backtop

Print 193 comment(s) - last by mahout34.. on Jun 5 at 11:08 PM

Voltec chassis used in the Chevy Volt and Opel Ampera

Chevy Volt

All-electric Nissan Leaf
Most Americans still prefer gasoline-driven engines

Harris Interactive's 2010 AutoTECHCAST conducted a study that showed U.S. vehicle owners still prefer improved fuel economy of existing gasoline-driven engines at a lower cost as opposed to higher priced alternative-fueled engine. 

The survey took place online between April 6-26 of this year, and included 12,225 adult Americans who are 18 and older, have a valid driver's license, own or lease at least one vehicle, own a listed North American model from 2005 or newer, and are at least 50 percent involved in the decision-making process for their next vehicle purchase/lease. The survey consisted of start/stop systems, ECO drive assistants, flexible fuel vehicles, compressed natural gas engines, plug-in hybrid engines, clean diesel engines, fuel cell engines and 61 other varied technologies such as entertainment, lighting, safety, telematics, exterior and comfort convenience, intelligent sensing and glass. 

According to the survey, a very small number of Americans would buy alternative-fueled vehicles. One in 25 vehicle owners said they would be extremely or very likely to purchase hybrid-electric engines (4%), plug-in hybrids (4%), fuel cell engines (4%) and pure electric engines (2%). In addition, nearly one in six owners would be extremely or very likely to buy flexible fuel engines (16%) or clean diesel engines (14%).

Start/stop systems and ECO drive assistants, both of which are approximately a 10 percent gain in fuel economy from regular gasoline-driven engines,  received much higher approval from American respondents. One in five vehicle owners would be extremely or very likely to purchase a start/stop system (21%) or ECO drive assistant (19%). 

Price is a large reason why American vehicle owner's won't make the switch to greener autos, but it's not the only reason. Other problems such as the lack of infrastructure for refueling or recharging, concerns about service and repair, the price of fuel and and how long a charge will last in electric vehicles. 

While it looks as though many Americans won't become serious buyers of alternative-fueled vehicles any time soon, the survey says that vehicle owners' interest consideration of buying compressed natural gas vehicles has risen from 11 percent in 2009 to 19 percent in 2010. 

"Consideration for clean diesel engines has been consistent over the past several years of the study, while that of flexible fuel engines decreased," said David Duganne, Senior Research Director of Harris Interactive Automotive and Transportation Research.

"With the current push of clean diesel by European automakers, we anticipate this will start to increase while consideration for flexible fuel will continue to decrease, especially as other alternative fueled engines continue to come to market."

To represent U.S. vehicle owners properly, results for the 2010 AutoTECHCAST survey were weighted as necessary for gender, age, education, income and region. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I don't understand...
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/1/2010 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 4
It's almost as if people aren't willing to pay a price premium to solve a problem they don't have.

If gas prices get to $5+ a gallon, these results will almost completely flip. However that's not the reality or the reality anyone wants (sans the tree-huggers).




RE: I don't understand...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I'm shocked that some people make decisions based on sound reasoning, financial concerns, and what works for them; as apposed to purchases that reflect some idealistic brainwashing.


RE: I don't understand...
By ender21 on 6/1/2010 12:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes decisions based on sound reasoning, financial concerns and what works for them may lead someone to the new technology, too.

I agree that people won't pay to fix a problem they don't have, but I'm not sure where the "brainwashing" is coming in.

"Buy this and save gas versus an equivalent car that doesn't have this feature." That's pretty much a no-brainer and unless they're outright lying about their claims, there's no brainwashing involved.

A sample of over 1000 Priuses at greenhybrid.com shows that, on average, users all over North America are getting over 47mpg.

If I had been planning on buying a new car I would easily be spending $30-$35K on an Infiniti or maybe a used BMW. But if I take $27K and buy a Prius, how am I paying MORE?

Just too bad they're so godawfully ugly.

As for the only people that want gas to go up are treehuggers - I would have thought so too, but when gas spiked to nearly $5/gallon here in CA, it was AMAZING to see just how much less traffic there was on the worst freeways in America. Time is money, and I guarantee there are regular old ICE users out there that wouldn't mind paying $10-$20 extra per tank if it meant saving 1 hour per day on their commute. If their tank lasts 7 days as mine does, that's $2.86 extra per day to save 1 hour of commute time. I'd gladly pay that.


RE: I don't understand...
By phattyboombatty on 6/1/2010 1:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Time is money, and I guarantee there are regular old ICE users out there that wouldn't mind paying $10-$20 extra per tank if it meant saving 1 hour per day on their commute. If their tank lasts 7 days as mine does, that's $2.86 extra per day to save 1 hour of commute time. I'd gladly pay that.

I'd pay that premium too. The problem is that high fuel costs trickle down to every other aspect of your life (i.e. higher product prices because of higher shipping costs), and the net cost is much more than the increased price at the gas pump.


RE: I don't understand...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 1:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree that people won't pay to fix a problem they don't have, but I'm not sure where the "brainwashing" is coming in.


If you believe that because of the car you drive, and the choices you make, that somehow the entire planet will suffer...then yes, you are brainwashed.

quote:
I would have thought so too, but when gas spiked to nearly $5/gallon here in CA, it was AMAZING to see just how much less traffic there was on the worst freeways in America. Time is money, and I guarantee there are regular old ICE users out there that wouldn't mind paying $10-$20 extra per tank if it meant saving 1 hour per day on their commute.


*rubs temples* Sigh.

You act like that's a good thing. That's LESS people out consuming. That's less people buying gas. That's LESS taxes collected. Sure, less traffic is great. But when gas prices go up too high, the economy becomes depressed. We NEED people wasting gas. We need people buying crap they don't need. We need people out and about being consumers.


RE: I don't understand...
By hr824 on 6/1/2010 1:59:24 PM , Rating: 1
We need people wasting gas......when gas prices are to high the economy gets depressed......

Reason\logic are not your strong points are they?


RE: I don't understand...
By Solandri on 6/1/2010 4:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't put it so well, but there's a very strong correlation between low energy prices and high economic activity. It's naive to believe the high energy taxes in Europe come without a price. The low fuel taxes in the U.S. are the main reason Americans are more productive per person and per dollar spent than any other country on Earth.

You can argue that fossil fuels are a diminishing resource, so we need to artificially discourage their use before real supply constraints quickly discourage it for us. In fact that's the very reason I am for investing in R&D in these alternate technologies. But to dismiss the link between energy cost and the economy is just silly. The major advancements in human economic activity and standard of living all correlated with harnessing cheap energy. Wind/water replaced labor from people/animals. Steam from wood and eventually coal displaced windmills and water wheels spurring the industrial revolution. And engines burning petroleum-based fuel allowed engines to become mobile and revolutionized transportation.

The problem is that the difference in scale of energy consumption by an industry and an individual is enormous. Individuals just don't burn as much energy conducting their day-to-day activities as was burned in making all the products they use in those activities. That creates a situation where if you keep energy prices low to make it cheaper to build cars, then energy prices are low enough that individuals can waste it on extravagances like fueling an SUV.


RE: I don't understand...
By gamerk2 on 6/1/2010 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 1
And you've just explained the flaw of the US economy: It REQUIRES people amount massive amounts of debt in order to keep up with spending and keeping the economy going. And its only natural that the government follows teh spending patterns of the people who elects it.


RE: I don't understand...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 2:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I exactly agree with that, but hey, don't shoot the messenger. My point was claiming that raising gas prices leading to less traffic is a good thing might not be as good as it sounds. Everything we are, everything we do, pretty much depends on gasoline being involved at some point in the process.

Fuel is something we need, it's that simple. And I don't think it should be politicized or used as a tool to leverage against the American public.


RE: I don't understand...
By corduroygt on 6/1/2010 7:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually energy that we need, but you're right on the money.
Maybe in the future, we will have mr. fusion and it will start unprecedented economic growth. In the meantime, petroleum and nuclear will have to do


RE: I don't understand...
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:37:30 AM , Rating: 1
That's less money going to the Middle East.


RE: I don't understand...
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 1:03:01 AM , Rating: 1
I had to read your post again. GD, are you the poster child for wrong conclusions or what? I couldn't see so much misapplied crap if I watched a week's worth of Faux.

Ask your doctor about lithium, get a tin foil hat, do something.


RE: I don't understand...
By corduroygt on 6/1/2010 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
I am encouraged by the percentage of diesels, I believe it's the best solution for the next 10 years if not more...

Diesels rock, since they provide power when it's most needed, i.e. below 4k rpm, where 99% of most people's driving takes place.

You can also use solar energy properly and much more efficiently and cheaply compared to solar panels to make diesel by planting rapeseed. A properly energy-dense fuel compared to that crock of ethanol.


RE: I don't understand...
By gamerk2 on 6/1/2010 3:40:12 PM , Rating: 1
Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Got us to the moon and back. Proven tech [45+ years and counting].

Only drawback: Who can affording putting down the infrastructure? And no one in the US seems to like the government getting involved.

Solar for all new buildings would drastically cut energy costs [Heck, for government buildings, its a no-brainer], and hydrogen for cars would pay for itself in just a few years. But the free-markets dictate otherwise, until AFTER we start to run out of oil [and that time is soon comming]


RE: I don't understand...
By Solandri on 6/1/2010 4:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with pure hydrogen as a fuel is that it presents tremendous storage and transportation difficulties. It's a very low density gas at standard atmosphere in pressure, meaning it needs to be compressed to very high pressures or chilled to cryogenic temperatures to reduce its volume. In its gaseous state the molecule is tiny, meaning it'll seep through the tiniest holes and cracks in your piping. A tube which is water-tight is not necessarily hydrogen-tight. Even the big pressure tanks of hydrogen (and helium) used by industry suffer from a slow loss over time due to this leakage.

Already most research in hydrogen fuel cells have abandoned pure hydrogen and are looking to methane (CH4) as an alternative. By combining it with a single carbon atom, you can pack the hydrogen in more densely at much lower pressure. The hydrogen is bonded fairly weakly to the carbon, so you don't lose much energy by having to first release it from the carbon. But methane is also gaseous at STP, and even at very high pressures the tank needed to propel your car some 300 miles would take up most of your trunk.

If you follow this reasoning through to its logical conclusion, you find that what you need is a way to store hydrogen in a liquid form at STP so it has high density but low pressure. And you want it to still be weakly bonded to another element(s) so you don't lose too much energy releasing the hydrogen. If you search the chemical literature, you find that the best candidates for hydrogen fuel storage are alcohols (like ethanol) and hydrocarbons (like gasoline and diesel). Your engine would then strip the hydrogen off those fuels, and combine it with oxygen in the atmosphere to generate water and occasionally CO2 as a side effect (the residual carbon will spontaneous combine with oxygen in the high energy environment).

Congratulations, you've now come full circle and "solved" the petroleum fuel problem by concluding that petroleum is the best fuel. Just like our ancestors figured out in the late 19th/early 20th century.


RE: I don't understand...
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 2:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that petroleum is the best source for now. In the future though if we deplete our natural sources for petroleum we will need to use hydrogen as a gas, or alcohol because to form synthetic petroleum then break it back down would not then be the efficient mode of usage.

Hydrogen in compressed gas form can be handled safely and is done so every day. It is just like gasoline was in the beginning days of its usage, the infrastructure needs to be developed. Problem is do you make the infrastructure then make the vehicles, or make the vehicles then make the infrastructure?


RE: I don't understand...
By Lord 666 on 6/1/2010 5:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem is the little selection of diesel vehicles to choose from. Even though I am a TDI owner, would love a diesel Pilot, Acadia, or AWD TDI Passat.

I think people are on the fence for the perceived reliability issues or put off by MB, BMW, or Audi's high point of entry.

That's where Honda missed the boat as they were the ones that would be able to balance low cost (both initial and long term) and reliability. Yet, they drank the hybrid Kool Aid.


RE: I don't understand...
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:34:54 PM , Rating: 1
"I think people are on the fence for the perceived reliability issues or put off by MB, BMW, or Audi's high point of entry."

Great drive feel, mediocre life expectancy on parts that last far, far longer on Japanese designed cars.


Study ?
By MarcLeFou on 6/1/2010 11:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
own a listed North American model from 2005 or newer


All the criterias in the study made sense to me except this one. You cut out all of the Toyota, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan, Suzuki and etc car owners which I think would be more likely to say yes to the question. Especially Toyota's customer base given their "eco" image.

Regardless, 8 000 000 potential customers (25% of 200M as there's close to 200 000 000 licensed drivers in the US according to the sources I found) is not a bad number for a fledgling industry. I don't expect hybrids and electric cars to pass gas powered cars in the next decade in sales. But that's still enough of a customer base for the technology to mature and improve to the point where one day it will be more cost effective to drive an EV than a gas car.

It's just not for tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow. No doubt my next few cars will be 100% gas powered ;)




RE: Study ?
By MarcLeFou on 6/1/2010 11:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
Brain cramp.

I meant to say 1 in 25 of 200M , not 25%.

There should be a timed-edit function on here. You have 5 minutes to edit your comment if you find an obvious flaw.


RE: Study ?
By kyp275 on 6/1/2010 12:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have 5 minutes to edit your comment if you find an obvious flaw.


obvious flaw #1:

'North American model' =/= North American Automaker

the logical interpretations should be the NA models of all the various manufacturers, nowhere was it implied that the survey was limited to US automaker only.


RE: Study ?
By MarcLeFou on 6/1/2010 2:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
... I'll put that up as brain cramp #2. Should have stayed in bed today.

The second point still stands however.


RE: Study ?
By Rasterman on 6/1/2010 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
"own a listed North American model from 2005 or newer "

this seems like it invalidates the entire set of results, shouldn't they be looking at the people who have cars OLDER than from 2005? aren't those going to be the people who want to buy a new car more so than someone who already has one?


RE: Study ?
By Starcub on 6/2/2010 12:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Presumably people who purchased cars after 2005 would be those who would know about the new alternative technologies. Part of the problem might be a poorly educated consumer base.


RE: Study ?
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 2:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
With the high percentage of people now buying used cars because of the economy this is sorta biasing the respondents to the ones with better financial situations. I wonder if the more fuel efficient models would appeal more to those needing to save more money than those with more disposable income?


Flex-fuel
By GreenEnvt on 6/1/2010 11:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
That 16% number seems off. maybe only 16% would specifically look for a flex-fuel (actually I doubt that many look for it specifically), but I suspect more than 16% of current cars sold are flex/flex fuel (can run normal or e85 gas).

Wiki says 68% of people in the US driving flex-fuel cars don't even know they are.




RE: Flex-fuel
By GreenEnvt on 6/1/2010 11:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
did a quick lookup, looks like it's somewhere between 10-20% depending on the site you look at.


RE: Flex-fuel
By Tiffany Kaiser on 6/2/2010 3:16:27 PM , Rating: 1
This is where I received most of my figures: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/auatotechc...


RE: Flex-fuel
By zxern on 6/2/2010 6:15:11 PM , Rating: 1
Ahh yes e85. I love that stuff. I really like the fact that I get to pay more(thanks to corn subsidies) for a fuel that gives me less mileage.


RE: Flex-fuel
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 7:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
Corn lobbyists have us all by the balls.


Or to put it another way...
By rdhood on 6/1/2010 4:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Who has $15k extra discretionary income to pay for an EV that only goes 100 miles, at best, before recharge, only works in a temperate band of the country, and (thus) cannot be taken on trips to the beach, mountains and such?"

Duh.




RE: Or to put it another way...
By rdhood on 6/1/2010 4:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
... and that $15k extra is the EV premium over a standard fossil fueled vehicle.

Hydrogen is the future. An internal combustion engine using a renewable resource...


RE: Or to put it another way...
By rdhood on 6/1/2010 4:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
... and that $15k extra is the EV premium over a standard fossil fueled vehicle.

Hydrogen is the future. An internal combustion engine using a renewable resource...


No surprise
By chromal on 6/1/2010 11:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
So, people are saying they'll buy what they know? Color me unshocked someone who has always driven an internal combustion prime locomotion car would plan to continue to do so.




RE: No surprise
By ianweck on 6/1/2010 2:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. This study tells me nothing new. Price is a factor and concerns about battery charge and longevity etc. No kidding.


By GruntboyX on 6/1/2010 7:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
So, I was wondering where all the Trolls were hiding today. Seems they all descended on this post. Thanks for helping to keep Digg, reddit and slashdot a little more civil.




natural law
By perspicacity on 6/1/2010 10:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't surprising... the internal combustion engine has been developed and refined for over a hundred years, it's a mature, well-understood technology.

The civilized way in which drivers will choose vehicles using alternate fuels is when those choices are more attractive. Certainly not by something so barbaric as government mandate, either by law or by tax.

Renewable energy sources offer the possibility of energy independence and a future free of looming shortages (whether they be 50 years or 500 years, petroleum will eventually end), but for now, the alternatives are just not quite ready.

For me, personally, I'm looking forward to a true electric vehicle. One that I can power in any way I choose... solar, wind, natural gas, whatever. Pound for pound an electric motor has more torque than an internal combustion engine, so I'll be looking for superior performance too, eventually. As long as I can get 300+ miles on a single charge...




why am I being called a robot?
By mahout34 on 6/5/2010 10:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are sorry for the inconvenience but we've determined you have a low DailyTech rating and may possibly be a robot. In order to maintain the high quality posts that our readers demand, please enter the text in the image below exactly as you see it to continue posting. Once you have achieved a higher DailyTech rating you will not longer be required to enter the text. (not case-sensitive)


Kind of stupid, no?




Uhh...surprise?
By XSpeedracerX on 6/2/2010 12:34:42 AM , Rating: 1
So...no one wants to take a risk on an expensive power train with limited range and high long-term maintenance costs(new prius battery = $1000-$1500 on ebay, probably more at the stealership)?

No shit. This is like, water is wet, war is bloody territory. Lets get back to the porn survey, at least that obvious-answer-to-question-no-one-asked 'research' was entertaining...




Enforce ecologic stuff
By Murloc on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 12:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think I speak for everyone here when I say: F$%$@ you.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By notfeelingit on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By zmatt on 6/1/2010 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 5
Your statement makes no sense and why do you assume he watches Glenn Beck? When did pundits come into this? And what part about getting to buy what you want makes capitalism "close minded" The guy he was replying to said that the government should tax fuel that somehow that would be better to force people to buy smaller cars. That seems more close minded to me. Right now you can buy whatever you want if you can afford it without having to worry about the government bearing down taxes to try and change your mind. I would argue that the European system is close minded. here SUVs and Priuses share the road.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By notfeelingit on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By ianweck on 6/1/2010 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 1
Taxing something you need and subsidizing something you might or might not want is not the same thing. Besides, he's talking about cars and fuel, not hamburgers.
And fock you, I'm not fat.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By notfeelingit on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You might or might not want to eat? Unless you're a strict vegetarian, eating beef is as much a need as purchasing fuel.


What BS is this? Fuel consumption, either direct or indirect, is all but required for modern life. Beef consumption simply is not.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By notfeelingit on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 3:32:05 PM , Rating: 5
Even if you include dense cities... You yourself might not burn the fuel directly, but to ignore the fact that the city itself is built using fuel guzzling machinery, that food and other goods are transported there using fuel, etc is simply being blind. I'd love for the day for fossil fuels to not be needed any more, but it just isn't here yet. Putting a punitive tax on it at this point isn't going to do much except increase government coffers (which they'll straight piss away) and raise the price of every good and service you consume.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By sebmel on 6/2/2010 2:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
Comments are missing crucial points:

US citizens can't choose efficient modern diesels because the cars and the fuel aren't abundant.

Europeans can't choose to drive Ford F250s because their old, and very beautiful historic cities' streets are often too narrow.

Europeans aren't going to rebuild their cities to drive big pickups... their cultures also lack the southern 'farmer chic' that makes owning a pickup aspirational. Brits, for example, they love convertibles... they buy more than the rest of Europe combined... why? They aspire to see the sun! They also build a lot of small very fast sports cars:

Ariel, Caterham, Lotus, Westfield, Radical, Morgan, Nobel, Ascari, McLaren, Caparo, Ginetta, Lister, Wildcat

The question is more: will the US adopt clean diesel? It's the right fuel currently for long distances and for heavy trucks, because of engine characteristics and economy, so it would make sense. If gasoline starts rising in price again then the US may be pushed in that direction.

With 70% of European BMW sales being diesel Americans won't be disappointed if they find they have to drive them.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By geddarkstorm on 6/1/2010 3:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's called "exercise" and it's still the number one way, by a long shot, to stay fit and trim, no matter the diet.

Laziness is the true reason most people are fat.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Noya on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/1/2010 8:32:06 PM , Rating: 1
While you're right that having a proper diet is instrumental in staying lean, exercise has a much wider effect on the body than the calories that are burned while in the gym.

Speeding your metabolism and having more muscle mass will make you body burn more calories even while sitting in front of your computer. :)


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By ianweck on 6/1/2010 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 1
One might or might not want to eat beef. Jackass. There are other sources of protein out there. Way to stray even farther off topic.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By notfeelingit on 6/1/2010 6:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are other sources of protein out there.

Indeed there are, most of which benefit from government subsidies. Beef, pork, and poultry being the largest. Thanks for pointing that out.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 3:18:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Really? Why can you buy a 1/2 lb hamburger at McD's for less than the cost of a salad?


Because they sell far more hamburgers than salads, and the volume cost on hamburgers are much lower than salad goods because of this?? Also hamburger can be stored, frozen, for extended periods of time. Fresh produce? Not so much.

nah, can't be that....


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By notfeelingit on 6/1/2010 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
It's not that. At least, not entirely.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/files/2010/03...


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Kurz on 6/2/2010 11:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
After contributing to SS for your entire working life, I should be able to get out of it.

Still... SS will make us bankrupt.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:15:24 PM , Rating: 1
Why should you be entitled to SS? You're setting aside your principles for money? What kind of conservative are you?

God I love irony.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:28:41 PM , Rating: 1
"SS will make us bankrupt. "

Wall St beat them to it.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2010 10:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
Guess I should've scrolled down and I'd have seen your post.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2010 10:50:36 PM , Rating: 3
No maybe its because they sell 10x more burgers than salads. So they choose to make more of a profit on salads. If you want a salad, you probably don't go to McDonalds in the first place so they charge the idiots who do go there more.

Why do stores sell games consoles for only a few dollars more than they buy it for? Because the money isn't in the console, its in the accessories. Same with salads. They're a money maker because they cost nothing and few people buy them. Plus they're only good for one day and if they don't sell, they get thrown out. Also figure in the higher price of the tomatoes and other vegetables on it that don't go on every burger. So to make all the effort worth it to sell it, you charge more.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By guffwd13 on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By guffwd13 on 6/1/2010 5:42:57 PM , Rating: 1
so instead of actually responding we wimp out and vote someone down who was trying to create a conversation.

so what the three people who voted me down are saying, is that if they don't agree, they plug their ears and give the one finger salute.

real mature people. but even better, is that you all proved you don't have the balls to actually stand up to a real challenge.

god bless america.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/1/2010 9:33:55 PM , Rating: 1
Come on, you can't really be surprised. The guy answers the original post with a big F U and you think there's a brain behind it?

At least there's no censorship to comments, so we can all express our opinions.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:13:11 PM , Rating: 1
"At least there's no censorship to comments, so we can all express our opinions. "

And as you noted synaptic activity remains optional.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:04:01 AM , Rating: 1
What's wrong with being voted down by morons? Think about it. Would you ever really want the approval of Sarah Palin?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2010 11:06:11 PM , Rating: 3
Reclaimer supports a dictatorship as long as it supports his viewpoint huh? Man and you have the balls to call him an idiot? Please point me to a post where he wants to force anyone to do anything.

People like him and me just want to be left to make our own choices. Not forced into "smart" cars and eating vegetables because the government told us it was bad for us. Global warming is a hoax. If I want to get fat and die young, that's my choice and I'll pay for it, both the food and the health care. Take away all this welfare mentality bullshit and thats the way it'd be. You'd actually have to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Get pregnant at 16? Then either your family will take care of you and the baby while you go to school, you'll likely live a shitty life making minimum wage trying to take care of your kid, or child services will come take the kid away for you being a shitty parent. And then you probably won't have another one because you realized how crappy it was instead of just going out and fucking more random people and getting pregnant again.

Same with cars, don't like the pollution in the area you're in (not that it's even an issue these days in 99% of places given the pollution controls we've had in place since the 80s and 90s)? Move somewhere else. Same goes for gay marriage. Don't like that it isn't allowed in your state, go to another state. But no, the liberal mindset doesn't allow for dissent. It's force everyone to do it so things will be "equal" and "fair". Well we're seeing the consequences of "fairness" and "equality". Whites are discriminated against in nearly every aspect of life now. White and want to go to college? Tough, you get to pay for it with student loans while your "minority" friend gets to go mostly for free on tons of grants. He/she might even kick you out of your spot as the school needs to meet the quota for minority students. Same situation applies to jobs. Want a home but can't afford it? If you're white, tough. If you're a "minority", you get a loan anyway because its "fair". Nevermind you'll default on it. But hey, then we'll really sweeten the deal by letting you refinance on the tax payers dime to a 1-2% interest rate. Maybe even cut some of the principle off.

You're the one trying to shove your opinion down our throat. And if you think I'm wrong on the above, please show me where. And where whites somehow have it better because they're white. Whites make more money on average? Because on average whites work harder. Whites are in jail less on average? Because by far whites commit less crimes (ties back to making more). Whites are less likely to have STDs? Because on average, whites are smart enough to use protection.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Whites make more money on average? Because on average whites work harder. Whites are in jail less on average? Because by far whites commit less crimes (ties back to making more). Whites are less likely to have STDs? Because on average, whites are smart enough to use protection. "

And you got this info from a criminal justice class or the KKK?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By thurston on 6/1/2010 4:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
You never speak for me.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/1/2010 8:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, you don't speak for everyone. Much the opposite...


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/1/2010 11:56:08 PM , Rating: 1
"I think I speak for everyone here when I say:"

No you don't.

And I have a lot of doubts about the first 2 words all by themselves.

Just another self absorbed entitled American.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By kyp275 on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By ender21 on 6/1/2010 12:39:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wow way to hit a reasoned response with... childishness.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By bupkus on 6/1/2010 2:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
You don't understand that you've touched on one of America's most sensitive subjects. We want to drive big cars. We don't care about no damn tree hugger's idea of how we should live. If I can afford it then I should not be blocked from buying it. If it costs to much for gas then we should lower taxes cause I gotta have my wheels. If you can't afford the gas, then you should walk or take a bus. And don't subsidize public transportation with my tax money cause then gas will cost me more and threaten my choices. Yes, I want what I want. Don't tax away my choices cause if you do then that tax is stealing from me. You're stealing from me. I'd go buy a gun but I sold my last one for gas money. You've stolen my right to bear arms with your taxes which was your plan all along. Communists!


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/1/2010 10:15:19 PM , Rating: 1
lol... how does a post automatically comes out with 0 rating???

I think I take back what I said about censorship... :p


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 9:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol... how does a post automatically comes out with 0 rating???


Dropping an F-bomb and responding to a -1 post tend to be good ways to start off low.

quote:
Second, it is a fact that big cars are worse for the environment, and therefore people's health.


Well that's somewhat debatable, depending on your definition of "worse for the environment". For example, a 2010 F-150 does score better per the EPA in terms of air pollution than a 2010 Honda Civic by a small margin (7 vs 6, higher being better). If you go to a 2000 Honda Civic that gap grows significantly, as the 2000 models score between 1-3. As one can see, smaller doesn't necessarily equal better here.

In terms of greenhouse gasses, mile for mile the F-150 does obviously put out more. Then again, even by your own post below, more Americans believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon rather than a man-made one (44% vs 40%), with a fair amount undecided. Further, while scientists do tend to agree that pumping out mass quantities of CO2 will have some sort of impact, there is significant disagreement as to the degree of the impact. IMO (and that of many other Americans), more study is needed to refine our knowledge before we commit to a course of action with as many ramifications as are needed to combat man-made climate change.

It's also worth noting that we aren't talking about orders of magnitude difference in terms of CO2 output between an F-150 and a Civic either, and amount driven is every bit as important as the mile to mile CO2 output of the vehicle. As such, if we presumed catastrophic global warming is scientific fact, the punitive tax shouldn't be on the vehicle itself, but on the fuel.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/2/2010 2:17:05 PM , Rating: 1
Well, sorry for the "F-bomb." I guess I got carried away by the level of the conversation.

As for the F150 - Civic comparison, we can always pick and choose certain tests (marketers love to play with statistics). Every vehicle will have pros and cons. (for that matter, only the Civic 2L has a 6 rating, all others have 7 or better).

But bottom line is that you're comparing a vehicle that consumes roughly twice as much gasoline and put out about twice as much CO2 per mile.

Whether or not scientists (and Americans themselves) can agree on the impact it creates, I'd prefer the option that can possibly cause less damage. Don't you? The expression "better safe than sorry" comes to mind. :)

And that's not even to mention the impact that oil has caused to the planet in the past 50 years.

But it's interesting that in the end you come to the conclusion that we should tax fuel. I thought you were actually antagonizing the original post. :)


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 2:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the F150 - Civic comparison, we can always pick and choose certain tests (marketers love to play with statistics).


It isn't "picking and choosing" certain tests, nor does it have anything to do with marketing. It's the EPA "air pollution" test; that's about as definitive as it gets. In that test a 2010 F-150 is comparable if not marginally better than a 2010 Civic, and it is significantly better than a 2000 Civic. This is contrary to your claim that smaller cars are better for the environment.

quote:
(for that matter, only the Civic 2L has a 6 rating, all others have 7 or better).


The rating might vary by state, but the Virginia models are all rated at 6 except the CNG.

quote:
But bottom line is that you're comparing a vehicle that consumes roughly twice as much gasoline and put out about twice as much CO2 per mile.


As I said, if you accept catastrophic man-made global warming as fact, tax the gas. If I drive an F-150 a fifth of what you drive a Civic, you're more of an eco-baddie and contributor to global warming than I am.

quote:
The expression "better safe than sorry" comes to mind. :)


Depends on what "safe" entails. If I tell you that you must cut off your arm if you wish to live, wouldn't you want pretty good proof that you need to cut your arm off? We aren't talking about just switching to fluorescent light bulbs here. The changes required could be pretty darned severe and impact your life a lot more than you might expect.

quote:
But it's interesting that in the end you come to the conclusion that we should tax fuel. I thought you were actually antagonizing the original post. :)


As more information comes in, my responses change. If the scientists of the world reach a consensus that man-made global warming is fact, and that it will be catastrophic, then we'll need to punitively tax carbon output and subsidize carbon sequestration to survive. However, we aren't to that point yet.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2010 11:14:11 PM , Rating: 4
1) 90% of Americans don't believe mankind is causing global warming.

2) Who's facts? And ever see where all those batteries come from? The chemicals in them? Yeah all that stuff is great for people's health. Not to mention the environment.

3) Where in our US constitution does the government have the power to make it harder for someone to buy something? Commerce clause? No. "General welfare" clause? No. Idiots like you have no perception of reading something with the mindset of when it was written. If you've read it at all. Pretty common pattern with libs these days not bothering to read something before criticizing it. At least those in the White House anyway.

4) I should have to work harder to afford what I used to be able to yesterday when the reason I have to work harder is so others can get things for free or less money than it should cost them? Yeah that makes sense.

5) So what part are those getting all the benefits of higher taxes to pay for their government benefits compromising on? That they didn't get even more? Hardly a compromise.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/2/2010 2:24:55 AM , Rating: 1
1) I don't know where you get your facts from... http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rasmussen-US-Divi...

2) Have you ever heard of people committing suicide in their garages? Have you ever heard of the word emissions? Have you heard of what's happening in the Gulf? Have you heard about the many wars in the Middle East? Should I continue?

3) Sorry, but if you think we live in a free market, with no kind of government control, you should wake up before you post anything.

4) Again, if it's for a greater good, yes. Do I need to cite the cigarette example again? Furthermore, since you are all for a free market, your example fall short due to the general rule of supply and demand. If everybody want something, it will get more expensive. Are you going to whine about it too???

5) Nobody gets "all" benefits. Get over your whining. Some people benefit from some things, other people benefit from others. That's a fact


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 7:10:06 AM , Rating: 3
1) Ok yes I was wrong on the number, but ever think more people are being persuaded because of the constant media bombardment that global warming is real? That plus the gullibility of the average voter equals belief in what they're told. Obama getting elected despite having no qualifications for the job is a perfect example. Wait sorry he ran his own campaign. Clearly qualified.

2) How does carbon monoxide poisoning equate to cars are bad? You could start a fire in your garage and just as easily die. Whats happening in the gulf, how does that tie into cars are bad? You realize we'd still need oil even if every car in the world was gone right? Look at probably everything in front of you at your desk. Most likely, 90% of has oil involved in its manufacture. Wars in the Middle East? Again, has nothing to do with cars being bad or even oil for that matter. But nice try saying we're only fighting there for oil. Because we're just raking in the dough from all that oil we're stealing right?

3) No one said no regulation. New standards that only allow for a certain type of product to be made/built when there is clear demand for other products not allowed by the new standards though are wrong. You don't even need a catalytic converter to have an engine that puts out emissions which pass the emissions tests. You just need a well tuned engine. Our emissions tests are already high enough, higher than Europes. Hence why we can't have tons of diesels here. You idiots all want to be like Europe but our emissions laws are so strict, we can't even use the one thing they have over there that I like.

4) Great so I'll come to your house, steal everything you own, and give it to people who have nothing. In the end its for the greater good. More people benefit from your stuff. But you don't like that example because it affects you. If you want to live in that world, move to Europe. See how well its working for them. Their currency is falling faster than even ours. No one is against helping people. But its our decision to do so. Not some politicians.

And smoking bans are wrong in my opinion. Sure I love the effect. But if I owned a business, I should have the choice of whether to allow smoking or not. If I allow it, I potentially lose the business of non-smokers. If I ban it, I potentially lose the business of smokers. As a business and an individual, its my job to determine which is more beneficial to me. Not the governments. If I want to allow people to smoke, and people don't want to be around that because its bad for them, they simply don't come to my business. Is that hard? Is that asking too much? To an idiot like yourself, yes. We have to ban it entirely because its bad for people. God forbid people make their own choices.

5) People who live entirely off the welfare state do.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 10:57:12 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with you FIT and especially on this point:

quote:
And smoking bans are wrong in my opinion. Sure I love the effect. But if I owned a business, I should have the choice of whether to allow smoking or not. If I allow it, I potentially lose the business of non-smokers. If I ban it, I potentially lose the business of smokers. As a business and an individual, its my job to determine which is more beneficial to me. Not the governments. If I want to allow people to smoke, and people don't want to be around that because its bad for them, they simply don't come to my business. Is that hard? Is that asking too much? To an idiot like yourself, yes. We have to ban it entirely because its bad for people. God forbid people make their own choices.


If the people who support the total ban on smoking are so adamant about it being "good for society" they why are those same people not pushing just as hard for a total ban on alcohol? It is just as unhealthy for you and even worse I never heard of someone smoking a cigarette and then driving over someone or going home and beating their kids. But no, those people like to drink even if only occasionally, so they won't touch that, but smoke, well that smells bad so they ban it.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/2/2010 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Never at any point I mentioned total smoking ban. Simply regulation.

Besides, a total smoking ban doesn't exist as far as I know. I can't smoke indoors in CA, and also in some cities (Del Mar), but that's how far it goes. In my own house I can do whatever I want, BECAUSE IT IS MY PROBLEM. But when I go to a restaurant and start puffing on someone else face? Well, that isn't very nice, is it?

Also, there IS a partial drinking ban in most states. Have you heard of curfew? Yes, that is a kind of ban. That's the results of a lot of people pushing. :)

Here in San Diego we can't drink on beaches nor the bay. Do I like it? No. Do I respect it? Yes. What's my alternative? Pool parties kick ass nowadays. :)

There's always a way to compromise. People are just too busy sitting on their thumbs to notice it.

What was that someone said? Oh yeah: "I want what I want."

Freaking babies...


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Great so I'll come to your house, steal everything you own, and give it to people who have nothing."
Like Enron? Maddof? Or no bid contracts for Halliburton?

It must be bliss to live in O'Reillyville, when all the simpletons gather to admire each others complete and flawless logic.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By lelias2k on 6/2/2010 2:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
1) Hmmm, have you ever thought about the possibility that Americans are being persuaded by the media into thinking that Global Warming is a hoax? I mean, someone who believes that a government's success or fault is the result of one man's action should be gullible enough to believe anything they see on TV, right?

2) The article is about cars, you want to talk about not using oil in other industries? Fine, we can have a separate conversation. But bottom line it that cars are a big factor in oil consumption, and that's is the topic at hand. And by the way, WE are not raking anything, but there's a minority that is. Again, if you're too gullible no to see it...

3) Again, the government controls pretty much every market... you're just trying to steer the words to prove your point, but that is moot if you believe in a free market.

4) First of all, go to Europe and see things for yourself before saying such stupidity.

quote:
Their currency is falling faster than even ours.


OMG, are you serious? How old are you? Do you know how markets work? That is the most shortsighted comment of all... lol

quote:
As a business and an individual, its my job to determine which is more beneficial to me.


So I'm sure you're also in favor of selling cigarettes and alcohol to kids, medication without prescription, guns without licenses, etc. Gosh, you must miss the old west, don't you? lol

5) Really? Are they taking advantage of every benefit available? Wake up, some benefits are not for them. So in one way or another, nobody can have ALL benefits. You might talk about a certain category of benefits, but not ALL.

Thank for the talk. It was fun.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2010 11:09:12 AM , Rating: 3
The U.S. has several sources of oil that it could utilize (oil shale, coal to oil, ANWR), but chooses not to. Mainly because of "damn tree huggers". The same people that keep nuclear from widespread use, while endorsing impractical and expensive solutions (wind, solar).

Oil is not the sole cause of the conflicts in the Middle East. It's a factor, but there are many other things involved.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah those tree huggers really screwed up the Gulf.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2010 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 3
No, but ask yourself who has kept the oil companies from drilling in shallower areas.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 7:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you lived down river from a shale oil facility we wouldn't be having this ridiculous conversation.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/1/2010 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In europe we live at the same standard without problems.
No you don't. Just because your are raped at the gas pump doesn't mean I should be. We are not Socialist with a government to tell us what is right and wrong. You might think high taxes are OK. I know they are oppressive and lead to a lower standard of living. I lived in the UK for 4 years and traveled through Europe off and on for 8. I don't want your standard of living I have and want better.

Socialist and Communists style governments have committed the worst atrocities in the 20th century and we had to clean up your mess. I don't need your misguided guilt trip based on faulty research because your governments want you to think that way. Learn to think for yourself. We should be skeptical of everything politicians do. Frequently they make decisions based on what's best for them so they can remain in power and not for the communal good as they purport to.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By ender21 on 6/1/2010 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agree completely with your last sentence, but as for the rest. Socialism is a system of economics, not a style of government. And if you think the US isn't and hasn't had many aspects of Socialism for, oh, approximately 100 years, then you're drastically misinformed.

Don't believe the hype, and yep, EVERY politician wants to continue lining their pockets and stay in power. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle it's on.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 1:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Socialism is a system of economics, not a style of government.


Yes but systems of economics don't just create themselves. They are usually a byproduct of Government policies. It's impossible to separate the economy from these systems once they are in place.

I'm kind of amazed you are trying to make a distinction between two things that have never, historically, been mutually exclusive. Socialized countries have socialized economies.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/1/2010 2:00:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Socialism is a system of economics, not a style of government.
Are you for real? It is a form of government that imposes an economic style. Any economic style can stand on its own without a government. Put the horse in front of the cart.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By mahout34 on 6/5/2010 11:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Caution is indicated with respect to socialism. It is in fact a form of government, but it also greedily encompasses all other forms of human endeavor such as economics, belief systems, and so forth. Socialism can be the "national" kind as in Nazi Germany or the "international" kind as in the various Marxist-Leninist entities of the 20th and 21st centuries, but the ultimate form of government and structure of the state are generally the same. All meaningful forms of power end up in the hands of a relatively small minority which then permanently destroys all opposition (i.e. liberty and democracy) and all chances for change (e.g. free elections) and proceeds to dictate to the vast majority what they may or may not do, on pain of death or at least crippling punishment.

Observe, for instance, the "Venezuelan socialist laboratory" of today where Hugo Chavez has been systematically usurping power for several years now - and destroying the country in the process. Nothing is too small to control or manipulate: witness Chavez's 2009 "combat operations" against Coke Zero. That in itself would be laughable, if it were not for all the other totalitarian things he had already accomplished, at the cost of great human suffering.

That kind of socialism has never existed in the United States until the Obama administration.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Iaiken on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/1/2010 1:54:09 PM , Rating: 4
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, Il senior and junior, etc... History hurts your pointing to the "individuals" argument as opposed to the process. It is the process that lends itself to such behavior. Socialism, Communism, Social Democracies limit the individuals rights under the guise of what's best for all slowly eroding the individuals right. Once the individuals rights are minimized their ability stop leaders such as those mentioned ends. Stupid? Look at history.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Iaiken on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/1/2010 2:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The flaw with socialism is that people aren't actually social, they are selfish. Most people are for social programs that directly benefit them or their offspring, but against social programs that don't directly benefit them regardless of who they help.
Thanks for making my point for me. Socialism et al ignore human behavior and that is why it is doomed to fail.
quote:
It is no more national socialisms fault that Hilter wanted to exterminate the Jews than it is a pens fault that somebody used it to stab someone else to death with it.
National Socialism enables individuals to limit individual rights under the guise of group-centric consensus. Consensus creates management bureaucracies that compartmentalize horrendous behavior to little, seemingly insignificant portions that are rationalized as ok but lead to terrible outcomes.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 3:05:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The flaw with socialism is that people aren't actually social


Are you 12?? Just because the word "social" is in Socialism doesn't mean it has anything to do with it.

The flaw with socialism is that it tells a man that he shouldn't work for himself to better himself, it's that he should work for everyone else to better them. It's oppressive. And it eventually causes people to give up or not try as hard, because they will never see the fruits of their labor, so why bother?

This is one of the leading reasons European economies have levels of unemployment that, until very recently, seemed completely foreign to most Americans. 15-25 percent!!!?? Absurd, but it's true. Why bust your hump working for everyone else, when you can just give up and have everyone work for you?

quote:
The problem is that the people capable of responsibly administering such political ideas probably don't exist and likely never will.


NO, idiot. The PROBLEM is Socialism, not how it's administered. Unless you plan on giving everyone a lobotomy, it completely goes against the human condition and the way things should be.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By corduroygt on 6/1/2010 3:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, I just wanted to add that the true unemployment in the US is closer to 20% than 10%, so we're not doing much better in that metric, but it was much better before the crisis, that's true.

The problem with Socialism is that it completely ignores the order of needs in Maslow's hierarchy. Getting yourself fed and sheltered comes before self-actualization and helping others.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Iaiken on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/2010 3:27:27 PM , Rating: 1
I then argue that Capitalism will lead to the same exact end result, as by those same arguments, man is greedy. And as the relativly few hoard a greater and greater piece of the money supply (90% for the top 1% and counting), the remaining part of the population will grow poorer and poorer, leading to system-wide economic collapse.

And I note: You simply assume that the high unemployment in Europe is simply because people are too lazy to work, which is blatently false. You also make the mistake of confusing Socalism with Communism, which are totally different concepts. [I agree Communism can never work, at least until all production is handled by robots so we don't need to work, period...]


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Iaiken on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/2/2010 2:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
You've watched too much sci-fi. "Pure capitalism" will turn to anarchy without some regulation. Capitalism over-regulated turns into Socialism. The hard part is not overreacting when things go wrong.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 3:42:26 PM , Rating: 3
That would only work if economics were zero sum, and they aren't. There isn't a set sum of money in our economy that can be "hoarded" up by all the greedy people so nobody else can get any.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By TSS on 6/2/2010 9:47:30 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sick n tired of people calling our continent "europe", like the superstate is already here. If the euro falls, so does europian unity, and not all of us think that is a sad thing.

Here in holland we have a 6% unemployment rate after "the worst crisis since the 2nd world war", high 3/4ths of all the women that are able to work, work, and now the government wants to increase the retirement age to 67. So don't say soclialsm leads to people not working.

The real problem is governance. No matter what it embraces. Socialism works just fine and dandy if it's controlled by the people themselves, on a community scale, not a state wide scale. The reason you americans are in favor of capitalism is because you've had a time where the government stayed out of business while you had a capitalist country.

America now has nigh 13 trillion dollars in debt, with a 10% unemployment rate (which doesn't even count all unemployed people) and it's still capitalist at it's core. Us dutch people are mortage junkies, which our government stimulated with house subsidies. When our housing market implodes or when china says it won't lend you guys any more money, both our countries are screwed.

You'll need some form of socialism, there's far too many people around not to have some minimum standard of living because otherwise those people *will* band together and revolt. On the other hand you'll need capitalism to keep the standard of living of everybody else higher. With both systems, what you don't need, is a bunch of people 3000 miles away from you telling you how to live your life. Having a small group of people whom you care for telling you how to not live your life works so much better.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/1/2010 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The flaw with socialism is that people aren't actually social, they are selfish. Most people are for social programs that directly benefit them or their offspring, but against social programs that don't directly benefit them regardless of who they help.


I guess I'm not most people then, because I think all social programs should be thrown out and people should live by their own means. When the US was founded there were no social programs, people went and carved out their own livelihood with their bare hands and whits. What is most amazing is the country flourished under that idealism. People from all parts of the world headed here knowing full well they would have to make it on their own or fail and yet they came. Social programs have now killed off that spirit in people and replaced it with one so weak that if you ask someone to do something for themselves they curl up in a ball and cry their eyes out. Look at Greece for an example. They still want their government to pay for everything and when the government says they have no money the people still want the handouts. They seem to no longer have any concept that the money has to come from somewhere tangible and not just appear out of the Cornucopia of government programs.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly, without the chance for failure, success is diminished.

I honestly can't understand why so many of these people don't get this country and seek to ruin it from within. Sigh..


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:13:05 AM , Rating: 1
"Exactly, without the chance for failure, success is diminished."

I dunno, Wall St has been very successful and has managed it by completely eliminating all the risk. Where the hell where you?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 5:11:37 PM , Rating: 3
Why is it that because we don't want socialism, we're for "runaway" Capitalism? Where did we say that?

quote:
If you removed all government intervention, the top 1% of the populace would gain far more then the 90% of all wealth they currently have, leading to total economic collapse as consumer spending falls off a cliff. Despite conservatives claims, the rich do not cause the economy to grow.


lol.. so let me get this straight. The Government is stopping the top 1% wealth earners from gobbling up every single penny in the country? I mean... what is this, Mad Max? How can you sit there and cook up that scenario with a straight face!?

The Rich invest capital and start businesses, which hire people. The "rich" provide opportunities for others to get "rich" as well, and they in turn employ people and pay taxes and all that great stuff. The rich do SO many things that grow the economy. You simply can't back up your claim with facts and proof because there are none.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/1/2010 5:29:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And I note, the US didn't become an economic power until you decided to stick out of a world war, leaving everyone else in debt to you, while Europe was fighting for freedom. [An act you repeated two and a half decades later, I might add].
We became the economic power by lending to Europe in WWI. Europe over spent and had to over borrow stifling their economy much they way we in the US are doing now, though not with the war as some believe since it is around a trillion in total, but with well meant and woefully misguided social spending. People are will to endure only so much taxation clearly expressed by the Hauser curve. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/30653464... The more the rich and super rich are taxed the less they pay in revenue to the IRS. To make up that difference other taxes are quietly raised to cover the ever growing gap and it impacts the middle class down. For those who think all the social programs are necessary how do you pay for it?

quote:
the ultimate proof that run-away capitalism does not work.
Totally unregulated capitalism? Economies have cycles and the more governments try to avert, soften the blow, or any other method to avoid the downward part of a cycle only leads to a longer and more painful downturn. Look up the depression of 1921 from Woodrow Wilson's UNREGULATED social growth . The Fed was cut in half and taxes slashed from over 70% down to 23%. It was the only peace time unemployment rate in the US at 1.5%. Why was it so short? The government got out of the way and let businesses flourish.

The counter to that was FDR's reckless policies of the 30's that piled on to poor choices by Hoover that limited businesses ability to function. We were stuck in long term misery.

1929 showed some regulation was needed but 1930 to 1940 showed over regulation was even worse.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 11:17:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Excuse me? The US flourished under no government programs? What history did you decide to read up on? Depression of the 1840's, Civil War in the 60's, and a relativly poor populace up until the implementation of teh minimum wage/40 hour week/overtime pay.


See therein lies the problem, when you define flourish as simply having more money. Everything you listed there is based only on money. This country grew in it's early years because people had freedom, which for some of us means more than money. Give me the choice of having a million dollars but you tell me how and when to spend it, or having a few thousand dollars that I can spend any way I wish and I will take the latter. I also never said there should not be some rules to live by, as those are needed. But one thing that is not needed is for the ability to fail to be taken away.

It isn't the rich that are the problem in society today, it is the ones at the bottom that think they deserve to be rich or at least live the same lifestyle as the rich yet not have to work to get it. Those are the ones that suck the very life out of society. Some of the richest people in history started with nothing, but worked hard to reach the top. Why should slothfulness be rewarded over ingenuity?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:03:16 PM , Rating: 1
Where would be without Wall St bankers? Bernie Maddoff? Enron? Paris Hilton? Halliburton?

This is the very fabric of society.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 5:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where would be without Wall St bankers? Bernie Maddoff? Enron? Paris Hilton? Halliburton?


Well Wall St bankers, Bernie Maddoff, and Enron have all been caught by the rules I was not opposed to. Halliburton not sure about yet, and Paris Hilton started with money her grandfather worked hard to earn and probably never should have given her after seeing how she turned out. Maybe she would have been wiser if she had been made to start at the bottom and work her way up also.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By arazok on 6/1/2010 1:05:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In europe we live at the same standard without problems.


I’ve been to Europe. I’ve been to the US. (I live in Canada). Trust me, you do not have the same standard of living as Americans. You should spend some time there rather than assume it’s all the same.

The average American has 30-40% more cash in their pocket after taxes then a European, and 15-20% more than a Canadian, and it shows. They have nicer houses, and drive better cars etc. because the government doesn’t feel that people are too stupid to run their own lives. Trust me when I tell you that Europeans live the life of an American in the 1950’s. Little tiny houses, one car, and no cash left over at the end of the month.

It’s great, you all get 8 months vacation a year to spend in your decrepit little house, but over here we like to choose how we live, not how the state forces us to live.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By UnWeave on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/1/2010 2:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
arazok has it right. I have lived in and traveled through most of Europe, Norway, Germany, France, Greece, Turkey, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal but job for job Americans do have a the opportunity for better standard of living.

American cars did have a bad rep in the 80s but they are no longer bad. My landlord in the UK wished I had brought over my 1990 Ford 4X4 because he wanted to but a vehicle that could do more work per trip than his Toyota or any other available truck for his farm. He did the math and my BIG TRUCK was more cost effective than running more trips in smaller vehicles. Smaller is not always better. Unfortunately UK residents are very restricted on importation of vehicles.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By ianweck on 6/1/2010 2:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest difference regarding European and U.S. life expectancy is 78 years (France) vs. 81 years (U.S.) The spread between other European countries is less. Not really a huge difference.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...

We have bigger houses because we have the space to build them and mortgages are (or were) cheap. If we insist on using housing to measure quality of life a better metric would be build quality, not necessarily size. Some houses here in the past few years during the housing boom were practically thrown together to meet the demand. Some older houses though were built very sound.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 4:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
You got them swapped around, France is 81 and the US is 78. Potato potato.

Although quality of life and life expectancy are not linked. I say live fast die young!


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By zmatt on 6/1/2010 2:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually over hear square footage of your house is a good way to measure your economic standing. We have a lot of land in America and we tend to make the most of it. That's why things tend to be bigger here, we aren't crowded into cities designed thousands of years ago.

About the car bit, the upper middle class actually tends to drive lexus and BMWs at least where I live. They tend to offer versions of the cars you know with bigger engines.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By arazok on 6/1/2010 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
I’ve have a number of relatives in the UK, and I travel there every couple of years. I also happen to live on a street with an unusually high number of immigrants from the UK. When I ask them why they came to Canada, they universally cite lower taxes and the ability to create a better life here. In the UK, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, your never better off because the government takes everything.

Your right that bigger isn’t better, but when people have more, they almost universally put their money into a nicer car or a nicer home. It’s a good bar with which to measure a peoples standard of living. I was just using an example, but you only need to compare effective tax rates to see how hard it is to make (and keep) and money in Europe. The governments there simply take everything.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:16:45 AM , Rating: 1
"In the UK, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, your never better off because the government takes everything."

It's different here. The banks take everything. That's just so much better. Let's hear it, not for capitalism, but for outright reverse Robin Hood-ism.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 11:44:02 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's different here. The banks take everything. That's just so much better. Let's hear it, not for capitalism, but for outright reverse Robin Hood-ism.


Only if you give it to them. With banks you have a choice in the way you live if they get the money or not, with governments you don't.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 1
But with tax laws I can usually see it coming.

There are escape clauses for taxes as well. Ask any account for wealthy people.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 6/1/2010 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
how's that working for Greece?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 1:20:31 AM , Rating: 1
Getting screwed over by Wall St banks? As well as it has for you.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By ianweck on 6/1/2010 2:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
I'd rather pay for my own education and medical expenses than pay for everyone else's.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:19:53 AM , Rating: 1
Guess what Einstein, in the US you do pay for yours and everyone else who doesn't have any insurance and/or money.

Seriously, didn't you know that?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 11:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
And that is what is wrong with the US now. People need to grow up and eat the solid food of life instead of sucking the bottle of government until they die.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By arazok on 6/1/2010 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
Even after taking those expenses into account, Americans have more left over at the end of the day. The major difference between the two systems is that in the US you have a choice on how to spend your money. In Europe, those decisions are made for you.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/2010 3:34:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Even after taking those expenses into account, Americans have more left over at the end of the day. The major difference between the two systems is that in the US you have a choice on how to spend your money. In Europe, those decisions are made for you.


Really? In Canada, we have a guarenteed health system, plus the ability to pay extra for additional care if we need it. Is that not the definition of choice? In most of Europe, primary education [and in some countries, higher education as well] is provided for, and you have the choice of where to attend university. I still wonder where you people get the notion that government chooses everything for us.

Factoring all state/local/federal taxes, mandatory spending [medical care, education expenses, etc], Americans spend a good 60-70 percent of their incomes before seeing a dime. In most of Europe, you get taxed a simmilar amount up front, but get far more service in return.

And before anyone makes a snide comment about Greece [A perfect example of what happens when government cooks the books and doesn't back up its Tax Collection], if you factor in long-term promises to the population, the most indebted country in the world, at ~850% of GDP, is non other then the United States.

I challenge anyone to itemize their incomes for a year, and track where every cent goes, and tell me how much money you have left over for discretionary spending.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Iaiken on 6/1/2010 4:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I challenge anyone to itemize their incomes for a year, and track where every cent goes, and tell me how much money you have left over for discretionary spending.


I do, or rather I have a personal budget spreadsheet that does it all for me. Not only that, but I model what expenditures (new car woot!) will do to my personal budget in the long term. Then I reconcile my forecast expenses with the actuals to see where I could save money in case I need to trim things back. I even include an amortization schedule for secured assets like my car and condo relative to the estimated value.

The hard part is keeping track of my investment finances as they are constantly changing without any action on my part.

I actually don't personally know anyone else who takes this level of fiscal responsibility for themselves. It's not even like they aren't capable, they just aren't willing.

But I would second gamerk2's challenge. Itemize and track your spending and you'll be shocked where your money is going. I saved $1000 a year by purchasing a Keurig to make my own coffee and two years of that paid for a 42" Sharp Aquos Quatron. BEHOLD THE POWER OF YOUR DAILY LATTE!!!


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By arazok on 6/1/2010 4:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? In Canada, we have a guarenteed health system, plus the ability to pay extra for additional care if we need it. Is that not the definition of choice?


In Canada, we have a mandatory health system, which you are forced to pay for through taxes. I’m not sure what you mean by “additional care”. It’s illegal for any private enterprise to offer most services covered by Medicare. Try and find a private clinic in Canada offering a CT scan – it’s illegal. It’s even illegal for hospitals to sell drugs that are not Medicare paid for. So if the government deems a medication too expensive, you can’t even buy it yourself. There are lots of cancer patients going to the US for life saving drugs that are ILLEGAL to buy in Canada. You call that choice?

quote:
In most of Europe, primary education [and in some countries, higher education as well] is provided for, and you have the choice of where to attend university. I still wonder where you people get the notion that government chooses everything for us.


In Ontario, the government determines how many spots the universities are allowed to open for many are available for Doctors. They also dictate the prices they can charge, which limits the quality of the education they can offer. Sure you can go to any university that will accept you, but the availability and quality of the education is limited by government. That is not choice.

quote:
Factoring all state/local/federal taxes, mandatory spending [medical care, education expenses, etc], Americans spend a good 60-70 percent of their incomes before seeing a dime. In most of Europe, you get taxed a simmilar amount up front, but get far more service in return.


Not sure about your figures, but let’s assume they are about right. You get fewer services for the same price under the socialist system because there is no incentive to find efficiencies, or make improvements to services. A business is trying to attract more business, and as a consequence will innovate and offer good service. It’s a bottom up approach - the people drive what business succeeds or fails. A bureaucracy is trying to serve a mandate, and as a consequence will not innovate or offer good service. It’s a top down approach – the government determines what bureaucracy succeeds or fails by providing funding. The former is adaptable and efficient, the latter is stagnant and wasteful.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/2010 4:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Canada, we have a mandatory health system, which you are forced to pay for through taxes. I’m not sure what you mean by “additional care”. It’s illegal for any private enterprise to offer most services covered by Medicare. Try and find a private clinic in Canada offering a CT scan – it’s illegal. It’s even illegal for hospitals to sell drugs that are not Medicare paid for. So if the government deems a medication too expensive, you can’t even buy it yourself. There are lots of cancer patients going to the US for life saving drugs that are ILLEGAL to buy in Canada. You call that choice?


Private Supplemental Care? 65% of all Canadians have some form of private supplemental plan [generally employeer based (the US system)]. And the CHA does NOT address delivary of care, only payment, so private healthcare is legal, although subject to provincial/territorial regulation. So guess what, there is choice. Seems to me, you simply aren't looking.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By arazok on 6/1/2010 6:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Private Supplemental Care? 65% of all Canadians have some form of private supplemental plan [generally employeer based (the US system)]. And the CHA does NOT address delivary of care, only payment, so private healthcare is legal, although subject to provincial/territorial regulation. So guess what, there is choice. Seems to me, you simply aren't looking.


There is no choice. I’m telling you the government if forcing everyone to eat their overpriced, rotten oranges, and you’re telling me it’s OK because I’m still allowed to buy apples. I don’t $%^&ing care, I want to buy my own oranges!

I have “supplemental healthcare” through my employer. They pay my prescription medications (which is not covered by Medicare), and will cover some other NON MEDICARE covered expenses. It’s not a choice of using Medicare or my “supplemental” plan, they don’t even cover the same things. Your private insurance will not cover cancer medication, CT scans, blood transfusions, organ transplants, or anything else that I delivered by a hospital. It’s illegal.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
Canada doesn't have an Enron. Canada doesn't have a Halliburton. More pluses.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Factoring all state/local/federal taxes, mandatory spending [medical care, education expenses, etc], Americans spend a good 60-70 percent of their incomes before seeing a dime. In most of Europe, you get taxed a simmilar amount up front, but get far more service in return.


My taxes, social security, insurance ect only takes up about 35-40% at most from my wages. If I didn't have such huge bills on my credit cards(got rid of the girlfriend so now I can pay those off) I will will have at least $700 per month left out of $2200 that I bring home. I chose a small house that only costs me $350/month on the mortgage, and my truck has been paid off since 1998. If a person chooses to live within their means they can do so easily, and if you want to live a higher standard, work harder so you can afford it. At least here that is a possibility.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oddly enough what most tax whiners forget to mention is that the homeless, with their consumption of cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets, are the ones that are paying over 50% in taxes. The rich simply sell stock at a loss to offset their gains, then they only sell stock when the law gives them a lower tax rate on their profits. How many of those in poverty hide money in Swiss accounts?

It's amazing how distorted a picture one gets from the biggest tax whiners. You can always move to Bosnia, no taxes or gun laws there. The perfect place for any Texan.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 5:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
But 50% of very little is even less. Also those are taxes that the people choose to pay, not forced to pay.

In my belief though everyone should pay the same amount in taxes, if you make $1million or $1 the same percentage should be taken out. Even take it out of the government checks people get, then they would see what the rest of us pay to keep their checks coming to them. No deductions or outs of any kind, you make X amount you pay y% of X in taxes.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 7:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
"In my belief though everyone should pay the same amount in taxes, if you make $1million or $1 the same percentage should be taken out. "

The super rich would scream the loudest.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 1:24:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
if there wasn't the Euro5 etc. tests, no one would care.


Curiously here in the US, things don't work quite like that. It is specifically because people care that things happen, ie pollution controls. We are "the state".

quote:
The state has always to push forward, because of course, as a man, you care about your life, not about 1° raise in the temperature in like 10 years.


As a man, I care about the future and the future of my children. On the other hand, I'm unwilling to spend money based on specious science. That isn't to say I don't appreciate genuine advances in fuel economy that pay for themselves. I'm simply not interested in spending $5000 now to save $2000 down the road.

quote:
You care about spending less money.


You like spending more money than you need to?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Iaiken on 6/1/2010 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the state didn't force automakers to put catalyzators on diesel vehicles they wouldn't have done it.


Catalytic converters were not mandated to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. They reduce the emission of noxious nitrogen (NOx), Carbon(CO), sulfur {SO2} oxides and unburnt hydrocarbons. The primary interest that the time was the elimination of the NOx and SO2 that are the key components of acid rain, a very real man-made phenomenon that has had devastating consequences in the areas that have experienced it (dead lakes, acidic soil etc).

The consequence of this is that CATs actually increased the amount of CO2 and N2O emissions.

An added benefit was that CATs required the removal of Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) from the fuel. Inhaled TEL from car exhaust is known to cause demonstrable harm to humans and can result in neurotoxic symptoms as well as developmental impairment in even very low quantities.

In all, I would say it was a fair trade-off.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2010 2:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Most of your price per litre is taxes, Most European countries are about the size of a typical American state with population densities a tenth or less of what it is in Europe. We are way more spread out so we have to drive more period.

Euro trash shouldn't comment outside of their tiny Social Microcosm(s) and limited understanding of things non-europe.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 4:46:39 PM , Rating: 1
...and stupid tinfoil hat wearing hicks shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.

Although you have made me question Darwin's theory of evolution, surely a retard such as yourself should be extinct by now?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By GruntboyX on 6/1/2010 7:37:39 PM , Rating: 3
Step over on our soil and say something like that and we see who is reading about who getting the next darwin award.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/2/2010 5:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
Why where is your soil? I live in Seattle, I don't really want to travel far, but maybe to get a Darwin award I'll make an exception ;-)


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
"Euro trash shouldn't comment outside of their tiny Social Microcosm(s)"

US trash should have the same limits.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/2/2010 1:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well trash is trash regardless of where it resides. We all have some.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By zaki on 6/1/2010 2:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
you demand reason from people who voted for bush jnr, and then voted for him again..and almost voted palin into vice presidency. Furthermore some U.S. people still believe obama is a Muslim trying to thwart the US.

gasoline may be scarce, but you will surely not find any reason in places like these.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2010 4:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
again...
quote:
Euro trash shouldn't comment outside of their tiny Social Microcosm(s) and limited understanding of things non-europe.



RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 4:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ho ho ho

Not content by making an idiot out of yourself once, you need to do it again. Are you hoping that someone rises to your mud slinging and try to argue?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2010 5:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wise and worldy sage please teach this poor misguided and backward hill billy the ways of the Marxism, Globalization and cowardly diplomacy.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 6:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
My first lesson will be called: Open Minds and World Culture. Have you jotter and pencil ready.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By cmdrdredd on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:32:22 AM , Rating: 1
Oh yeah everything was just peachy after 8 years of a puppet regime. A Constitution that doesn't mean shit anymore and 9-11 that happened on who's watch? Oh I forgot the W slogan.

The buck stops here.
<------->


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 1:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
Awww, did I hurt somebody's nationalistic beliefs? Well boo-hoo.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 1:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
"you demand reason from people who voted for bush jnr, and then voted for him again..and almost voted palin into vice presidency. "

Oh I wish I had taken some pictures of the local idiotic zealots in my area waving signs that said "Pro Life, Pro War". And they actually believe they're good Christians.

Got hypocrisy?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/1/2010 4:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the US fuel is almost free anyway, that should be changed. In europe we live at the same standard without problems. If someone hasn't got enough money to pay for the fuel, then he won't buy a huge truck or SUV.


If you own a huge truck or SUV and don't have enough money to pay for the fuel, then you probably don't have enough money to buy a new more fuel efficient vehicle either. I ran the numbers in 2008 when gas hit $4/gallon and people were trading in vehicles for more fuel efficient models thinking they were saving money. My truck gets 18-20mpg, if I traded it for something that gets 36-40mpg(doubling the efficiency)then I would have about $80-100 per month in fuel savings to pay for the new vehicle. Since my truck is worth about $4000 in trade-in I would need to get a vehicle that I could make $80/month payments on after the $4000 trade in which also gets 36-40mpg. It would also need to be able to haul loads of lumber, pull my small trailer, take me to work through heavy snow in winter(means 4x4), and many other things that I doubt any vehicle that gets 36-40mpg and has payments of $80/month would ever be able to do.

So no, raising the price of fuel is not the answer to move people to more fuel efficient vehicles unless they are also going to be cheap. Make a Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf and sell it for $15,000 and then maybe you will have something. Because unlike most people seem to believe, Americans are not all rich, most of us are just getting by as it is. Why do you think the used vehicle market is so big here, because most people can't afford the prices on the new ones. $18,000 is the most I ever paid for a vehicle and that was for the one I currently own, which I bought with 20k miles on it back in 1996 and will drive until it completely falls apart probably in 2016 or later if I am lucky.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By cmdrdredd on 6/1/2010 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
We don't want to be like Europe. Europe is a mess and we even had to help bail out your own countries. Not to mention you'd all be speaking German right now if not for the US. Screw you.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By gamerk2 on 6/1/2010 4:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
PArdon me for saying, but the US has a higher long term debt load then any European country if you factor in long term government handouts. And Greece is a special case, as they've had economic trouble for decades now.

Oh, and Europe would have been just fine without the US' help, thank you very much. Might have taken a bit longer, but in both world wars, Germany had passed its most effective military stage before you even entered the war. Nice of you to rush in and defend freedom though. :P


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By superflex on 6/1/2010 5:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
You ignorant douchebags would still be eating schnitzel and reading Mein Kampf without America bailing out you lazy socialized asses for the umpteenth time.
I love European military guns. They have never been fired, and only dropped once.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 5:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
You would be speaking Cherokee, riding around on horses firing arrows if it wasn't for those lazy Europeans that made the journey across.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 6:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Umm that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't we just be...European not Indian??


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 6:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously not, there is no way you can be related to wishy washy liberal Europeans.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:56:01 AM , Rating: 1
"You would be speaking Cherokee, riding around on horses firing arrows if it wasn't for those lazy Europeans that made the journey across. "

And slaughtered how many native Americans?

Gotta love the usual US self absorb arrogance though, unable to distinguish between real respect and plain old intimidation. You see it everyday when some asshole rides a Harley. Fear me, me bad, make lots of noise.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 12:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well those weren't the lazy Europeans, the lazy ones stayed behind.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 5:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and Europe would have been just fine without the US' help, thank you very much.


Maybe, maybe not. One might note however that in addition to its military might, the US also supplied the UK and USSR with hundreds of billions (in todays dollars) in materials, aircraft, vehicles, etc. Heck, Stalin himself stated that without US production, the Allies wouldn't have won.

quote:
Might have taken a bit longer, but in both world wars, Germany had passed its most effective military stage before you even entered the war. Nice of you to rush in and defend freedom though. :P


One might note that in WWI, by the time the US entered, the Allies were pretty well shot too. Russia was out, and the French and British troops were in no better shape. Of course I'd say that the Germans in WWI weren't really looking to threaten freedom the same way those in WWII were.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By knutjb on 6/2/2010 1:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
Watch the BBC's World at War start to finish. If FDR hadn't started the wheels rolling so early we might have survived Europe would have been flattened. FDR and Churchill were WWI buddies.

Greece is only just the first domino and Germany knows it. Spain had their bond rating knocked down making bond options really expensive so something will have to give. But I guess that's what you get when you allow retirement at 50 or move to a "green economy." The French are next but the Brits might be able to survive by inflating their currency.

But with Obama at the helm we're trying to catch up to Europe at warp speed. We at least can dump Obama and turn the ship around like we did with Jimmy Carter. You on the other hand will have a really hard time turning around like Greece is having now.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 5:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Was that in the war that the Soviet Union won?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 5:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
Curious since Stalin himself stated that without US production, the Allies would not have won the war at the Tehran Conference...

A simple statistic that speaks to that: by 1945 about two thirds of the USSRs trucks were US built. Tanks are cool and fun, but logistics make or break an army just as easily.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 5:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Without the Soviet Union it would have been the Nazis that had nuclear bombs.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 5:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you say so. I presume you can jump into an alternate reality to provide proof?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 6:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I must be in an alternative reality, I though the Nazis had their own nuclear bomb program. Must just have been propaganda.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 6:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
They had their own program, but there is no historical evidence to suggest that the Nazis could have beaten the US to developing the atomic bomb if for some reason USSR didn't enter the war. Of course, since your post was purely speculative in the first place, you would have to travel to an alternate reality to find some sort of evidence to back up your statement in any case.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/1/2010 6:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that it would have been fair speculation that without a war on two fronts, western Europe would be a lot more Deutsch.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By Steve1981 on 6/1/2010 6:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'd agree that it certainly wouldn't have improved the Allies odds had the USSR stayed friendly with Germany.

However, that doesn't negate your earlier statements implying that the Soviet Union basically won the war single-handedly, or that somehow the USSR not entering the war would have turned the German nuclear program from a disorganized mess into a serious competitor to the Manhattan Project.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 12:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, we would rather be like Wall St. Far less corruption.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By GruntboyX on 6/1/2010 7:27:49 PM , Rating: 3
You self righteous Ass Hat. I drive a truck for 3 main reasons.

1. I have to move my own trash to a convenience center because I live i a rural community
2. I help my father in law manage his land all over the state and assist in his tree farming. So the 1000's of trees we plant and farm for timber, grossly offsets the measly "carbon" my tail pipe puts out.
3. Have you ever towed a tractor or a wood chipper with anything other than a truck? Let me clue you in on something you commi bastard. EVEN if I could tow a 5000lb wood chipper with a Prius the sheer weight difference makes it such that I cant over come the momentum when trying to stop. The problem with fuel efficient vehicles is they weigh to little!

Now let me educate you. In America we value our freedom and we do it ourselves. We don't call in a professional at every moment to fix a leaky faucet or patch some drywall or to change the color of a room. WE take pride and do it ourselves. It is a huge cultural difference. Therefore, do it yourself hardware and home centers thrive. We drive bigger vehicles because our family units are larger. Have you ever had to transport your 3kids somewhere? You cant go anywhere without a minivan or something that seats at least 5. And Mini-Vans dont get that much better gas mileage. On a good day We can get 24 MPG. most days I rather drive my truck as it gives me the flexibility to run by the home center pick up odds and ends. I rather take the 5 MPG penalty to drive the truck. Over the course of the year it may cost me 100 gallons of gas. Big whoop. Have you ever put a 4 X 8 foot sheet of plywood in a mini-van with the kids, let alone try it in something smaller?

You European elitist socialist bastards have this ignorant thought that Americans love dropping 50 to 75 dollars every time we go to the pump. IF it bothers you that much. Design a Truck that gets an AVG of 30 MPG. (Not 30MPG unloaded with a tail wind on the highway) I will be the very first to sign up and buy one. You would see a revolution like you never imagined.

And you want to cripple an economy. When gas shot up to 4$ a gallon, truck drivers protested and ran 45MPG on the freeway clogging up the interstate system for weeks. Everything became more expensive. Food, Supplies, and Power.

I can respect your way of life enough that when I visit I don't criticize the way your country does things.

And you want to know something, I work for a company designing hardware to monitor energy usage. We routinely have Engineers that come from overseas to live in our community and help on projects. Every single one of them ends up buying a bigger vehicle within 6months. And when they go home they ship there vehicles with them. When we go over there, we end up buying smaller vehicles, or just using your wonderful public transportation.

Our Countries are culturally different. I would appreciate it if you would recognize that instead of ignorantly rage posting. Do it our way!


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By thurston on 6/1/2010 11:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Did anybody else hear A Country Boy Can Survive playing in their head while reading this post?


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By aldo12345 on 6/2/2010 6:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you ever had to transport your 3kids somewhere? You cant go anywhere without a minivan or something that seats at least 5.


Yip I used a car, most of them have 5 seats.

BTW Congratulations on working out that, if you work in an industry that requires a truck, then that is a better option than a prius. I'm glad I never replaced my plowing tractor with a prius now!


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2010 10:45:02 PM , Rating: 1
Big fuck you buddy.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By FITCamaro on 6/1/2010 10:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
Stay in Europe if its so much better.


RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Enforce ecologic stuff
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2010 10:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
Europe is not the U.S. The U.S. is much larger. Public transit is never going to be feasible for sparsely populated states. Thus people must drive. The U.S. is sadly a mostly consumer economy at this point. Raising the cost of gas to European levels would sink this economy rapidly. Tripling fuel costs would eliminate a large chunk of people's discretionary income (no discretionary income, no consuming). In some cases it may have a larger effect such as the inability to pay loans or mortgages. Which causes more negative ripples in the economy.

Hybrid and Electric cars carry a significant price premium over their gasoline counterparts that even their mileage advantage may not make up over the life of the vehicle. The pure electric cars lack range. Hybrids can double the complexity of the vehicle and thus increase maintenance. Battery costs make these vehicles dubious used purchases as well.

Hybrid and Electric vehicles will gain popularity over time as the technology behind them improves.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki