backtop


Print 111 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Aug 24 at 10:57 PM

House Republicans call for CAFE standard delay

Automakers around the world have been crying foul over the Obama Administration’s fuel efficiency standards set to go into effect over the coming years. By 2025, fleetwide fuel economy standards under the proposed CAFE regulations would be 54.5 mpg. Some studies have shown that not only will these fuel economy standards add significantly to the price of new vehicles, the proposed standards will hurt jobs and force as many as 7 million Americans from the new car market.
 
The Detroit News reports that three members of the United States House of Representatives are seeking to delay implementation of the final CAFÉ regulations set to go into effect between 2017 and 2025. The three top House Republicans include House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa from California, Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio, and Representative Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania.
 
The three representatives asked acting administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Boris Bershteyn, "To return the rule to the agencies for further consideration of its adverse consequences to consumers and the economy."
 
Issa said, "Higher fuel efficiency standards is a goal I share — but not at the expense of consumer safety and not when those rules are implemented under a cloak of secrecy in a manner outside the law. The process followed by Obama administration officials to develop these standards was politicized, not rooted in sound science and was a political end run around seasoned experts who are required by law to lead the process."
 
The self-imposed deadline for finalizing the fuel economy rules by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA was this coming Friday. That deadline was reportedly abandoned last week. However, one House Republican has suggested that the administration was having second thoughts on the deadline.
 
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last Friday, "It's coming soon. We're working with the White House and the EPA to roll it out. It's going to happen. ... There's no backing away — it's just making sure everything's done correctly."

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

I have to wonder....
By Philippine Mango on 8/22/2012 9:25:50 AM , Rating: 1
After hearing the horrifically uninformed opinions of various politicians when they speak candidly, I think I can safely say those who complain in regards to this issue with the CAFE fuel economy don't know what they're talking about. I say this because I wonder if someone were to ask any one of these politicians point blank, what the law is really asking automakers to do, which is make trucks get a real 30MPG by 2025, whether they think that is feasible. 30MPG for a truck fleet and 40mpg for a car fleet is very feasible with today's technology, let alone the technology of 10 years from now. Also if the cars are electric, then this point is completely null and void because at a minimum, nearly every vehicle on the road would be getting a minimum of 50mpg+.




RE: I have to wonder....
By FITCamaro on 8/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: I have to wonder....
By Paj on 8/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: I have to wonder....
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 1:11:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe its because many care around the world already meet or exceed these figures? That's right - actual cars being sold in healthy numbers around the world, today.


These are FLEET WIDE standards. It's not about making "a car" that meets them.

You know I understand that you people want to see trucks, SUV's, sports cars and large sedans wiped off the face of the Earth. Because that's "progressive" apparently, but not everyone agrees that should be done.

quote:
If families can't afford to buy a new car, surely they can buy second hand? Or just save up longer until they can afford it, like sensible people do? Or not buy a car at all, and ride a bike instead, with all the benefits that brings?


Okay well thanks for confirming you're a Socialist moron. Wrong on so many levels.


RE: I have to wonder....
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 3:15:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Okay well thanks for confirming you're a Socialist moron. Wrong on so many levels.


That wasn't socialist. Socialists usually aren't that bad. Basically saying if people can't afford to meet his personal standards for energy efficiency then they should eat shit and live like it's the year 1800 isn't about equality, therefore Marxism or anything else. That's Mao Zedong "Cultural Revolution" and Joseph Stalin forced-industrialization style tyranny there masquerading as socialism, because socialism to that guy is probably being 'moderate'.


RE: I have to wonder....
By Paj on 8/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: I have to wonder....
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not a straw man, simply an accurate description of your position. It wasn't socialist, it was tyrannical. You're closer to Stalin then Marx.


RE: I have to wonder....
By Paj on 8/23/2012 1:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's a textbook strawman. I never said I wanted people to live like neanderthals just because they cant afford something - thats what you said.

Its just about living within your means. I dont have the money right now to buy a gold plated Ferrari, but I can afford a less salubrious vehicle. It's not that difficult to understand, surely?


RE: I have to wonder....
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 8:04:34 PM , Rating: 1
What an idiot. You said if people can't afford cars that meet your personal preferences for energy efficiency, then too bad. Read your own bloody post. And I didn't say neanderthals, I said like it was the year 1800 -- ie, without cars. Which is what you said they'd have to live without.

And it's not "living within your means." You can't afford a Ferrari because they're inherently expensive, high-end vehicles, not because some government troll has forced expensive technology in to them by diktat that made them so.

I know you have a brain in there, please use it. It's frustrating when otherwise smart people do not.


RE: I have to wonder....
By Paj on 8/24/2012 7:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you are misrepresenting my argument. Vehicle designs have had new safety and efficiency measures mandated into them by governments all around the world for decades. Catalytic converters, seatbelts, unleaded petrol, immobilisers - it's not a new thing. The reasons are sound - to improve public health and safety, or curtail environmental damage.

This is no different.

You seem to think that I believe that people should be forbidden from buying ANY car at all if they cant afford a NEW one. Not only is this ludicrous, it's not what I said.

Obviously it would be great if the emissions standards could be implemented without affecting the price of new cars. But as this unrealistic, then people should delay their purchase until they can afford it, explore alternative financing options, buy a less expensive model, or buy secondhand. Its the same process that any consumer goes through when considering which product to buy.

If the CAFE standard meant that any existing vehicle of any age not meeting the standards has to be destroyed, then obviously that's crazy, and your argument would make a lot more sense. But as far as I understand it, the standards only apply to new cars.


RE: I have to wonder....
By kattanna on 8/22/2012 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If families can't afford to buy a new car, surely they can buy second hand?


that is an odd statement, you want more fuel efficient cars, yet are quite happy if they are out of reach financially to a large group.. ensuring those old fuel guzzlers stay on the road in second hand form. interesting.

quote:
Or not buy a car at all, and ride a bike instead, with all the benefits that brings?


im glad riding a bike works for you, but dont assume it works for others.


RE: I have to wonder....
By Paj on 8/23/2012 4:47:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
that is an odd statement, you want more fuel efficient cars, yet are quite happy if they are out of reach financially to a large group.. ensuring those old fuel guzzlers stay on the road in second hand form. interesting.


Surely it's preferable to introduce more efficient cars in the first place, rather than just doing nothing? Those who can afford them will buy them. Those that cant will wait until they can. Over time, efficient cars will replace inefficient ones, and prices will come down for everyone.


RE: I have to wonder....
By sorry dog on 8/23/2012 12:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
...except now the population is getting E15 rammed down their 2nd hand fuel fillers necks....so even more "progression" at the cost of mostly the less wealthy segment of the population.

I'm not a Repub by any means, but I do find it ironic that the Democrats tend to lead the charge of these types of regulations that tend to have a much greater effect on the poor...and it's usually not done so much through legislation, but regulation. That's the rub.


RE: I have to wonder....
By bond007taz on 8/22/2012 9:53:22 AM , Rating: 1
so you think in 10 years every car is going to be electric? - you do live in a dream world... where do you think we get the batteries and rare earth elements for electric cars? CHINA... the current CAFE standards just make us more DEPENDENT on CHINA...


RE: I have to wonder....
By vortmax2 on 8/22/2012 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 1
This is an important post that should be considered. China is already in the process of reducing the exports of rare earth metals required for the manufacturing of electric cars. This is something that the current Administration seems to be overlooking, or are they??


RE: I have to wonder....
By Jeffk464 on 8/23/2012 12:56:22 AM , Rating: 1
China is pretty smart about this stuff. First they undercut US rare earth metals and our mines shut down. Then they cut off our supply of the stuff and we can't produce anything.
US = fiddle China = mistro


RE: I have to wonder....
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 11:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to accept your premise on what or what isn't "feasible". That's playing the Big Governments game. The issue isn't what automakers can and can't do, it's whether or not politicians should dictate such things to manufactures and effect consumer choice.

(the answer is NO, by the way)


Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By theblackrabbit on 8/22/2012 11:56:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The process followed by Obama administration officials to develop these standards was politicized, not rooted in sound science and was a political end run around seasoned experts who are required by law to lead the process


Honest question: Anyone here want to elaborate on this quote and turn it into more than a rhetorical talking point?

Some thoughts about electric cars, CAFE, and regulations:

1. All benefits regarding FOWARD looking (10+ years) legislation and regulations should be based on $4.50-$5.00 gallon gas. We can debate about supply/demand/speculators all day, but I hope I am not being too presumptuous when I say that we can agree that within 10-20 years it finally will be a supply/demand issue rather than a speculation issue.

2. Global warming: imagine some breakthrough research comes out in 5 years and there are almost no more skeptics? Some people say we should do MUCH more, some people say we should do a little LESS, but does anyone say we should do NOTHING? These regulations don't seem overly draconian to me...If we struck down these standards, isn't that getting a little close to doing nothing?

3. Why stop here? Not trying to be facetious or hyperbolic. Look at the onerous safety standards and the arms race going on. Cheap cars have long since been outlawed with emissions requirements, air bags, crash testing, etc.

I would argue that requiring older cars (10+) to meet emissions standards is FAR more harmful to the the bottom 50% than ALL of these regulations and requirements put together. Many used cars are junked because the repair cost to pass emissions makes them worthless. Why repair a car that blue books for $1,500 when it might take $1,000 to get it to pass emissions?

quote:
The vehicle received emission-related repairs that meet or exceed the Repair Waiver minimum amount of $819.
http://www.cleanairforce.com/motorists/repairwaive...


This car cost $2,000 in India, and is expected to cost $6,000+ in America.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-tata-nan...

Getting all up & arms over THIS seems overly dramatic when their are far worthier causes to get worked up about.




RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 12:24:23 PM , Rating: 1
I have a better idea. Stop politicizing everything, and let car makers make whatever cars people want to buy. Mandating everything isn't the answer, especially in a Capitalist system like this.

The United States EXPORTS more fuel than it imports. Pretending that there's some fuel crisis that demands "forward thinking" mandates is just silliness. There are far more effective ways to solve some of these problems than a mandate on the automakers. THEY can't solve our energy problem or curb demand.

Politicians don't seem to understand these things. But how could they? They don't live in the real world. They don't have to live on a budget, they don't manufacture goods. They don't even have to buy cars! We buy their vehicles for them.

quote:
2. Global warming: imagine some breakthrough research comes out in 5 years and there are almost no more skeptics? Some people say we should do MUCH more, some people say we should do a little LESS, but does anyone say we should do NOTHING? These regulations don't seem overly draconian to me...If we struck down these standards, isn't that getting a little close to doing nothing?


Even if "Global Warming" was real. Who actually believes it will be stopped because the United States increased their mileage requirements on SOME vehicles? Are you honestly thinking this through? Look at the list of the worlds largest polluters and air quality offenders. Hello?

quote:
Getting all up & arms over THIS seems overly dramatic when their are far worthier causes to get worked up about.


That's not a very good argument if you actually thought about it. Many of these "worthier causes" exist because they started as a chain of several smaller ones.

So here you are saying, "Meah, just pass CAFE, we have bigger problems". That attitude is WHY we have so many "bigger" problems today.


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Spuke on 8/22/2012 6:39:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Even if "Global Warming" was real. Who actually believes it will be stopped because the United States increased their mileage requirements on SOME vehicles?
It cracks me up that some actually think that if we increase our mpg, that air will magically clear itself. Sometimes I HOPE that CAFE will go through just so these idiots get proven wrong (again). Here's what will ACTUALLY happen. We hit the 2025 CAFE requirements, car prices go up, mpg goes down, another 1 million or so people get permanently dropped out of the car market. We reduce CO2 and the price of everything goes up (including our food exports which BTW other countries are ALREADY complaining about). These two things happen and worldwide CO2 emissions and "Global Warming" continue to increase BUT by other emerging countries (read was poor, now not). Media drops all talk of CO2 and GW and everyone conveniently forgets about it.

That's reality.


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Ryrod on 8/23/2012 12:37:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Here's what will ACTUALLY happen. We hit the 2025 CAFE requirements, car prices go up, mpg goes down, another 1 million or so people get permanently dropped out of the car market. We reduce CO2 and the price of everything goes up (including our food exports which BTW other countries are ALREADY complaining about).


That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1)If we hit the CAFE standards, the mpg would go up compared to what it is now because CAFE is all about increasing fleet-wide mpg, not diminishing it.

2) If prices on new cars go up then that drops a large segment of the population out of the car market (i.e. your 1 million or so). Therefore, fewer people per capita would be driving vehicles, and thereby using less gasoline because you are artificially restricting the demand of gasoline.

3) If fewer people per capita are driving and we are using less gas relative to our population, then shouldn't food prices go down? I say this because the demand for gasoline would drop thereby decreasing transportation costs associated with food production. Unless of course you are talking about the constant increase in petroleum based fertilizers, but I doubt you are even thinking about that considering that you bring up the food price increase as associated with the CAFE standards, as opposed to treating it as a constant.

I have found three inconsistencies with your statement. Not to mention the fact that China is likely to reduce CO2 emissions from cars shortly after we do. I say this because China will want to reduce foreign imports of oil and stealing our automotive technology to apply it to their vehicles would be easy. You might want to rethink your scenario because while I agree that CAFE isn't a panacea, your arguments against it aren't very good at all.


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 2:04:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
2) If prices on new cars go up then that drops a large segment of the population out of the car market (i.e. your 1 million or so). Therefore, fewer people per capita would be driving vehicles, and thereby using less gasoline because you are artificially restricting the demand of gasoline.


You're nuts. People can't just NOT drive vehicles because you say so. If they have to, they'll just buy older cars. Which, ironically, get lower MPG and sometimes put out more pollution.

Sorry but there are no silver linings here. There's never a net-benefit when the Government intrudes this much into our daily lives.

quote:
3) If fewer people per capita are driving and we are using less gas relative to our population, then shouldn't food prices go down?


Uhh no? Again, you're nuts. By 2025 inflation will be sky high! Or worst, our economy will have already collapsed. People need to understand, there is NO escaping our upcoming debt crisis. You think food and fuel are high now? Wait until 2025! There will be no "savings" from CAFE.

quote:
I have found three inconsistencies with your statement.


They aren't inconsistencies. You just haven't thought this through.


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Ryrod on 8/23/2012 10:04:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're nuts. People can't just NOT drive vehicles because you say so. If they have to, they'll just buy older cars. Which, ironically, get lower MPG and sometimes put out more pollution.


No, I'm actually not nuts and clearly thought this through better than you have. People already drive older vehicles but as they continue to break down people will not have the money to afford to fix them. If they are also priced out of the new car market then they will have no other choice but to buy used. Now if the used market is already constrained, then they probably won't be able to buy used either. As such, they will be completely forced out of the market and there is one less car on the road. Extrapolate this scenario and per capita car ownership will decrease over time. Fewer people driving means less gas consumed in the US. This is basic economics. I never said people shouldn't drive. I simply laid out the reality of the situation which was incorrectly expressed by the guy who's post I responded to. So please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

As for the second part of your post, you're being ridiculously apocalyptic. You make the assumption that we are heading the way of the Weimar republic. I was merely making the logical leap based on simple demand and supply principles. And contrary to your beliefs, there will always be inflation. If there isn't inflation then the US has a serious problem because that would signal the start of our economy imploding or receding.

Lastly, my reply wasn't even directed toward you reclaimed it was directed toward another poster who made irrational assumptions about the economy and an individual's economic reaction toward CAFE. I'm not even sure why you felt the need to respond toward my post.


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 10:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As such, they will be completely forced out of the market and there is one less car on the road.


And you see that as a good thing?

Yup, another Marxist in our midst.


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By sorry dog on 8/24/2012 10:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
...this dude has clearly never heard about what they do in Cuba to keep 50's era Buicks running.

...and clearly doesn't know crap about China, where once you leave Beijing or Shanghai it is still an emerging and mostly undeveloped country...and their CO2 emissions are going to go down when the other 700 million people abandon pig and rice farming??

Yeah right, isn't the Chinese government the ones selling that Arizona beach front property...


RE: Anyone got a BETTER IDEA?
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 3:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention the fact that China is likely to reduce CO2 emissions from cars shortly after we do.


Not wise to make any argument suggesting CO2 emissions will be reduced any time in the next 50 years.

Sure, lets say in 10 years, their average new car sold emits 20% less, for example. Thats great! Except now they have 4x the cars on the road as prosperity continues to spread there. The math doesn't work, will never work, not until China hits what ever middling level of income it is that they're destined to. Until then, even if CO2 intensity per unit of GDP slowly drops, it has to contend with its ~8% overall growth rate.


Missing the Point
By Goty on 8/22/2012 9:59:32 AM , Rating: 1
These congressmen are missing the point: the Obama administration doesn't care that imposing the efficiency standards will add to the cost of cars and force buyers out of the new car market; that's actually what they want. Make cars harder to obtain for a large number of people and they'll have no choice but to turn to public transportation.




RE: Missing the Point
By Jeffk464 on 8/22/2012 1:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thats not true, there will still be inexpensive cars on the market they just aren't going to weigh 4000lbs and have 245HP engines. If you want heavy high horse power cars the price is going to go up, if you want something like a ford focus nothing much should change. By the way the price of gas is already driving low to middle income people out of large SUV's. You know back in the 80's we all managed to get by driving mid sized cars with around 150HP.


RE: Missing the Point
By Spuke on 8/22/2012 6:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way the price of gas is already driving low to middle income people out of large SUV's.
Large SUV's never sold in any appreciable numbers. None ever hit the top 20 in sales. They've always been a niche vehicle. They're demonized because they're obvious. People aren't flocking from large one's to small one's, people are simply flocking to crossovers. They have high ground clearance, room to store stuff but ride and drive like cars (because they are). Trucks DO sell in high numbers but those aren't SUV's, they're trucks and large SUV's are NOT included in those sales. This is public info BTW and easily obtained using Google (it's not just for titty pics and Youtube videos you know).


RE: Missing the Point
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 3:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats not true, there will still be inexpensive cars on the market


Yeah, until there's another Cash-for-Clunkers program that pretends to have noble aims but effectively just destroys the bottom of the used car market.


The market will sort this out on its own
By tayb on 8/22/2012 1:43:09 PM , Rating: 1
The market will sort this out by itself, CAFE is not necessary.

Americans are addicted to gas guzzlers. Be it speedy cars, trucks, or huge SUVs, Americans love to waste money on gas. Eventually gas prices will get so high that people just can't afford current trucks, SUVs, or speedy cars. Either they will stop buying these vehicles in favor of fuel efficient smaller vehicles or auto-makers will make trucks, SUVs, and speedy cars more efficient. The proposed standards are going to happen but I would rather it happen naturally than by legislation.

Honestly the most ironic thing for me is that the people who bitch the most tend to also waste the most. You spent $150 at two separate gas stations filling up your F-350 super cab that you drive alone and don't ever tow or haul anything with? Oh, poor you... want me to show you all the fucks I don't give?




By Jeffk464 on 8/23/2012 12:46:57 AM , Rating: 1
Simple solution, increase the gas tax and use it to build/repair bridges roads etc. Kill two birds with one stone, we keep hearing about how the infrastructural is falling apart. This is what they do in Europe and guess what people drive more efficient cars.

Down side is trying to keep politicians from raiding the tax money to pay for their own pet projects.


what gets me...
By alpha754293 on 8/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 12:04:21 PM , Rating: 1
What kind of logic is this? Automakers are doing the "right" thing by making profits and providing vehicles consumers want to buy.

And what are the consumers telling them? Hybrids are very viable and have been common place for a decade now. They make up about 5% of all vehicle sales, NOT huge with consumers. The Volt, the first "viable" electric vehicle? Rejected by consumers.

You're attempting to make higher MPG a moral issue, and indicting car makers for not "doing the right thing", which I hope you can understand how ridiculous this thinking is. Making things nobody wants to buy isn't the "right" thing, it's just suicide.

Hell 15 years ago you could buy a Geo and get 50mpg! What happened to Geo? Not enough people cared about mileage to be seen in Geo's.

Despite opinion pieces and polling data, the massive silent majority of the car buying public is stating one message and one alone. They want lower fuel prices, NOT massive increases in MPG. They want the right to choose the vehicles they want, and resist buying what you seem to think is "best" for them.

quote:
You know...instead of lining their own pockets that's already bulging at the seams.


Bulging at the seams? What planet are you on? Just a few years ago we had GM go bankrupt and Chrysler almost collapsed. Ford was in serious trouble too.

Across the pond most of the Japanese makers have been bailed out by their Government at one time or another or faced serious shortfalls.

Almost every year an automaker gets in financial trouble or is bought or sold. This is NOT a high profitable area, their seams are clearly not busting with cash.


RE: what gets me...
By ClownPuncher on 8/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: what gets me...
By FITCamaro on 8/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 2:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I don't follow, what specifically was "moral relativism"?


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 2:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well you're trying to make the Dems and Reps appear to be the same. This is a often used excuse people make to explain away the absolute embarrassing disaster the Obama Administration has been.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 2:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you were taking a nap during the Bush Presidency when he was pumping up new CAFE standards...? Or...?


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess you were taking a nap during the Bush Presidency when he was pumping up new CAFE standards...? Or...?


Bush proposed higher standards, key word, proposed. However they looked at the arguments and data, and decided to not move forward with it. It was a bad idea and they realized it. And it's just as bad today as it was a few years ago.

Obama doesn't care about data or arguments, he just does whatever his anti-American ideology dictates. Regardless of how much it costs, who it hurts, or what damage is does.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 2:32:07 PM , Rating: 1
Anti-American??

The President of the United States is anti-American then?

So does that mean 50% of America is anti-America?


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Of course Obama is anti-American. Have you been asleep the past nearly 4 years?

The "America" that Obama believes is in is a Statist/Socialist Empire where the Federal Government directly controls it's population. To put it frankly and simply.

That is not AMERICAN. If you don't see that Obama clearly does not believe in the ideals this country was founded on, he actually despises them, you seriously need help.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 2:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
So then 50% of America hates America?


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So then 50% of America hates America?


Did you really think about this?

We didn't even know who Obama was when he was elected. You're argument is only valid if the 50% of American's who voted for Obama knew exactly who he was and what he would do.

Considering that he broke nearly EVERY campaign promise he made to get elected, combined with a media that literally refused to vet him, the evidence is plain that Americans were largely hoodwinked.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 3:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
So now that the evidence is clearly out there, why do the hoodwinked continue to get him close to 50% in the polling if not for the fact, that they ALSO HATE AMERICA?

Or maybe the REAL answer is that Obama doesn't hate America and neither do his supporters. Instead there is a faction in American politics that loves to see themselves involved in an epic Good vs Evil fight, "manning the barricades" of civilization. This base, tribal outlook will turn pedestrian political disagreements over fuel economy standards into the latest salvo in a never-ending War to Protect America.

Nice fantasy. And I guess its just a convenient fact that you happen to be on the right side of this - makes you feel all warm and fuzzy I bet..:)

"YAY ME! I am standing up against evil just like my favourite superheroes!"


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Okay before we go further, let's clarify something. What would it take for you to consider someone "Anti-American". What does Anti-American even mean in your eyes?

Oh and you can save the condescending rant, by the way.

quote:
So now that the evidence is clearly out there, why do the hoodwinked continue to get him close to 50% in the polling if not for the fact, that they ALSO HATE AMERICA?


Riight because that polling data is SO accurate.

Do you view the average American voter as some kind of super-informed political sage, by the way? Just curious. Because your arguments seem to be based on conjecture and hyperbole and all kinds of circumstantial evidence.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 3:46:25 PM , Rating: 1
My definition of "Anti-American" is likely a lot narrower than yours. For me, I save it for actual, you know, enemies of America that you know, would like to start a war with America, kill Americans or otherwise treat America like an Evil Bogeyman at the root of all world issues.

For me to apply that label to Obama would be ridiculous, cause my definition is really rooted in hate/violence.

The conserva-bubble though I know works a bit differently. When it makes people feel awesome about themselves to call their opponents "anti-american" they will use it: so people like Obama can be called anti-american even when they love America, work in it, and want it to succeed. Some conservatives will offer a bit of nuance to protect themselves from the easiest take downs of this BS, and call Obama a "useful idiot" who maybe doesn't really even KNOW he is Anti-American, he's just been duped by left-wing "brainwashing" so he doesn't even know that his giveaway to the insurance industry in the ACA was "anti-american", or that his idea of using some new revenues in the form of taxes to fight the deficit was "anti-american". At least THOSE conservatives offer something up - even if its plainly ridiculous - to cover their asses from people saying "really, he HATES america???"

All in all I think the term is frequently abused to the point where it almost means "person who disagrees with me on policy" for many people who love to use it. Cause for them, the policy differences aren't even occurring within acceptable American political discourse - for them - they HAVE to occupy the ONLY acceptable space in American politics and therefore, by definition, anyone who disagrees with them on policy is "anti-american".

It's kind of a strange spectacle to witness, and a source of much mockery among me and my Canadian friends when we discuss how messed up you guys are: "its like they can't even have a conversation anymore about anything!!"


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wait wait, what? You're Canadian? You mean I've been discussing this with someone who doesn't even live here and won't be effected by policy?

No offense but I just feel like I've completely wasted an hour of my life. How can you be so passionate about something you don't even care about? What does it matter to you anyway!!!

quote:
My definition of "Anti-American" is likely a lot narrower than yours. For me, I save it for actual, you know, enemies of America that you know, would like to start a war with America, kill Americans or otherwise treat America like an Evil Bogeyman at the root of all world issues.


Well you being Canadian explains why you have this point of view. I don't know what "Anti-Canadian" means either, because I'm not Canadian.

"American" is more than just a bunch of land. There are American ideals and beliefs, America isn't just another country. "America" is a belief system! America was a statement.

How silly can you get? So when I said Obama was anti-American you HONESTLY thought of terrorists and enemies? Good grief man!

Thanks for just completely wasting my time. No really, I mean it. Thanks. Do me a favor and stay out of our politics if you don't understand the issues.

quote:
It's kind of a strange spectacle to witness, and a source of much mockery among me and my Canadian friends when we discuss how messed up you guys are: "its like they can't even have a conversation anymore about anything!!"


See this proves you just don't understand, because you aren't American. Things are so polarized right now because there is a significant faction of American politics who does NOT believe in the ideals and liberties that made up this country. Simply put, American was never intended to be a Socialist state. And that's what "Liberals" want it to become and have been pushing us to for decades now. It's just boiling to a head with Obama, because he's the single biggest advocate of Socialism and Progressive thinking we've had in the White House in our lifetimes.

Do you understand that I live here, and this is more than a discussion to me? That these things effect me?


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 4:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
Dude - Canadians are TOTALLY affected by what happens in American politics! Three quarters of trade in both directions goes to you guys, our culture is heavily affected by your culture, and our politics are infused with the issues that started being big issues in the states (believe it or not our PM made the CENSUS a big issue here recently! A total american import).

Besides the fact that I do have a stake in political outcomes in America (though not as much as an American citizen - which my father, my uncle and my grandad all are!) I am also an international relations major and spent a lot of my time in Uni taking courses on politics with more than a few on American history/politics. A lot of my interest in American politics was based on "Why we ended up so different" politically, and to understand THAT, I had to work at understanding YOU!

Also if you came over for a joint and a potential hate-f*ck, you could check out my bookcase which is like, 60% American politics and American history (with a focus on 1800-1900s history). I've got everything from collections of Commentary/The American Conservative/New York Review of Books to screeds from Pat Buchanan, Michael Moore and more weighty policy tomes... def some stuff you would like to borrow I bet!

Lemme know when u r in Toronto..;)


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 4:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
Okay cool, you sound like a solid guy.

So why don't you understand that Obama's personal ideology (American liberalism) does not jive with the one that founded this country? It's evident as hell. Not just in his policies, but the very statements he's made.

What's the problem with calling that "Anti-American"?


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 4:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess in my books I don't see the "socialism" that Obama is proposing through his policies as all that "alien" to American traditions!

The American Right likes to selectively quote Alexander Hamilton and forget that while the Virginian "states rights" aristocracy definitely got the better of a lot of the early political debates, there were "debates" going on with another faction, the Hamiltonians of early America, that were for a stronger, centralized form of government. The "Bank Wars" were wars between the factions that are still fighting now - so to argue that Obama's watered down socialism is some foreign idea is to excise from American history the very real faction of people that founded America and wanted the federal government to have more centralized power over the states.

We saw these two sides at war continually, metaphorically over the banks, ACTUALLY at war during the civil war, again during the New Deal and again in the Post-War expansions like the TVA, the GI bill and so on...

So when "universal healthcare" in America is debated - I see it as the latest flare up in a very American debate with two very American traditions again in conflict. When the final product leaves the insurance, pharmaceutical and doctor's associations intact and with just as much power+influence as before I can only see that as a very weak version of "socialism" that is particularly American in nature. In fact, a lot of people outside your country would hazard to even call it "socialism"...


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 4:07:48 PM , Rating: 3
When someone calls someone like Obama "anti American" what I hear isn't that Obama is anti-American - rather I hear that the speaker of such an epithet considers himself/herself to be SUPER PRO AMERICAN..;)


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 4:13:54 PM , Rating: 1
Yes I know it bothers you Socialists and Commies when we get all sanctimonious about our precious "America". Suck it :P


RE: what gets me...
By Ammohunt on 8/22/2012 9:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
How do you boil a frog?


RE: what gets me...
By Jeffk464 on 8/22/2012 3:16:00 PM , Rating: 1
Yes haven't you heard, you have to be a conservative to be a "great american"


RE: what gets me...
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2012 6:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
50% of Americans are ignorant enough to vote for the party that promises to give them "free" things or that says a bunch of stuff that sounds good in a sound bite but is horrible when actually implemented.

Far more than 50% are ignorant of our political system though. More like 90%. Why? Because they aren't taught it in school and they don't bother to learn it on their own.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 7:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
50% of Americans are ignorant enough to vote for the party that promises to give them "free" things or that says a bunch of stuff that sounds good in a sound bite but is horrible when actually implemented.


Hmmm. I agree people are ignorant but think you are not well-placed to comment on what motivates people to vote democrat. I wouldn't - for instance - ask Janine Garafolo why people vote Republican. All i'd get is a simplistic caricature.

quote:
Far more than 50% are ignorant of our political system though. More like 90%. Why? Because they aren't taught it in school and they don't bother to learn it on their own.


Have I paraphrased correctly? "Clearly this country is ignorant and if people were just better educated then they would agree with me."


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 10:07:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wouldn't - for instance - ask Janine Garafolo why people vote Republican. All i'd get is a simplistic caricature.


Yes but she's a Liberal cunt.

quote:
Have I paraphrased correctly? "Clearly this country is ignorant and if people were just better educated then they would agree with me."


But they would, that's a fact. Only two types of people could possibly support the agenda of the Liberals in the current Administration and Congress:
1. They're extremists
2. They just don't know any better.

Again you insist on using moral relativism as your talking point. Getting a bit stale. Everything isn't grey, there are rights and wrongs.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/23/2012 7:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again you insist on using moral relativism as your talking point. Getting a bit stale. Everything isn't grey, there are rights and wrongs.


I don't think you're using the term "moral relativism" correctly, which is typically reserved for foreign policy debate and American exceptionalism, not internal policy.

That being said, if your argument to ME is that YOU are super convinced you are right, SO right that all other positions are, a priori, immoral positions to take - well that doesn't do much for me. I don't care that you are SO convinced.

And if I really take your mis-use of the term "moral relativism" to heart, than MY understanding would have to be that *I* am the correct one, and that all other positions than my own are immoral. If this IS a black and white thing, then obviously, *I* must be right and everyone else wrong.

So do you find that convincing? The fact that I am so convinced YOUR positions is automatically immoral to me and dirty and f*cked up?

Or do you not really care that I care so much?


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 2:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well you're trying to make the Dems and Reps appear to be the same. This is a often used excuse people make to explain away the absolute embarrassing disaster the Obama Administration has been.


Ah ok, so you built a strawman out of me then - cause that wasn't my argument.

In fact, the areas where Republicans are happy to limit individual freedom (drug use and sex) are very clearly related to a traditionally conservative moral outlook and have nothing to do with "central planning" and everything to do with legislating morality.

So the nuance you are missing is that the threats to individual liberty coming from the left and the threats to individual liberty from the right are actually rooted in very different political traditions.

Finally, your one track mind seemed to miss my closing reference to libertarianism as the only TRUE ideology that protects individual liberty from BOTH these directions.

Your inference that my post was somehow a defense of "the left" and specifically Obama was a misfire - and yet another indication that you are frequently engaging with imagined creations of posters on this site and not actually engaging with the words that are written.

Take a random input - out pops a screed against "central planning" and "the left" and the "disaster" of the Obama admin.

Heck there's probably enough of your material here for me to set up a Random Reclaimer77 Comment generator, and I bet the output of that would be reliably close to the automated sputum frequently pasted across this site by your blinkered perception.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 2:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the hell are Republicans "limiting" freedom of sex and anal sex? That is just ridiculously inflammatory hyperbole.

Republicans don't like the idea of PAYING for the consequences of others having sex (abortions etc etc), but I've frankly never had a Republican try and limit my sexual activity. Nope, pretty sure I would remember that.

Republican's, especially Conservatives, are NOT about limiting individual freedom. Liberals/Democrats however are ALL about that. They just go about it in more sinister and convoluted ways.

We've lost more freedoms and rights under the Obama administration than at any point in this nations history. We just apparently don't know it yet. The big one being Nationalized Health Care, which under the guise of "health", will be used to regulate and limit all sorts of activities previously protected from Government intrusion.

So I guess what I'm saying is, be a man, stand up and take a side. This whole deal about playing both sides against the middle serves no purpose other than watching you flap your gums.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 2:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republican's, especially Conservatives, are NOT about limiting individual freedom. Liberals/Democrats however are ALL about that. They just go about it in more sinister and convoluted ways.


Maybe if he says it a third time you will understand.

If Republicans are not about limiting individual freedoms why do they limit individual freedoms so much?

Ever heard of the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping bills? Sodomy laws? Gay marriage bans? Abortion laws? Marijuana/Drug laws? Drinking age laws?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

This is hilarious.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 2:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever heard of the Patriot Act?


Nearly every sitting Democrat voted for the Patriot Act

quote:
Warrantless wiretapping bills?


Ditto, Democrat's had a HUGE majority in Congress when these bills were passed. Check the date of your link, hello?

quote:
Sodomy laws?


???
I love when you guys use laws that are 200 years old as your evidence. Give me a break! Please guide me to where "sodomy laws" were ever a Congressional issue that was passed on by a majority on Republicans and signed by a Republican president in modern history. Wtf are you talking about?

Do you even understand the difference between FEDERAL power and STATES rights? Half of those things on your list are local/State issues. There's no national Republican "marriage" ban. There's no abortion bans either. Wtf are you on about?

quote:
Drinking age laws?


Wait this is a "freedom"? You can drink at ANY age in this country, in your own home. The issue was at what age do we allow people to PURCHASE alcohol in this country and consume it in public, where they can then get in a car and drive and go kill someone.

By the way, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was written by Frank Lautenburg, A Democrat in the Senate. And it was passed by the Senate.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nearly every sitting Democrat voted for the Patriot Act


As did nearly every Republican. But that isn't possible, because Republicans don't limit personal freedoms.

quote:
Ditto, Democrat's had a HUGE majority in Congress when these bills were passed. Check the date of your link, hello?


Try reading. Democrats opposed the bill and voted heavily against it in the name of personal freedom. Republicans overwhelming supported the bill and accused Democrats of supporting freedom for terrorists. Seriously, read Boehner's quotes. Again, this isn't possible, because Republicans don't limit personal freedoms.

quote:
I love when you guys use laws that are 200 years old as your evidence. Give me a break! Please guide me to where "sodomy laws" were ever a Congressional issue that was passed on by a majority on Republicans and signed by a Republican president in modern history. Wtf are you talking about? Do you even understand the difference between FEDERAL power and STATES rights? Half of those things on your list are local/State issues. There's no national Republican "marriage" ban. There's no abortion bans either. Wtf are you on about?


200 years old? Sounds like you need a history lesson in sodomy law. Further, who cares if it is at a state or federal level? You said Republicans don't limit personal freedoms. If they limit personal freedoms at the state level that just doesn't count? That's great!

quote:
Wait this is a "freedom"? You can drink at ANY age in this country, in your own home. The issue was at what age do we allow people to PURCHASE alcohol in this country and consume it in public, where they can then get in a car and drive and go kill someone.


So, you limit citizens right to legally purchase alcohol until three years after they can legally purchase a weapon. But, again, this can't be a limit of personal freedoms because it is something Republicans support.

You are full of fail today, Reclaimer.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 1
Oh I see what's going on here. So unless Republicans become total ANARCHISTS, nobody can criticize Democrats for anything. Is that the argument? Well that's just brilliant...

Tayb just give it up.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 3:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Strawman, that is not an argument made by tayb. It was a simple fake argument you ascribed to him and set up and knocked over.

Try tangling with his actual stated arguments, instead of inventions of your mind.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:34:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It was a simple fake argument you ascribed to him and set up and knocked over.


You have to admit, I'm damned good at that :)


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 3:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why you have to go an make me smile?

I was totally in "foe" mode! ;)


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 3:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
mmmm hate-f*ck sounds awesome... I am sooo bored right now


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 3:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh I see what's going on here. So unless Republicans become total ANARCHISTS, nobody can criticize Democrats for anything. Is that the argument? Well that's just brilliant...


No one said anything of the sort. You are the one who puts Republicans on a pedestal when, in reality, they are exactly like Democrats. Democrats make plenty of mistakes or do plenty of stupid things but when you sit here and act like Republicans do nothing of the sort I just laugh.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 3:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wait this is a "freedom"? You can drink at ANY age in this country, in your own home. The issue was at what age do we allow people to PURCHASE alcohol in this country and consume it in public, where they can then get in a car and drive and go kill someone.


After research, even this turned out to not be true. Drinking underage can lead to a minor in possession (MIP) or a minor in consumption (MIC) if you are caught. Even in a home you own. Blow more than a 0.00 and you are busted.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
AHAHAAH dude, when has ANYONE been breathalyzed in their own home for that? Wtf are you even talking about.

And by the way, do MORE "research". MIP's and MIC's were NOT mandated in the national drinking age bill. I'm sure you'll now say MIP and MIC's were invented by Republicans! HAHAhahAH.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 3:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AHAHAAH dude, when has ANYONE been breathalyzed in their own home for that? Wtf are you even talking about.

And by the way, do MORE "research". MIP's and MIC's were NOT mandated in the national drinking age bill. I'm sure you'll now say MIP and MIC's were invented by Republicans! HAHAhahAH.


It doesn't matter the risk, it's still illegal. It also doesn't matter if it is a state or federal issue. My rights are effected by both all the same. I live in Texas and this is illegal. What does it matter if it is not a federal law?


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I live in Texas and this is illegal. What does it matter if it is not a federal law?


It matters a great deal! And until you can understand that, you will not understand the argument.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with this thing called the 'Constitution'. It might be very revealing for you.

Also you keep calling things "rights", I'm not sure you know what that word means in this context.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also you keep calling things "rights", I'm not sure you know what that word means in this context.


Oh, excuse me, "personal liberties."

quote:
It matters a great deal! And until you can understand that, you will not understand the argument.


Here is your argument.

quote:
Republican's, especially Conservatives, are NOT about limiting individual freedom. Liberals/Democrats however are ALL about that. They just go about it in more sinister and convoluted ways.


If I understand you correctly it sounds as if you want to amend this to say that Republicans don't limit individual freedoms at the national level. And that you don't care if they limit individual freedoms at the state level because "that's different."


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 4:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
Also, Reclaimer, why have you not responded to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_a...

Proposed by a Republican, signed into law by a Republican.

...but...but...but Republicans don't do this sort of thing! They just don't!


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 4:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh, 4 years later and you people are STILL running against George Bush in some bizarre mental election. Let it go already Tayb.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 4:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh, 4 years later and you people are STILL running against George Bush in some bizarre mental election. Let it go already Tayb.


I'm not the one who said THIS:

quote:
Bush proposed higher standards, key word, proposed. However they looked at the arguments and data, and decided to not move forward with it. It was a bad idea and they realized it. And it's just as bad today as it was a few years ago.


Which is hilariously wrong. Bush started the talk, a Republican proposed the legislation, Republicans voted overwhelming for the legislation, and Bush signed it into law. Now, 4 years later, Obama does something similar and it's fascism anti-American BS. This isn't a Republican v Democrat thing, it's an anti-government thing. Republicans aren't the answer, they are just as big of a problem as Democrats are.

For the record, I've already voiced my opinion on the subject of CAFE, which can be seen at the bottom of this page.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 4:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, 4 years later, Obama does something similar and it's fascism anti-American


Yes let's just pretend this is the ONLY thing he's done to earn those criticisms...

quote:
For the record, I've already voiced my opinion on the subject of CAFE, which can be seen at the bottom of this page.


Yes I agree with what you said, which makes it all the more baffling that you completely pull a 180 and argue with me here.

You're either against me or with me Tayb. If you argue with me, you are arguing FOR Obama. That's how it is, deal.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/22/2012 5:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're either against me or with me Tayb. If you argue with me, you are arguing FOR Obama. That's how it is, deal.


Nah, this isn't the Jedi v Sith, even if you want it to be. You don't HAVE to deal in absolutes. You don't have to pick a side. Honestly, the act of picking one of two sides goes against what the founding fathers wanted for this country. They worried greatly about a two party system dividing us up. When I disagree with you it doesn't mean that I agree with something else.

On this issue, neither party has the "high ground." Both parties have passed CAFE legislation in the past decade. So stop with the Republican butt slapping.


RE: what gets me...
By Spuke on 8/22/2012 6:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I disagree with you it doesn't mean that I agree with something else.
This one of my favorite "quotes". I LOVE saying this to people.


RE: what gets me...
By BSMonitor on 8/22/2012 4:58:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sigh, 4 years later and you people are STILL running against George Bush in some bizarre mental election. Let it go already Tayb


This is the right's mantra. Don't hold us, our positions, or our past frak up's accountable. We'll keep trying the same rhetoric over.. and over.. and over again.. You will get tired of arguing your side and just agree with us..

Without liberals, 50 people and their "noble" families in this country would own everything and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents a day in lethal work environments, poluted and smog infested housing complexes, etc.. etc.. Weird, what country does that sound like??

Never mind that their champion, Ronald Reagan, grew the federal government faster than any President ever to bring about this Republican utopia of the 80s..

Yet Obama is the socialist.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Ca...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/hist...


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 5:01:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Without liberals, 50 people and their "noble" families in this country would own everything and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents a day in lethal work environments, poluted and smog infested housing complexes, etc.. etc..


Well this proves you're a fucking moron and can't be taken seriously. NEXT!

quote:
Weird, what country does that sound like??


China? 20'th Century Europe? The USSR?


RE: what gets me...
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 3:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without liberals, 50 people and their "noble" families in this country would own everything and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents a day in lethal work environments, poluted and smog infested housing complexes, etc.. etc.. Weird, what country does that sound like??


Aaah, thats full of all kinds of fail.

First of all, you use the word liberals. That classically means people opposed to being ruled by those nobles, but people interested instead of ruling their own lives with little to no government intervention beyond the basics of enforcing contract law/property rights, defending the shores, and (in the pre-UPS days) delivering the post. Such liberals had no problem at all that some people were rich, so long as those people didn't control their own lives. Pretty much America, 1776. Your version of "liberal" didn't exist at all in that era, and probably would strike them as extreme monarchy-without-the-king. Or possibly mob-rule, depending.

Second, 50 cents a day? Lethal work environments? You're probably trying to describe China, but your lack of actual education in such matters lets you down pretty poorly. Average wages there are much higher; even in the poorest regions of Somalia people likely make at least twice that. No where does 50 cents, in any possible translation of PPP, give enough calories to sustain life. But back to your false caricature of China. Wages aren't just higher, they're exploding. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Certain types of skilled labor are in such short supply it's not uncommon for experienced welders and other tradesmen there to earn US-level wages.

The only thing that comes close to your caricature is actually the antithesis of the philosophy Reclaimer puts forward and you mock; Mao Zedong's China and Soviet Russia, where "equality" was supposedly the buzzword, but that somehow meant the mass execution and government-induced starvation of people on a scale that makes the Holocaust look like a bad weekend.

Not even worth trying to get in to a debate on Reagan, though. Reagan didn't control the House, and there was a huge amount of back-and-forth between him and congressional Democrats. Either you had to be paying close attention at the time or had to put in a ton of research going back and reading, but you probably haven't done anything other then hear what your fellow Marxists have told you about him and what he tried to accomplish.


RE: what gets me...
By Jeffk464 on 8/22/2012 3:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
thumbs up


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 2:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
The sex thing has been eroded, but let's not forget there are anti-sodomy laws still on the books of some states (though not enforced). I mentioned that as it was a historical fact buttressing my argument that the right legislates against individual freedom from a desire to legislate morality.

Modern days the last vestige of this that is still impacting millions of lives every day is prohibition - where Republicans pile-on to be the toughest on "drugs", limiting the ability of responsible adults to do what they want with their bodies. Or maybe I am missing the avalanche of Republicans behind legalizing marijuana?

There should be really no argument about this! It's pretty clear that there are threats to individual freedoms from the right, and the Drug War is clearly at the top of this list!

(and I even added nuance - I know you don't like nuance! - to make sure I noted that many on the left are behind prohibition as well - its just been a historical fact that prohibition came about from a particularly conservative outlook that loves to use the legislature to legislate morality)

Finally, I will agree that the fallacy of the golden mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderatio... can be pernicious, and inflicts our media coverage a lot (here's the view from the right and the left and the right answer is the position in between). However I do not think I was saying what you think I was saying. I was not saying "both sides are bad so its a wash", I was saying there are distinct threats to individual liberty from the right AND the left, and that the only place that protects individual liberty from all sides is the libertarian position - which is typically seen as a right-wing place to be, not some mushy middle!


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, I will agree that the fallacy of the golden mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderatio... can be pernicious, and inflicts our media coverage a lot (here's the view from the right and the left and the right answer is the position in between). However I do not think I was saying what you think I was saying. I was not saying "both sides are bad so its a wash", I was saying there are distinct threats to individual liberty from the right AND the left, and that the only place that protects individual liberty from all sides is the libertarian position - which is typically seen as a right-wing place to be, not some mushy middle!


Alright then, fair enough.


RE: what gets me...
By praktik on 8/22/2012 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
thank you sir..:)


RE: what gets me...
By Spuke on 8/22/2012 6:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alright then, fair enough.
And people say Rec is unreasonable. :)


RE: what gets me...
By Jeffk464 on 8/22/2012 3:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Praktik, you said it exactly right, each side wants to control us, just in different areas.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 3:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Praktik, you said it exactly right, each side wants to control us, just in different areas.


Except I can always move to a different state.

The Obama Administration has grown the size of the Federal Government by 200% and broadly increased it's mandate power. That effects EVERYONE. There's nowhere to hide.

So it just cracks me up when people try to counter this with some dumbass in Texas or wherever trying to limit something. I mean come on, there's just NO comparison.

I mean for fuk sakes people! Read the Constitution for a change!


RE: what gets me...
By BSMonitor on 8/22/2012 5:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
RE: what gets me...
By Spuke on 8/22/2012 6:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
If that's true, that's a very interesting chart. I'm skeptical though.


RE: what gets me...
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 4:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
Two points:

1) The early 80s saw a rougher economy then what we have now. Lower resulting revenue can be expected, thus higher deficits. Not too hard to see in the dataset, any time the economy turns sour the trend turns 'red' at least briefly.

2) House Democrats, generally speaking, were content in large enough numbers to spend more when Reagan wanted to spend more, but when he started worrying, mostly in his second term, about the debt they weren't as cooperative. I wouldn't say they wanted larger deficits, they just couldn't find enough horses to trade to strike good deals.

Bonus point..

3) Obama said Bush was unpatriotic for 4 trillion in debt in 8 years, promises to cut the deficit in half. Then adds 5 trillion in debt in 4 years and closes out his last year with another deficit north of a trillion.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 9:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
It's complete BS.

Liberals hate how we hold Reagan up as the pinnacle of what it means to be President. They hate how we constantly throw his economies in their face. They just hate Reagan.

Over the years I've noticed a concerted effort to use half-truth's and very fancy financial data manipulation to completely re-write history and create the fantasy of a spending-happy Reagan who presided over a failing economy. NOTHING could be further than the truth.

People like BSmonitor, who actually think there's some comparison between Reagan and Obama that puts the latter in a favorable light, are absolutely insane. There's just NO comparison.

Reagan is the blueprint for what a President should be, and what he should do. Carter and Obama used a blueprint for ruin.


RE: what gets me...
By tayb on 8/23/2012 12:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Reagan was a crappy President. He funded Al Qaeda, he tripled the debt (literally), unemployed increased 4%, he increased taxes 7 out of the 8 years he was in office, and even granted amnesty to several million undocumented immigrants. All of those things are supposedly bitterly anti-Republican. It's hilarious to me that Republicans champion this guy as the be all end all Republican when, in reality, he was one of the worst Presidents in US history.

He was also an infamous union buster and gave millions to Iran.


RE: what gets me...
By Ringold on 8/23/2012 1:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Al Qaeda didn't yet exist, first of all. If you're trying to conflate Al Qaeda and the Afghan resistance, while some Al Qaeda future members were involved there many groups bitterly resisted the Taliban and their ideological ilk later and, in fact, assisted us later in throwing those bums out.

In aggregate, he cut taxes, significantly, historical record is clear as day there.

The unemployment went from close to 11% to 5% from start to finish. ( http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE...

And amnesty wouldn't of been bad if we had then secured that border.

As for union-buster, you say "infamous," I say "glorious." Scott Walker saved his state from the city by city financial collapse playing out in California.

In short, most of that was a flat out lie, and I say lie because you surely knew better.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 4:25:27 PM , Rating: 1
Honestly, where in the hell are people getting their information? Tayb should stay out of the Liberal blogs.. I mean just LOL! Reagan funded Al Qaeda!?? Unemployment went UP under Reagan? Seriously, somehow it went UP from Carter's insane unemployment? Reagan added 20 MILLION jobs in 8 years, but yeah, "unemployment" went up?

He's either seriously SERIOUSLY misinformed or he's certainly lying. Which is just hilarious because there's no point in lying to someone who knows you are wrong.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

*20 million new jobs were created
*Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
*Unemployment fell from 10.6% to 5.5%
*Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
*Real gross national product rose 26%
*The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988


RE: what gets me...
By Paj on 8/22/2012 12:46:47 PM , Rating: 1
I dont understand why its so hard though? 35 mpg really isn't that much, even when you account for US > UK conversion.

Today, it is possible to build actual working cars that get 3000 mpg. Not saying that's practical, but surely achieving 1-5% of that figure in a consumer car isn't such a tall order, especially considering the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with it?

The problem with American cars is that, for the most part the US build massive, inefficient truck-things like the F series that no one else in the world wants to buy, and it has been this way for some time. Other countries adopt an approach where the more pollution a car makes, the more it is taxed, which has shifted production to more efficient cars. For this reason, this means there is little export market for many of the homegrown vehicles that sell well in the US.

Like it or not, MPG is a moral issue.

Rest of world = I want to buy a car that is inefficient and pollutes, and I'm free to do so, but it costs more due to higher tax. This makes sense as pollution creates externalities that burden everyone.

US = Its my right to buy whatever I want as the constitution says I can, I dont care if its bad for the environment and creates pollution, I dont even believe in that anyway, YEE-HAW eagles and shit *buys automatic weapons*


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2012 1:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
Nice trolling.


RE: what gets me...
By kattanna on 8/22/2012 1:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
not really..

quote:
Today, it is possible to build actual working cars that get 3000 mpg.


i saw that and laughed the rest of the way through that post of his


RE: what gets me...
By Paj on 8/23/2012 4:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
Coming from you, that's pretty rich! :p

But its a fair point, I was winding you up.

The 3000mpg car is as real as you or me though. Completely impractical for the mass consumer, but still it shows what's possible.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/beli...


RE: what gets me...
By Keeir on 8/22/2012 9:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont understand why its so hard though? 35 mpg really isn't that much, even when you account for US > UK conversion.


Its pretty high if you want to satisfy a consumer base that has bought C to D-Segment cars for the past 50 years. The most popular cars in the US have been a D segement size essentially every year since 1950.

quote:
The problem with American cars is that, for the most part the US build massive, inefficient truck-things like the F series that no one else in the world wants to buy, and it has been this way for some time.


Hahaha. This is hilarous.

The majority of the world uses the same evaluation when deciding what car to buy. Value/TOC. Regardless of the country, size is significant value added. If you take 100 Europeans of any country and dropped then in the US for 10 years, ~95 would have car buying habits similar to US people.

Yes there is a fraction of people for whom MPG is a "moral" issue. But last time I check, the Prius was on sale in Europe. The Prius smashed the enviromental credentials of any C/D segement hatch or wagon. Does the Prius sell like crazy in Europe? Or do people tend to buy more Golfs? Hm.

quote:
Rest of world = I want to buy a car that is inefficient and pollutes, and I'm free to do so, but it costs more due to higher tax. This makes sense as pollution creates externalities that burden everyone.


In the US, gasoline has Federal Taxes and State Taxes. In some states, the combined tax burden is as high as .55 USD/USgallon. In many states, these taxes pay not just road maintainence fees, but also subsidize other projects like mass transit. On top of this, low MPG vehicles pay upfront taxes, and automakers pay fines if consumers don't choose enough high MPG cars from thier fleets. Furthermore, many states have registration fees that takes mass of vehicle into account in assesing fees. Typically these funds are diverted to non-car related transportation projects as well.

"Rest of the World" = US.

The US and the Rest of the World have a different dollar value they put on the externality. I've yet to hear of a good "clean" up solution of C02 to adequately price the externatily. Based on the typical carbon "offset" price of ~75 USD/Car/Year, a gallon of gasoline requires a 12.5 cents "tax" to offset the pollution. 55 cents seems significantly higher than 12.5 cents.

I'd be in favor of raising the Federal Gas tax by 12.5 cents per gallon and use the money for actual enviromental projects and just letting CAFE go...

But the idea we need 2-3 dollar a gallon taxes like Europe is totally out of line with any reasonable evaluation of the externality created by the pollution as far as the "private" market is pricing it right now.


RE: what gets me...
By Paj on 8/23/2012 7:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the US, gasoline has Federal Taxes and State Taxes. In some states, the combined tax burden is as high as .55 USD/USgallon. In many states, these taxes pay not just road maintainence fees, but also subsidize other projects like mass transit. On top of this, low MPG vehicles pay upfront taxes, and automakers pay fines if consumers don't choose enough high MPG cars from thier fleets. Furthermore, many states have registration fees that takes mass of vehicle into account in assesing fees. Typically these funds are diverted to non-car related transportation projects as well.


Yep, that makes sense. However, I'm not talking about a tax on gasoline, rather a tax on the vehicle itself. In the UK, motorists pay an annual tax that is based on how much pollution the vehicle produces, measured as mg of CO2/100km or something. The lower this figure is, the less road tax a person pays. Some cars dont incur any road tax at all, and typically sell very well.

That way, people can still drive their cool sports cars/trucks or whatever, but have to pay for the privilege.


RE: what gets me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 9:43:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That way, people can still drive their cool sports cars/trucks or whatever, but have to pay for the privilege.


You just can't help yourself with the Liberal mindset can you?

What "privilege" exactly? Why discriminate based on vehicle type?

If I buy a Ferrari Enzo, it's going to be a garage queen. It *might* get driven 100 miles a year. Is it polluting more than a Honda Civic that's driven 12,000 miles a year?

You guys make me sick. You're all about punishing people through taxation for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Listen to yourself! "Pay for the privilege"? They're already paying for the vehicle, what more do you want?

quote:
In the UK, motorists pay an annual tax that is based on how much pollution the vehicle produces, measured as mg of CO2/100km or something.


Well that's horrible. Simply horrible. Move to the UK if you think this is a good idea. I'll have none of it here!


RE: what gets me...
By Paj on 8/23/2012 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I buy a Ferrari Enzo, it's going to be a garage queen. It *might* get driven 100 miles a year. Is it polluting more than a Honda Civic that's driven 12,000 miles a year?


No. But if someone like my boss uses a V8 BMW as their primary car, that would pollute a lot more. Guess who pays more road tax?

Basically, if you're rich enough to drive a sweet car, then paying more road tax isnt unmanageable.

quote:
You guys make me sick. You're all about punishing people through taxation for doing absolutely nothing wrong.


Do you deny that car exhaust is bad for the environment? That is your position?

quote:
Well that's horrible. Simply horrible. Move to the UK if you think this is a good idea. I'll have none of it here!


I already do live here. It's actually an effective system - it incentivises the buying of more efficient cars, which are often cheaper to run. In turn, it encourages new technological development, and lower prices for cars that remain competitive performance-wise while having less emissions. Perhaps its better in practice than a CAFE mandate.


RE: what gets me...
By bobsmith1492 on 8/22/2012 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Government regulation on automobiles have pushed their prices so sky-high such that, while my dad could buy a brand-new Camero back in the '70s with his high school summer job money, I am permanently priced out of the new car market.

Nothing is free.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














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