. Bush spent it on a glorified war games, upgrading infrastructure in Iraq and tax-break gifts to the rich. Obama is spending it on fixing Bush's mistakes, providing decent health care to the poor, and upgrading US infrastructure.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By pyeager on 10/28/2010 9:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama is spending it on fixing Bush's mistakes

Name one.

quote:
providing decent health care to the poor

Nice idea. Too bad they had to screw up health care for everyone else to do it.

quote:
and upgrading US infrastructure.

Hahahahaha.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Oxygenthief on 10/26/2010 10:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
Says the high school dropout on welfare who thinks his Social Security check is all he'll ever need to retire...

Gotta love the how the Democrat's way of thinking has changed over the years. Instead of "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" you get the overwhelming sense of entitlement that defines the political party and the dregs of society that support it.

I'll remain Republican and work for a living, but thanks for playing...


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By sweatshopking on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By sweatshopking on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah you won't live on their backs, you're too busy running them over, per your own words. Yeah funny joke, but God forbid one comes at your expense.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
You know, if we all did like you said and went to live in the 3rd world, there would be no 1st or 2nd world.

Cholera, Diptheria, Dysentary, smallpox, and more would kill a large number of us. Lack of technology and infrastructure would lead to resource concentrations and scarcity - which leads to wars, death, rape, destruction, and lots of other unhappy things.

Myself, I'm a moderate. I'm not so naive, idealistic, or retarded as to vote for only one party all the time. I'm also not so naive, idealistic, or retarded as to think that either guilt-tripping my countrymen because we built a world superpower in a mere 235 years is an effective way to promote change, or that we have any business trying to fix all the world's problems.

At the end of the day, America still stands as a superpower. So, you can take the "F you all" and go have a good cry. I won't hold it against you.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/26/2010 3:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At the end of the day, America still stands as a superpower. So, you can take the "F you all" and go have a good cry. I won't hold it against you.


Only as long as might is right. Country with biggest weapons, largest army dictates what is right. Think of Rome, and what happened in Rome ? Rich got richer, happily took their money, forgot to give back to economy and Rome fell apart.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/27/2010 3:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna take the JFK approach and cross that bridge when I come to it. The rise & fall of empires is just part of history and life.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 12:01:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If the Republicans had their way, I'd be poor, hungry, and begging for food because I was not born into money.


That's an absurd and inflammatory stereotype and you know it.

quote:
I joined the Air Guard to pay my first degree. The government financed my 2nd degree in Nursing. It is continuing to finance my medical education.


I dare you to find me ONE Republican that's against this. Or who wouldn't think very highly of your accomplishments. You are the very embodiment of Republican beliefs. YOU joined the Air Guard, YOU went to college, YOU made something of yourself. You obviously just aren't sitting around waiting for Obama to take care of you. Sure you had help, so? You think Republicans are against helping people? There's a difference between help and building an entire centralized government of entitlement plans and spending.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 12:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
The Great Society was a failure. A failure of epic proportions. We have roughly the same percentage poverty level as when LBJ set out to fix it. Roughly the same drop out levels etc etc as well. The Great Society, and similar "Deals", constituted a basic and fundamental shift in American life. A shift from a relatively laissez-faire economy and minimal state to a society in which the state is unquestionably king.

What's so wrong with saying that we don't believe every ill can be fixed with a government program?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2010 12:30:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah the difference is now the "poor" have HDTVs, iPods, $4000 24" rims on their $4000 cars, and iPhones. All on the backs of the actual tax payers.

But so called "progressives" call that progress.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well no wonder you want to run them cover. That's a great "Mission Accomplished!" Only the most articulate could have reached such a conclusion.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 5:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
For reasons you'll never admit, let alone explain, non-white trash bothers you quite a bit, but white trash, which doesn't even exist in your world, is OK.

It would be senseless to ask for an explanation, but the only significant difference between white trash and the other kind is net worth is this country. Oh, is that what makes it OK? Or are Camaroes simply much more uppity than 24 inch rims? With spinners no doubt.

Solid rear axle mentality, both literally and figuratively.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By ynot56 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 1:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
They're of the notion that we need to balance the budget before we worry about helping people.

An airplane suddenly loses pressure - you put your own mask on first before helping others with theirs. you're of no use to anyone if you black out.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2010 12:32:50 PM , Rating: 3
+1


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 1:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they want to cut education,
Read this: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/education-spen... and then tell me a good reason to NOT cut education spending. BTW his numbers are from the Dept of Ed. Why aren't you picking on Arizona's school superintendents? Why must the rest of us come to your rescue with our dwindling incomes to bail you out? Why aren't you demanding a real answer from the school system and holding them accountable for the miserable results? If you bought a car and it was a pos you'd blame the maker. You wouldn't go to DC for a handout to try and fix a defective design.

Over dependence on government handouts creates a culture of dependency. Some support is required but 44,000,000 on food stamps is wrong.

quote:
Republicans only care WHERE the spending goes, not that there is spending being done. The biggest balloon in government was when Bush took over. And that's a fact, and face it, they care nothing about constraining debt. Pork barreling is a Republican pastime. Watch.
Wrong, Obama has grown the government far more than Bush who did grow it too much as well. Again Bush did spend too much but do get your facts straight.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
Yay a Blog!

Proof enough for me.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 7:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yay a Blog! Proof enough for me.


And your "proof" was a few of your friends, who are Republican, feel a certain way so ALL Republicans do. And we're supposed to go along with it?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Iaiken on 10/26/2010 3:35:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
tell me a good reason to NOT cut education spending


You will either pay to encourage and educate your people, or you will pay to incarcerate them. Take your pick.

quote:
Some support is required but 44,000,000 on food stamps is wrong.


Where exactly, oh wise nut job, do these blurry lines solidify into concrete boundaries. If you throw people into the streets and starve them, don't be surprised at what they do out of desperation to survive. What I can guarantee is that not enough private benefactors (organizations or otherwise) would be able to step in to fill the gaps.

If there was an easy solution, we'd have figured it out by now, but there isn't so we can either keep trying, change strategies or give up. Saying that it's the individuals responsibility is asinine at best and is certainly no solution.

If you want to leave it to the individual, then it needs to be impressed upon them from the very start. Ideally, everyone would at least be provided with an education that instills upon them the mental tools they need to ultimately: get a job, manage fiscal responsibilities and to otherwise be an participation in the decisions that will shape their quality of life and make anything other than a drain on society. In these regards, the US public school system is (in most cases) an abysmal failure.

The problem is that many people are fixated on how much money is being spent instead of HOW that money is being put to use. Sometimes you have to move past fighting fires and into rebuilding a system into something that is more effective, easier to maintain and cheaper to operate.

Just about everything is a lot more complicated than the dollar figures you seem to have a bad habit of reducing them down to.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 4:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You will either pay to encourage and educate your people, or you will pay to incarcerate them. Take your pick.
You didn't look at the link. Spending on K-12 has MORE than DOUBLED (inflation adjusted) since 1970 with no correlating improvement in test scores. If its broke throwing more money at it will never fix it. Whatever they tried failed miserably and its time to go back to basics and start over.

Nowhere did I say to can education. I am saying what is going on right now isn't working and all those billions are going to waste. Where did all the money go?

quote:
The problem is that many people are fixated on how much money is being spent instead of HOW that money is being put to use.
Do you throw your money in a trash can or out the window as you drive down the street? Of course not. Why do you think its OK to keep increasing the already massive amounts of money? Obviously "HOW" the money is being spent must be scrutinized since we have seen no improvement in the outcome.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Iaiken on 10/26/2010 5:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You didn't look at the link.


Oh I read your link, but you obviously didn't comprehend my post.

quote:
Obviously "HOW" the money is being spent must be scrutinized since we have seen no improvement in the outcome.


So basically you are agreeing with me, albeit in a round-about and profoundly stupid way.

What you need to understand is that the solution is not necessarily to cut off funding. Changing the ways that the money is being spent is also a valid solution.

What you also don't take into account in your little rant is that it took DOUBLE the amount of spending simply to keep test scores from dropping. What were you expecting? Spending double the money should yield a 100% increases in test scores?

Is it just coincidence that of the 10 worst states for education scores, 9 are also on the list of 10 lowest education spending per capita? What if you get your wish and they do cut funding, what do you do then if scores then drop across the board? How do you make it up to the generations that you've essentially f***ed over just because you wanted lower taxes during your lifetime?

Yet there you are with your silly reductionist attempts to boil the argument down to a single set of stats and a single possible solution. Cut funding.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Iaiken on 10/26/2010 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you also don't take into account in your little rant is that perhaps it took DOUBLE the amount of spending simply to keep test scores from dropping.


Fixed, missing word.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By knutjb on 10/26/2010 5:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: What you also don't take into account in your little rant is that perhaps it took DOUBLE the amount of spending simply to keep test scores from dropping. Fixed, missing word.
Your fallacious implication that we needed to double the spending just to stay on par is simply moronic at best. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/education-spen... Again these are Dept of Ed's inflation adjusted numbers and Perry just placed them in an easy to read chart that perhaps even you might be able to understand.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Iaiken on 10/26/2010 7:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your fallacious implication that we needed to double the spending just to stay on par is simply moronic at best.


Prove it's false.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_ele_sec_fin_c...

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-e...

Go correlate those two graphs and it will show you that the states that currently spend the most, tend to produce better education levels. The states that spend the least, produce lower levels of education. There are (of course) of exceptions on that list (Alaska), but for the most part the trending holds true.

This implies that unduly cutting education in areas like Vermont, can result in it's education system producing students like those of Nevada.

Even then it's not THAT simple. It's a question of what is Vermont doing right that Nevada either isn't doing, or is doing wrong. Why is it that Michigan spends so much and achieves so little? Why is it that Florida does well considering how little it spends?

You seem to like to boil things down to where they are nice and cut and dry and support your argument, but the problem is that life just isn't that simple. It can't be summed up in a single correlation graph and even then that graph can have a totally different meaning than the inferences that have been forced upon it by people like you.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize how much Pork the Dems railroaded through in the healthcare and stimulus bills, yes? But yeah, I'll give you your point.

Hell - I'm a conservative, and I don't even like the republicans you're describing. We need a party that can stand for something in the middle. Dems wouldn't be half as bad if they weren't infected with enviro-nazis, and Reps if they weren't infected with the Religious Right.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Iaiken on 10/26/2010 3:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need a party that can stand for something in the middle. Dems wouldn't be half as bad if they weren't infected with enviro-nazis, and Reps if they weren't infected with the Religious Right.


Give that man the $10,000!!!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans only care WHERE the spending goes


BOTH only care WHERE THEIR spending goes.

Corrected.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By R3T4rd on 10/26/2010 1:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, isn't it funny that most teens to young adults (even early 30's) nowadays are soooo blinded, ignorant, and naive? Seriously, all the liberal progressive schools that we send our kids to are just brainwashing them. I am really thinking about taking my kids out of public schools and home schooling them - maybe...perhaps, maybe my kids will not be as dillusional. Oh god almighty...help our future generations.

When I hit my early twenties and got a real job and bills and started a real life, I finally saw through the lies and distortion field (Apple? - LOL) that Liberals and Republicans spewed. You, Phantom505, are slow to realize the real world. Everything you have said in all your posts are utter nonsense and teachings from your years at all the liberal schools. I am older now and understand why alot of old people I use to work with and for are soo conservative and rooted to what the constitution stood for.

And just to let you know, I am a minority (I am not saying you are a minority or not and couldn't careless what color you are) I made my way through the world like you are doing now. Earned a nice living, kids, house, boats, land, women, cars - the american dream (well women came first before kids...*cough*). Its because I choose to make something of myslef and not stand around and wait for the governemt. Most of the minority people who I know strive for that. But truth be told, there are those that just want to wait for uncle sam to feed and clothe them. And its not just Minorities that are as such because there are idiots in every walk of life, but I am just giving to you my own insight as a minority.

In short - You young sir, must wake up smell the coffe and take the red pill. Or - just take the blue pill and remain as you are. And if you take the Blue Pill, even a neked Trinity ain't going to wake you up!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:20:15 PM , Rating: 1
Real job and real life? This guy served in the military and is going to med school - I don't necessarily agree with his views, but you come off pretty patronizing in your post.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By cmdrdredd on 10/26/2010 7:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Real job and real life? This guy served in the military and is going to med school - I don't necessarily agree with his views, but you come off pretty patronizing in your post.


He only went to the military because it was the only thing he "thought" he could do. In reality he never needed to be out on the street. There are many programs for young children (11 years old qualifies) that will provide them with a safe place until they are old enough to take care of themselves. What's wrong with foster homes until you get a regular job, work your way up, save some money and enter school. Get a better job or new position then, more schooling, then better job etc? Joining the military simply to get money for school is a cheap way to go about it. Now if you want to join the military because of your love of country and sense of duty while enjoying the benefits I have no problem with that. This guy simply lived off the government his entire life because he had no personal motivation to do anything for himself. It is THAT simple.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/27/2010 3:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
mmm... after reading a bit more, I see what you're saying. Sorry I butted in here.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By R3T4rd on 10/27/2010 4:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
Patronizing? hardly, but perhaps to a certain degree. I was rather contrasting the point of education. So you have to at least acknowledge his sense to educate himself. How he goes about it, leeching off the Govmnt or tax payers, is a different story and his choice.

I didn't get any grants or govmt loans, nor was I in the any armed forces to pay for my education. I did it the old fashioned way of regular loans, get a job, then more experience, then get a better job, repeat until I am where I am toady.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/27/2010 3:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ok.... I mean - I took gov't loans for college, got a graduate degree and make damn good money (still paying said loans back).

I mean, if the government puts the option out there, why not consider it like the rest of your options? Am I missing something?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By MindParadox on 10/27/2010 4:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
what we really should do is move from a "no child left behind to a school system similar to the japanese, where it is essentially a competitive system of learning, you compete to be in the best classes, or you arent in school

course, there has to be a suitable replacement for "arent in school" in japan there is more of a social stigmata that is VERY strongly enforced, unfortunately, most of the teen thru 25ish year olds ive met in the last ten years seem to think that being a moron is preferable to anything else, cause then no one expects anything from them, and that way they can get handouts that they are "entitled to". ya know, cause "the government owes us" (no kidding, this is really what these idiots think)


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Bookcase14 on 10/26/2010 10:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
So, since I am almost willing to bet the farm that you are referring to George W. Bush's administration (cause what liberal doesn't when they have no argument), I will attempt to counter some of your arguments.
The healthcare system Obama's administration has proposed (and subsequently passed with a few compromises) is an incredibly bloated and expensive piece of dung that will end up putting the USA in far more debt than ever imagined. Simple economics would make it quite apparent that taxing fewer individuals and increasing costs for insurance suppliers will in no way benefit the overall structure. At the end of the day, the doctors and insurance companies being affected by this overhaul will have to make up the cost difference somehow.
In regards to Retirement and Education, Social Security has been a broken system for years, and it was signed into law by a democratic president (Roosevelt). There is something to be said about the possible effectiveness of "private" Social Security as IRAs and other private investment/retirement plans generally tend to out-perform social security.
As for the endless wars? Well I certainly hope if you are American that you will find justification in at least one of those wars (Afghanistan) since the ruling system of that country decided to attack us first and kill 3,000 of our civilians; it's amazing to see how fast people stop caring about that.
Fear? I'm not living in fear, but I am certainly living with more awareness after 9/11, and I think that is a good thing. The world is not a happy go lucky place all the time, and it is naive to think that we shouldn't properly arm and defend ourselves in order to thwart off future attacks; which the US in combination with Homeland security has done a pretty darn good job of doing. I'd rather been prepared, and if that means living with a higher ounce of awareness, than so be it.
Health? Are you kidding me? How about telling most of America to stop eating fast food all the time and exercise more frequently. Actually, if America did that, they wouldn't need Obamacare, because health insurance costs would plummet due to an overall healthier society.
That's all I got for now, sorry for a rushed job and any grammatical errors. I am just so sick of people bitching and moaning about a prior administration when the current one has spent more than Bush ever spent on the wars and programs.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 10:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
How much freedom do you have if you have a life-threatening illness or physical condition (such as a heart problem) and you are unable to receive timely care because the healthcare system puts you on a list to wait your turn and even then, you are unable to choose the most qualified physician to perform the surgery? You are instead forced to take whoever comes up in the draw to operate on you.

Is that freedom? I think not. I like my PPO... it might cost a lot, but when it comes to life altering decisions, I appreciate the option to choose who will help me. I also like the option to shop around for both the best, and someone who can operate sooner if I need to.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 1:00:49 PM , Rating: 1
Have you ever looked death right in the eye?

Have you ever been minutes or possibly days away from death? Have you ever been faced with a condition that could kill you instantly and suddenly and there would be hardly anything you could do about it--unless you endured dangerous surgery to correct it?

Guess what? I have. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone to endure it either.

I don't need Fox fantasy land, I faced my own reality.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By acer905 on 10/26/2010 11:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Health care is a loser. It's not suppose to make a profit. Profit motive has done nothing but increase costs so they can get their 15-20%


quote:
Actually, I am in medical school, but thanks for playing "guess their life story based on one post." I probably do better financially than you'll ever do.


So... healthcare is not supposed to make a profit, but being a doctor you will automatically earn much more than the OP automatically? Seems rather contradictory. Rather than spending truckloads trying to give 300+ million people healthcare (which includes spending money convincing said 300+ million people to agree to the plan), why not simply pass some form of legislation that limits the lawsuits against healthcare individuals. If every doctor didn't need to worry about multi-million dollar lawsuits, they wouldn't need such high insurance, and the costs would fall.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 12:22:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So... healthcare is not supposed to make a profit, but being a doctor you will automatically earn much more than the OP automatically? Seems rather contradictory.


Well played. What a hypocrite! "Health care shouldn't make profits but I'm going to be a doctor so I can be richer than you!!"

hahaha oh man. I love it.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did I say I agreed with it? Nope I don't. Think that the 10 years I'll spend in either loan or under paid situations deserve a reward to accepting the risk? Yep.

It is a risky business? Yep

And will I be rewarded? Yep

Will I forget my roots? Hell no.

Will I help those in need regardless of payment? Yep.

Bite me.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Will you pay for those who won't help themselves?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 2:52:09 PM , Rating: 1
Find me this mythical person. I want to witness him/her.

Why do you people think everyone is inherently evil and lazy? I never understood that.

The Welfare Queens are rare and usually have some sort of mental disorder. So yes, I'd help them. I didn't say financially.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Schrag4 on 10/27/2010 1:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
So...you wouldn't help them financially? And you'd only help if they need it because of a mental illness or some other legitimate handicap? Welcome to the "Republican" point of view on government assistance!!!

Also, your asserstion that a person that would not help themselves is a "mythical person" is laughable. For pete's sake, before Katrina hit, they were turning down school buses for evacuation, saying "Where are the greyhounds!?" That's a whole level BELOW those unwilling to help themselves. They wouldn't even let others help them because it wasn't cushy enough!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/27/2010 3:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
> Find me this mythical person. I want to witness him/her.

Oh yeah, no problem - but hey, while I'm working on that, you want to answer the question?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Bookcase14 on 10/26/2010 11:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, I hate Glenn Beck. So it's insulting that you referred to me as him.

Secondly, if you would kindly name one statement I made that was false while providing evidence, I will clearly renege said statement. However, I am correct about Obama spending more than the Bush administration ever did (by a large margin); you can look that up.

Thirdly, I was an economic minor in college, and a finance major, so I am quite familiar with Keynesian's economic theories. No need to tell me to "study" him. However, it seems to me that for the most part, government intervention and government run programs (US postal service, AmTrak, Social Security, to name a few) haven't worked out too well and are on the verge of bankruptcy. Disprove me on that as well.

In addition, I am not going to assume whether you have a full time job or not, but making the statement that you are about to take a test makes me wonder if you are actually in the working world or not. Most of the time, and this is a stereotype (however stereotypes are founded in small truths), college kids with little real world responsibility are the first to pounce on businesses and people who work hard to try and make a living; the health care industry is no different.

To classify the Healthcare industry as a "loser" is one of the most insanely ignorant things I have heard. Every human being, at the end of the day, is out for self-betterment, whether it be by social welfare or hard work. To make claim that the companies, because they are in the industry of saving lives should not make a profit is ridiculous. If healthcare providers and insurance companies should make no profit, than neither should doctors, nurses, or EMTs. Hell, everyone should work for free because it is "good for the country." What the hell would be the incentive for anyone to work if everything is not for profit?

Sick an unable to work? For what reasons? A genetic disease is one thing, but should I pay absorbent penalties and someone else's insurance costs because they refused to take care of themselves? Should I pay for your cancer treatment if you smoked for 40 years and I didn't? Should I pay for your diabetes medication and wound care costs if you indulged in fast food everyday? Answer ME that, genius?

There is something called self-responsibility that I believe you and your political affiliation forgot about long ago.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Bookcase14 on 10/26/2010 11:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
I meant to say "Keynes' economic theories."


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/26/2010 11:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
US postal service, AmTrak, Social Security, to name a few

USPS has been outmoded. It was once a viable government service, but has been overcome by the information revolution. So it is an anachronism that will eventually fall away as not needed. It has nothing to do with anyone's government policies.

AmTrak, for the same reasons. AmTrak was a method for saving what were considered strategically important rail systems once civilians started travelling more on the highways and in aircraft, and couldn't support it anymore. And those railroad unions really put the nail in the coffin on that one - one day's pay per 100 miles traveled!? How can you support that? But they may come back with all the airline gouging, so stand by.

Social Security was working fine, and was not supposed to be touched for other budgetary purposes. Wasn't it Clinton who first robbed that bank to "balance" his budget? In any event, there was also a decline in US population after the baby boomers went to work, but the population has grown past the height of the baby boomers and continues to rise, so there will be payments back into that system - especially if we can get the illegals to contribute - especially as much as they take back in social services they never pay for. Anyway, it serves a very useful purpose so is worth keeping around.

And, most other social programs that cost money but are paid for in real time, actually save money in other sectors. SS and other aid keeps crime down, so you can pay for more police and military, or more aid, as has been pointed out.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Bookcase14 on 10/26/2010 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
mmcdonalataocdotgov....While I appreciate your well-written and thoughtful post, you are not necessarily disproving my point.

USPS is hurting because of the decrease of physical mail, however that doesn't take away the fact that it is a poorly-run government business. USPS failed to look at future trends and tended to rest on its laurels due to the fact that it had "unlimited" (obviously that's said in jest) governmental funds to back it. Look at Germany and Japan's privatized systems as successful turnarounds.

AmTrak has been terribly run since being started in 1971. AmTrak is primarily failing because it did not keep up with the times. Newer techonology, more railroad systems, and faster trains (think China and other Asian countries) would have easily kept the system more profitable and usable. I will say that I agree with you on unions; they were great for worker's rights back in the late 19th, early 20th century, but they do not serve much of a purpose anymore aside from robbing companies.

You are again proving my point with social security (also I am no fan of Clinton's-talk about right place at the right time). Social Security did, and continues to have, major troubles due to a population boom, but you can not justify it's downfall solely on a booming population; I will whole-heartedly agree on your illegal immigrants point, though. SS in the USA is incorrectly seen as a retirement vehicle, when in all actuality it is not (more like an insurance program). Therefore most citizens are left with an idea that it is going to be enough for retirement without wisely privately investing in another vehicle (in 2006 it was said that only 14% of eligible individuals that could make direct contributions in their IRA did). At the end of the day, SS does not really match-up to the ROR of private investments.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/26/2010 3:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

There is something called self-responsibility that I believe you and your political affiliation forgot about long ago.


And there is something to be said about being-- an out for yourself asshat-- damning all others for your own good--.

How about trying to punch your way up through classes much ?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2010 1:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Health care is a loser. It's not suppose to make a profit.


Complete and utter BS. So you'd pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor only to be told how much you can make and told what you're going to be doing?

Furthermore, health care is a business. People go into it to make a living. At the end of the day, if they can't, they're not going to do it. Kindness and charity don't put food on the table. Of course to you obviously, the rest of us need to pay for it so they can do it for free essentially.

Also, show me a country with socialized medicine where the people get anywhere near the level of treatment on demand that we get here in the US. If you need care here, you get care. Regardless of your ability to pay for it. You may not get all the drugs and preventative care you want, but if you're sick and dying, you're helped.

What idiots like you want to do is take that away. To let the government decide how much will be spent on care and thus, who gets care. You can't just walk in and get an MRI or CT scan in Britain or France. You wait. Weeks or even months. And even then you hope the government doesn't run through its budget for that procedure for the year, otherwise you wait until the next budget starts.

In the past two years I've had two CT scans, my appendix removed, a colonoscopy, and two ultrasounds. I waited at most a few days for each procedure with some coming within hours. If I lived in a country run like you want, I would be dead. My appendix was misdiagnosed as a kidney stone because I didn't have the symptoms of appendicitis. I had a CT scan 2 hours later to find out how big the kidney stone was which was how they saw it was my appendix. If I lived somewhere like Canada, Britain, or most of Europe, I would be dead because I would likely have been given some pain killers, scheduled a scan for a few months later, gone back to work, and had my appendix burst that night at home with no one around to take me to the hospital.

And yes, I just got done paying for the surgery. And am now paying for a recent ultra sound that checked for testicular cancer and a CT also for cancer. But you want it so that instead someone like me would die while the guy who makes poor life decisions on what to spend his money on (instead of health care)or do with his life has "free" basic care.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By raddude9 on 10/26/2010 2:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
Where to start?

quote:
Furthermore, health care is a business


Wrong, in most countries it is a service.

quote:
Also, show me a country with socialized medicine where the people get anywhere near the level of treatment on demand that we get here in the US.


Easy, according to the CIA world factbook for 2009 there are 44 countries (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world... with a lower infant mortality rate than the United States. Or if you are not interested in how many children die in your healthcare system, how about how well the system works at the other end, i.e. the longevity statistics are even worse, there are 47 countries where people live longer.

quote:
If I lived somewhere like Canada, Britain, or most of Europe, I would be dead


To quote your own post "Complete and utter BS", and this is the main reason for my reply (i.e. why your post annoyed me so much). I live in "Most of Europe" and I went to hospital with a suspected kidney stone and I was scanned straight away (In my case it was a kidney stone).

quote:
To let the government decide how much will be spent on care and thus, who gets care.


Wrong, again in "Most of Europe" you can elect to pay for private medical insurance, and in most countries this will even be part-subsidised by your public contributions. In fact the EU has legislation to the effect that people cannot be denied the right to have private medical insurance.

quote:
And yes, I just got done paying for the surgery.


I paid nothing.

quote:
quote: Health care is a loser. It's not suppose to make a profit. Complete and utter BS. So you'd pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor only to be told how much you can make and told what you're going to be doing?


I think you've got the wrong idea here. Health care should be non-profit because if it is a for-profit business then it is in that companies interest for people to be unhealthy. So that is what they are going to lobby for.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By xyxer on 10/26/2010 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
You will never get a reply from Reclaimer. He is a headless horserider on crusader for extreme neo-conservative policies. Give all money to rich... no need for _any social_ services, screw environment for your kids - I wanna drive my big truck- but don't wanna pay for road maintenace. I love peace in my country so let me blow up yours:-).


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By cmdrdredd on 10/26/2010 7:31:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wrong, in most countries it is a service.


And that's why most countries are shit and bankrupt.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By raddude9 on 10/27/2010 4:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly it's not shit, because people in other countries spend a lot less on health care and at the same time they are a lot more healthy.
I don't know why I'm trying to explain this because you do not even know the difference between "Bankrupt" and "Not For Profit".


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 2:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Mind proving that assertion that you would be dead in ANY of the Western EU or Canada, or any other socialized medicine country?

ANY?

You can't because it doesn't happen.

Quit spreading FUD.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By Argon18 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama's glory shineth
By gamerk2 on 10/26/2010 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
^^ This is quite honestly the most ignorant and misguided post I have ever read on these forums. Obama's epic failure of a bailout bill, with spending now into the Trillions (That's a 'T' boys and girls) is far more money than the entire budget for ALL years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Defense spending is a small percentage of the overall federal budget less than 10%. Not anywhere near the "half" number that you quote. Sorry, social welfare is not an acceptable way to run a country, and you'll see this fall when the voters help turn the tide against this Obamanation.


Get your facts strights for a moment:

1: take a look at the 2009 budget as passed by the Bush administration. Spending is actually DOWN from its peak.

2: You outright LIE on Defence Spending; its 20% of the total US budget. I work in the industry, and openly say the business is bloated.

3: The TARP's total cost (A Bush initiative I point out) is down to $50 Billion, and dropping. Assuming GM and AIG finish payouts on schedule, its possible it will turn a PROFIT. As for the Stimulus:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21709.html

Note Chart 5, in particular, the improvement in employment numbers on a month-to-month basis since Obama took office. No offens, but going from ~750,000 job losses per month down to about ~50,000 per month is extraordinary. Kinda shows how bad the other guys screwed things up.

Oh, and lets not forget the largest tax cut for the middle class (adjusted for inflation) is US history was included in the Stimulus. You're not against tax-cuts for the middle class and private business, are you?

4: The structural deficit, or the deficit not the result of non-mandatory spending, is only 3% GDP, or relativly small.

5: Based on the latest numbers I'm seeing, Democrats have a decent chance of keeping the house. Early turnout right now is favoring Democrats in most key districts. Oh, and Obama still has a postive approval-disapproval rating. Nevermind Republicans don't have anyone to actually run against him.

6: Welfare programs add SIGNIFICANTLY to GDP. As a general rule: At cost care is always cheaper then the best for-profit alternative. This saves money for the consumers who use those programs, which can be used to fuel economic growth. Hence why even at the height of the Great Society, the Gross Debt (debt/GDP) SHRUNK, because the increase in spending was offset by the increase in GDP. Of course, Republicans, ever so focused ONLY on the spending side of the equation (GDP be dammed!) has increased the Gross Debt under Regan and both Bushs (while failing miserably to contain spending, which actually rose faster then it did under Democratic administrations).

So yeah, facts maybe?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By gamerk2 on 10/26/2010 1:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
As an Appendum:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23617.html

quote:
The private sector generated 67,000 new jobs in September indicating the economy is recovering at a slow pace.


quote:
For September 2010, local governments cut 76,000 jobs, most of them teachers. That is the largest cut by local governments in 28 years. State governments shed 7,000 jobs.


See where the job losses are? Its not business thats the problem, its the local and state governments, specifically, their requirement to maintain a balenced budget.

The economy is driven by consumer spending, as such, it is necessary to keep workers employeed in order to drive the economic recovery. However, due to the insane notion that states, even in bad times, can't have a deficit means massive layoffs, which is actually happening faster then the private sector can offset. Its possible [Albiet unlikely] that if this trend continues, you'll see the recession take hold again.

Of course, a Kenysian like me would simply point out that if states could take a deficit, they could cut less workers, less people would be out of work, and the increased consumer spending would be getting us out of recession. Instead, because of the one-minded focus on maintaining a balenced budget every single year, we drive outselves into recession.

The short-term cost of stimulating the economy is also relativly small compared to the total cost to GDP of allowing the recession to continue. As such, from a Gross Debt perspective, its far CHEAPER to spend a few hundred billion to make the recession go away then to allow it to drag on for another 2-3 years [yes, a natural recovery will take that long, just like the 5 year recovery from the .com bust].

Of course, the country is run by people terrified of spending, regardless of its effect on GDP and teh actual size of the Gross debt, so we'll probably continue to tank the economy, grow the Gross Debt, and set ourselves up for a repeat in 12 years or so. Gotta love good old fashoned fear mongering about the debt. :D


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
How can you contend #6 on such a large scale for anything BUT medical care? Because if you're honest, then you have to accept there's a point at which your 'priming the pump' philosophy fails - where trucking in water is just not going to help.

When do we hit that? When 75% of the citenzenry pays no taxes? When 50% of the citenzry gets food stamps?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The TARP's total cost (A Bush initiative I point out) is down to $50 Billion, and dropping.

Man, are you going to get downrated for that piece of honesty.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By clovell on 10/26/2010 1:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy that the American people are tired of fscking with. Wait a couple weeks, and you'll see that.

That aside, given the logistics industry in the United States today, taxes like this are regressive - they only raise the price of goods to the consumer.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By pyeager on 10/27/2010 10:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Personally for every dollar we cut from "social welfare" I think should have a corresponding $1.25 on the dollar cut in defense. Why 25% more? It had a 30-40 year head start on the over spending.


Nice try. We have spent more on social welfare programs since 1964 than on all the military wars the United States has fought since the Revolution.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By BruceLeet on 10/26/2010 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Remember when he was running, and everybody loved him?

Sadly, the Americans will fall for the same thing next time, of course in fact after saying they will not fall for anymore of the same smooth talking politicians.

Federal Elections...a rinse & repeat process, same sh!t different bleach. That's why the world loves watching!


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By lostvyking on 10/26/2010 11:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
Folks, this is not about reducing pollution....it is about raking in more bucks. Ask yourself....what is the consequences of noncompliance? The answer to anything that is "not good for the environment" is "fines and higher taxes". The government wants our money in the worst way, and drumming up more fines and penalties in the name of "environmentalism" is not such a huge step for government. Take a step back and see the forest instead of the trees. Another nail in this particular coffin is this: if the government were so concerned with the environment, why would they not also find new ways of reducing pollution that it could pass on to the truckers? After all, if you listen to government, they want to be the answer to all our questions and problems...where are they on this one? The answer is this: they do not have a clue...they simply want to badger people for more money.


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By hyvonen on 10/27/2010 1:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry - that's Mr. Bush. Haven't you seen the sticker price on the useless Iraq Oil War?


RE: Obama's glory shineth
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 5:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love the picture of "Saint" Obama. I think he should be the patron saint of spending.

Suffice to say Halliburton would disagree with you.


Thank goodness
By Jackattak on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Thank goodness
By allometry on 10/26/2010 10:05:17 AM , Rating: 3
I have some family working logistics in Belen, New Mexico. The rail yards there represent one of many hubs that are part of the train network in the United States. The biggest problem is the amount of trains being added to the rails and the insufficient lines to support them.

The interstate truck traffic is a partial representation of this problem. It's necessary to have them.

Unfortunately, what we don't need is the federal government making a difficult job even more cumbersome by adding more regulations and fines. Instead of focusing on symptomatic problems, how about actually doing something to fix the root cause?


RE: Thank goodness
By IcePickFreak on 10/26/2010 10:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't think now is a good time to increase anyone's operating costs. Raise the cost of shipping and essentially the cost of everything is going to go up. That will surely help stimulate the economy.


RE: Thank goodness
By Motoman on 10/26/2010 10:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
There's a stroke of genius. How do you think cargo gets to and from the train?

...and do you reckon we should just shutter every town and city in the country that doesn't happen to be right on a rail line? So that we don't have to use trucks to get them stuff?


RE: Thank goodness
By Homerboy on 10/26/2010 10:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
He is referring to INTERSTATE TRUCKING. Which there still is an amazing amount of. Surely you don't think there are STATES that are rail-less do you?


RE: Thank goodness
By nafhan on 10/26/2010 10:35:23 AM , Rating: 4
Which third world countries are you talking about? I'd be interested to know...
Along with insufficient rail infrastructure (as another poster mentioned), trucks have the advantage of bringing perishable items to market quicker and providing for the "just in time" delivery methods that many businesses seem to appreciate. Point is, inefficiency in one area (i.e. fuel utilization) doesn't mean inefficiency overall. We didn't move so much shipping from rail to road just because we like burning oil!


RE: Thank goodness
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 10:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
I've been an advocate of improving our rail structure for some time. It makes absolute sense to ferry a lot of our interstate trafficking from tire and diesel-based trucks to the rails. Intrastate deliveries would still have to be conducted by trucks.

The question is though, well, a couple of questions are: What kind of rail?--standard wheel and rail or an electromagnetic solution and secondly, how do you power it?

Think about it for a moment... right now, the majority of goods are sent across the country or state lines in either trucks or aircraft. Typically, these goods traverse lines to large distribution centers (gigantic warehouses) which are centralized points that trucks or planes then leave from to distribute to smaller areas. These are large hubs. Memphis Tennessee is a major location for a lot of these centers. The logistical challenge is not sending a rail like Amtrack all along the eastern seaboard and then down the southern flanks to the west, but to create a rail system that accomodates these centralized hubs of product accumulation.

I think it can be done--with these hubs branching out to surrounding states with a tertiary channel (think similar to the internet backbones) that go from one wide branching end of the nation to the next. Of course, you'd also have to consider mail and shipping of individual packages. There is a large amount of freight space occupied by these goods. When you think about it, the amount of things shipped on a daily basis across state lines is staggering.

Rail could help tremendously with this. But, we haven't answered how we will build it and how we will power it. I'd like to first and foremost say that I would love to use electromagnetic levetation systems--it would serve to potentially reduce the chances of derailment significantly. Couple that with a staggered power injection system (the segment of rail only comes fully online when a train nears that stretch of track), power consumption could be reduced. It would require a computer-controlled network (because operators these days text and drive) but I think it is feasible--but, would require a _lot_ of work.

However, I don't think our power-grid system is strong enough to handle a rail network like this yet. I also worry about the implications of children and drivers getting clobbered by a 200 mph train. Regardless, I think it would be an amazing level of progress. We could distance ourself from diesel and due to the almighty joule, would have to embrace nuclear power... finally.

Wait--there's your jobs. Useful jobs. Jobs that could change America for the better, like our interstate system did. Why aren't we doing this now?


RE: Thank goodness
By JediJeb on 10/26/2010 12:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
The thing I see locally is rail lines actually pulling up tracks that are not being used instead of putting down new ones. Apparently it is not as efficient to run these lines or they would be expanding. We have also had four derailments in the last three months here locally because the tracks are in disrepair. It isn't like there isn't a lot of traffic on these lines because I am in the heart of coal country and they are moving coal and other freight through here in a constant stream.

The other question for expanding the rail system is where to put the tracks? Most rail needs to be as level and straight as possible. You can't be running it in twisty shapes and up and down hills or it becomes very inefficient and expensive. I doubt it would be easy to tell a community that you are going to run a rail line right through their subdivision or town because it is the best place to put it. Also if you are servicing smaller locales with the trains then you are making more frequent stops which also lowers the efficiency of a train since much more power is needed to get it moving than to keep it moving. In my grandfather's day trains stopped at every small town because roads were not up to handling the freight hauling needs. In my father's day the stops were fewer as the roads were better, and now in my day the stops are much less as the highways offer better service.

Rail, trucks, and air all have their place and I believe that since freight shipping companies are trying to maximize profits they are using what is most efficient right now. The balance of rail, truck and air is good, and to try to shift the balance while keeping maximum efficiency will not be so easy.


RE: Thank goodness
By clovell on 10/26/2010 2:37:34 PM , Rating: 3
You clearly have no clue about the logistics industry in the US. Please stop posting.


RE: Thank goodness
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 4:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Trains are far more efficient, and the only thing happening around here is train rails are being removed.

Let's hear it for logistics.


If theres any..
By Masospaghetti on 10/26/2010 10:24:33 AM , Rating: 5
..industry that values fuel efficiency, it's trucking.

If there were any economical way to increase efficiency of trucks, they would have been pursued. Mandating fuel economy goals will force trucking companies to pursue non-economical means to improve efficiency. If a diesel-electric drivetrain is required to meet the goal but costs $30,000 per truck, what do you think that is going to do to transport costs?

Sometimes government intervention is productive, but this is certainly one example where the free market can take care of itself.




RE: If theres any..
By Netjak on 10/26/2010 11:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
mack pinnacle, mp8 engine, on average 7 mpg. after 500,000 miles with 20% cut u can save about 14000 galons x 3 USD = 42000. So?


RE: If theres any..
By Spuke on 10/26/2010 11:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
mack pinnacle, mp8 engine, on average 7 mpg. after 500,000 miles with 20% cut u can save about 14000 galons x 3 USD = 42000. So?
He already stated the trucking industry would LOVE to save more money in fuel costs. They have been doing this for decades. Why wouldn't they? The point is that it will cost a great deal of money to do it sooner and the trucking industry ain't doing this for free. I hear complaints about costs here all of the time and I think it's funny that the same people that complain about costs are the first one's to volunteer that costs should be raised.


RE: If theres any..
By Netjak on 10/27/2010 9:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He already stated the trucking industry would LOVE to save more money in fuel costs. They have been doing this for decades. Why wouldn't they? The point is that it will cost a great deal of money to do it sooner and the trucking industry ain't doing this for free. I hear complaints about costs here all of the time and I think it's funny that the same people that complain about costs are the first one's to volunteer that costs should be raised.


This is chicken-egg situation. Everybody wants to save money. But, after some point, u can't save more money on fuel if u can not buy more efficient vehicle. Investing in more efficient engines/technologies is not allways in best interest for Mack (or other brands) so there must be some kind of incentive for them. For example, Mack my invest just enough to be slightly better than main competitors, but not more. Money talks, remember. In this regard we can talk about other solutions like, as some mentioned, using more trains for trasportation of goods etc.


RE: If theres any..
By Spuke on 10/27/2010 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Money talks, remember.
Yes, as I stated in my post. Money does talk and if no one buys the super fuel efficient truck because it costs too much, then what's the point? If you do incremental improvements so the customer can "budget" for them, you'll have a better chance of that customer buying your product. People already complain about the high cost of cars here in the US with the average new car price at $28,000. If Toyota could get the Camry to 100 mpg but it cost an additional $20,000 per car to do it, that would not get more Camry customers. That WOULD essentially kill the Camry.

The truck industries customers are no different. It has to be cost effective to make any sense. So it is in the truck manufacturers best interest to improve fuel economy but at a rate that their customers can absorb.


RE: If theres any..
By JediJeb on 10/26/2010 11:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
I just looked those up, quite impressive. But if a company had just invested in other trucks before these came out is still wouldn't make sense to replace a whole fleet at once.

Most trucking companies are looking for what will make them the most money over time. If the engines exist to improve fuel economy the companies are naturally going to migrate to them as they become available. But if the government decides to force an almost immediate upgrade(over 4 years) that will end up costing everyone a lot of money.

Also if the improved fuel economy happens to come at a reduced power(doesn't seem to be the case with the Mack), then overall it will require more trucks to haul the same amount of cargo which will negate any increase in fuel efficiency per truck.

Also if it is diesel/electric as the other poster mentioned, you have to figure in cost to implement with cost to operate and repair and cost savings in fuel to know for sure if it is a win or loss.


RE: If theres any..
By Netjak on 10/27/2010 9:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most trucking companies are looking for what will make them the most money over time. If the engines exist to improve fuel economy the companies are naturally going to migrate to them as they become available. But if the government decides to force an almost immediate upgrade(over 4 years) that will end up costing everyone a lot of money


20% reduction is not imposible, not even close. I live in europe where is in place very high taxation over fuels. So we adapted and have relativly small, efficient cars with average consumption in high 30 or 40 mpg range with conventional technologies. Prius is joke over here. Every other high volume car in europe is comparable or better than prius, even midrange sedan/van like passat which is capable of 200km/h (125mph).

its for sure, better efficiency will cost some more money initialy, but can save money on long run. Answer will be provided by competition and market forces, but not before the question is in place.


RE: If theres any..
By Yomi on 10/26/2010 1:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that regulation for increased fuel efficiency in this market seems to be a little odd. On the other hand, pollution control is something that won't happen except by regulation -- no company is going to ask for a cleaner engine at any cost when their competitors might not.

It always amazes me how intensely right wing most of the regular commenters on Dailytech are (not a comment on this thread of this page, but one on the comments as a whole on this article and most others). "Imagine what limits on dumping toxic chemicals into the waterways will do to production costs!"


Soon enough
By stilltrying on 10/26/2010 10:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty soon they are going to come into your house and tell you what your temperature can be set at either directly or indirectly, meanwhile they are jetsetting all around the world setting up deals to benefit them.

Keep believing in the vote though it always changes things doesn't it?




RE: Soon enough
By Spuke on 10/26/2010 12:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep believing in the vote though it always changes things doesn't it?
As long as we keep voting for the same idiots, nothing will change.

quote:
Pretty soon they are going to come into your house and tell you what your temperature can be set at either directly or indirectly, meanwhile they are jetsetting all around the world setting up deals to benefit them.
I'll be off grid on solar and wind by then.


RE: Soon enough
By kattanna on 10/26/2010 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Pretty soon they are going to come into your house and tell you what your temperature can be set


with these new "smart grids" they willnt even need to come to your house, just log into your meter remotely and turn off the power


Obama is a bit clueless on this.
By 91TTZ on 10/26/2010 10:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
If I remember back from chemistry class, burning of hydrocarbons is going to result in the release of a certain amount of carbon after it's separated from hydrogen. The carbon can be in the form of solid or gas. If you want to cut the amount of carbon dioxide then the emissions will be more sooty.

Am I right here?




RE: Obama is a bit clueless on this.
By ynot56 on 10/26/2010 12:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
No you are clueless

You reduce carbon dioxide by improving the fuel efficiency burning less fuel for the same distance travelled/load hauled.


RE: Obama is a bit clueless on this.
By 91TTZ on 10/26/2010 2:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
But diesel trucks are already very fuel efficient. Fuel efficiency directly translates to operating costs for the trucking industry.


By undummy on 10/26/2010 11:16:17 AM , Rating: 1
Only 4% on the road but consume 20% fuel??? No shit Sherlock. They're on the road 24/7. I might only consume 4% since I don't drive a tractor trailer, but the HVAC/lighting in my cubicle probably consumes just as much since the office is open 24/7 too.

Somehow, without any reason, there has been an attack on diesel. Instead of embracing it and reducing fuel consumption on all vehicles, these liberal ignorant eco-weenies are headstrong into killing the diesel engine.

I don't care to live in a cave or plant a garden in the yard. I prefer my groceries to be purchased fresh at the local supermarket.

The attack on the trucking industry is going to make all your purchases more expensive. YOU ARE GOING TO PAY.

Truckers are suffering enough already. When they're legislated out of business, you will pay dearly at the checkout line, if there are any stores left.




By Spuke on 10/26/2010 11:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Truckers are suffering enough already. When they're legislated out of business, you will pay dearly at the checkout line, if there are any stores left.
They won't go out of business, well maybe the small privateers might, but they WILL raise costs. That hurts everyone to some extent but especially the lower middle class and poor. Can you imagine the effect this might have on their budgets?


By Spuke on 10/27/2010 2:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you imagine the effect this might have on their budgets?
Why did this post get a one? Do you idiots really believe the trucking industry is just going to absorb any extra costs for the government imposed fuel economy improvements? Ford says direct injection costs $200 per car. And that's THEIR cost not ours. This stuff adds up. With all the complaints on car prices, I would thin k you guys would be for LESS cost not more. Otherwise, stop the complaining and open your wallets.


By NicodemusMM on 10/26/2010 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 1
Politicians aren't concerned with reason or logic in this case... They're only interested in a way to drive more companies to use rail. They have time and money invested there so (in their mind) the success of rail at the expense of all else is a win.


Scientists?
By nafhan on 10/26/2010 10:27:55 AM , Rating: 5
Statements like:
quote:
These trucks represent only 4 percent of vehicles on the road, but they consume 20 percent of the fuel
makes me question the scientists at "The Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program". Seriously, large vehicles are utilized much more efficiently for the transport of cargo/people than smaller vehicles. I don't know the exact numbers, but a statement along the lines of "sedans move only 4% of the cargo on the road today, but use 30% of the fuel" could be made, and would be equally meaningless.




lol
By Chiisuchianu on 10/26/2010 2:39:12 PM , Rating: 3
Cool! More economic destruction from Messiah Obongo. I wonder if this is what will heal Mother Earth like he said would happen in his campaign.




RE: lol
By YashBudini on 10/27/2010 5:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
Messiahs, Crusaders, what's the diff?
Lunatics, the lot of them.


Debt by the Numbers
By tech329 on 10/26/2010 8:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
I see a lot of references here to who or what party managed the nations debt and spending well.

Here is little run down of the numbers on a presidential basis. The numbers speak for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S....




RE: Debt by the Numbers
By pyeager on 10/27/2010 3:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here is little run down of the numbers on a presidential basis. The numbers speak for themselves.


They certainly do, if you are naive enough to believe a President has control over such things.

The reality is that Congress levies the taxes and spends the money.


Getting Blood Out Of A Turnip (The Taxpayer)
By douggrif on 10/27/2010 1:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
In a captalist society, manufacturers constantly try to improve their products in order to gain market share, improve profits. Any manufacturer who can produce more energy efficient long haul trucks will do very well in the competitive marketplace which is why you already see more aerodynamic trucks and improved engine efficiency. Only "the sky is falling" progressive socialist worries that the marketplace can't solve problems and that elite government officials must step in to regulate and tax the slow witted masses. The more dumbed down the consumer the easier it is to sneak in more regulation and taxes. The results of such liberal thinking is fewer jobs in America as industry goes overseas to escape over regulation. The laws of supply and demand, if unfettered, produce incrediable national and personal wealth. Look at history, when has national socialism ever produced a greatly expansive and debt free economy? America's economy and freedom has led the world for decades and has been the envy of the world's population. I trust the people and capitalism anyday over unelected bureaucrats and judges to make the best decisions for our economy and the environment. Be sure to vote on November 2nd.




By Netjak on 10/28/2010 11:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In a captalist society, manufacturers constantly try to improve their products in order to gain market share, improve profits. Any manufacturer who can produce more energy efficient long haul trucks will do very well in the competitive marketplace which is why you already see more aerodynamic trucks and improved engine efficiency


So, in other words, fixing prices, or making other shady moves is imposible in capitalism? You can't be more wrong. during 1970s, when toyota and other japanese manufacturers start gaining market share, americans tryed to block them and forced said brands to move production in US. When all such tactics failed, they launhced marketing campain "Buy American" in attempt to deceive customers from making economicaly sound decisions. during 1990s and 2000's LCD manufacturers have set prices WORLDWIDE. etc etc


Don Anair is a Retard
By clovell on 10/26/2010 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
> Don Anair, a senior analyst at The Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program says its about time these gas guzzlers be brought in line. He states, "These trucks represent only 4 percent of vehicles on the road, but they consume 20 percent of the fuel."

Yes, Don, but those 4% of vehicles almost assuredly account for >25% of all driving done on the road. Way to be a retard that influences political policy based on retarded bullsh!t.




This makes no sense...
By jharper12 on 10/26/2010 12:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Whereas consumers may buy vehicles to show off and have fun, businesses already weigh cost/benefit for fleet vehicles actively to save costs. Forcing consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, by forcing car companies to manufacture them just makes sense. However, [smart] businesses are already going to buy the most economical vehicle. Sure, that may be less fuel efficient if the pricier vehicle is difficult to maintain, and therefore more expensive in the long run, but they are already very concerned about price per lb/mile. Fuel economy is a big piece to that puzzle. Don't force companies to ignore the other pieces to the puzzle though, like maintenance and reliability. That's going to cost business money, which means it's going to cost consumers money. I wish I was older, so I could know if other administrations were equally foolish in economic matters. If the market is already going to favor the efficient, legislation will not improve anything.




Fact Check Failure
By Magnus Dredd on 11/2/2010 4:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not commenting on the value of this law.

I'm commenting on the shoddy reporting job of the Author.

It's true that the H3 has a GVWR below 8500 pounds.

However here's a list of vehicles that don't:

Make -- Year -- GVWR - Model
Chevy - 2009 -- 8600 - Express 2500
Chevy - 2009 -- 9600 - Express 3500
Chevy - 2009 -- 9200 - Silverado 2500 HD
Chevy - 2009 -- 9900 - Silverado 3500 HD
Chevy - 2009 -- 8600 - Suburban 2500
Dodge - 2009 -- 8800 - Ram 2500
Dodge - 2009 - 10100 - Ram 3500
Dodge - 2009 -- 8550 - Sprinter Van 2500
Dodge - 2009 -- 9990 - Sprinter Van 3500
Dodge - 2009 -- 8550 - Sprinter Wagon 2500
Ford -- 2009 -- 9500 - E 350 Super Duty
Ford -- 2009 -- 9200 - F 150
Ford -- 2009 - 10100 - F 450
GMC --- 2009 -- 8600 - Savana 2500
GMC --- 2009 -- 9600 - Savana 3500
GMC --- 2009 -- 9200 - Sierra 2500
GMC --- 2009 -- 9700 - Sierra 3500

And since Hummers were mentioned:
Hummer - 2006 - 10300 - H1 Alpha
Hummer - 2006 -- 8600 - H2
Hummer - 2007 -- 8600 - H2
Hummer - 2008 -- 8600 - H2
Hummer - 2009 -- 8600 - H2

http auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/towing/towing-cap acity/vehicle/gvwr.htm

Get your fact straight before suggesting that this only covers semis and "heavy trucks". Medium Trucks are specifically mentioned in the government article you linked to.

Furthermore, it's a lie to suggest that this only affects "work use" vehicles. There are a HUGE number of the vehicles listed above being driven by people who are not operating a business or towing anything. Perhaps it's a bigger percentage in Phoenix,AZ than elsewhere, but the point is valid.

Your spam filter also sucks.




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki