So this is Obama's idea right? Everything that happens after Jan 20 will now be Obamas fault, If that being the case, why wasn't all the bad things that happened the last 8 years blamed on Bush, hell I at least blamed Cheney too......... Is there anyone on here still working? I mean somewhere other than MacDonalds?
Obama's Fuel Efficient Car of the Future-Video!
- Thread starter 85 Cutlass Brougham
- Start date
- Status
Ummm... Yes. Most of the country is still employed as the unemployment rate is only around 10%. Even during the Great Depression the unemployment rate maxed out at 25%. However, the "Fundamental Changes" to the US economy that he is proposing are what is scary. Plus, it is Obama and the Democrats who want the much higher mileage standards. You can't blame that on Bush or Cheney. As much as I may have distrust of large corporate entities, I fear large socialist entities more. At least with corporations I can opt out of their products. I can't opt out of the government control that exists in the country I live in. After all, control is the "Change" Obama believes in, namely letting him have more control over our lives. Stricter environmental laws, nationalizing the heath care industry, etc. are all aimed at strangling the choices out of the average American and forcing them to become more a part of the state's machine than an individual with free choices.
Come on now, the ideas for more efficient cars have been around since our first gas crunch over 30 years ago. Since then café laws set by both parties have increased the MPG and decreased the cars emissions (again although there is a correlation there is a difference in what effects both such as EGR systems and catalac converters). We can blame Obama for making this round of cafe changes (even though this particular café change was similar to that proposed 2 years ago that where almost as strict) but this is just the most recent cafe change, it is not the first and will not be the last. There is nothing more socialist about this then any other government change indicated by any other past president including tax breaks and tax increases. The same goes for energy, as a government we have continued to look for cleaner and more self contained forms of energy, at times in which energy cost cripple the American people (such as last year when the American people where crying out for help because the cost of gas and energy) there as been a push by the people for government to become more self contained. If it wasn’t for Three Mile Island then we would have moved for an increased development of nuclear energy such as what was done in the past, now we look into expanding wind, solar and water energy.85 Cutlass Brougham said:
Fingers can be pointed all day at any individual with out much actual tie to an event, many did it with Bush, and many do it with Obama. At least if we are going to point fingers tie them to something that have done to have expressed interest in doing, not to members of their parties or groups we “want” to associate them with
If we fault Obama with current café, we must too fault bush for his 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (yea I guess bush was a soicalist too =/), and as well the American people for whining about fuel and energy cost. If we are to blame Obama for current economic collapse of America we must too blame bush as he spent more time in this current demise, and as well as the American people for living out side of there means
Yea… that’s where I do some of my posting from :lol:rick48195 said:
Bush WAS a socialist at the end, which is when I lost all respect for him. Many others feel the same way too. The last year or two is what has made me reconsider my political party affiliation as I want nothing to do with the Republicans if all they are is the "Democrats lite- now with 25% less socialism than regular Democrats!". If I thought they had a chance in hell, I would switch to the Libertarian party as my registration. However, I have come to the conclusion that most people are too stupid to understand liberty and will always vote with their emotions rather than using empirical logic like they should.
So why blame Obama if bush set the standard of 35mpg by 2020 (2007 Energy Independence and Security Act)... I say blame Obama for making the research and retool an immediate push and blame bush for the higher café standard, its only far and logical
And I not sure if I would consider bush in the end term a socialist (using the current varying and all includesive current ideals of the socialist definition) by any means… as a president he was doing something to help his people, isn’t that was presidents are supposed to do, follow the needs of his people... if he didn’t do this would he have been considered a dictator?
And I not sure if I would consider bush in the end term a socialist (using the current varying and all includesive current ideals of the socialist definition) by any means… as a president he was doing something to help his people, isn’t that was presidents are supposed to do, follow the needs of his people... if he didn’t do this would he have been considered a dictator?
Yes, but the "Stimulus Plans" are part of Keynesian Economics, which is a demand side theory traditionally used by left leaning political movements like Socialism, Marxism, etc.-hence, the label fits. I also disagree with him kowtowing to the irrational global warming fear mongers at the end. As for it being for the benefit of the people, that benefit is disputable as it did not actually happen. Remember too that we are a Representative Republic, NOT a pure Democracy. Just because there is a hue and cry for something from the great unwashed does not mean that the elected officials are under any obligation to it. Real leadership is doing what is right despite public opinion. However, this does not mean that I think the public should not speak out or be considered in the decision making process either. I think that exercising your freedom of speech is the duty of every citizen of a country where that freedom exists.
Although I didn’t think the stimulus plan was going to work from the get go (people where broke and behind on bills, common since where the money was going to go), I do think it is better to do something and fail then to not do anything at all. Would have been better off with out it, IDK. It could have post phoned the inevitable or if done correctly possibly gave enough time to fix instead of bandage the issue if there was a true plan to follow the stimulus. Essentially any government interference (weather helping the people or the corporation) at any point can be considered socialist with the modern vagueness applied to the term socialist.
Honestly what is the difference of the café and eco rules to any other rules we have on trade, tax and travel, each and every government policy is made, each have a social effect, each have had some play in what is currently America. This political game is not new and is not exclusive to any party or president. Café spread the change from carbureted cars to fuel injected cars… it didn’t have much support when I was in placed and many people thought it would be the end of the US auto industry which was neglectful to change but its end result has lead to a cleaner US which is less dependent on oil... Could you imagine a US that was still using cars the engine mechanics of the 1970’s?
As for as the negative effects of café and environmental rules lets really look at them, It doesn’t hurt the consumer because they asked for it, if has little effect on government as they don’t profit or lose on environment change, and as for big business, the consumer (us Americans) where and will continue to let our American auto makers die... with or with out café rules the American auto industry would have died with out government assistance. Simply giving them money with not stipulation wouldn’t have motivated them to up there MPG to make them competitive in a society looking to cut everyday cost since they had already known what was killing them and did almost nothing to prevent it. Gov assistance plus café laws will likely put the US auto industry back on an equal playing field at least in 2016 and then the rest is up to them.
Also, Marxism and socialism are two completely separate ideas that share few things in common… Marks believed that there were competing social groups fighting among each other for the mode of production, those in control of the mode of production get to make and maintain the rules and do so in a way to maintain there rule… the is little that is done by those in power to help those outside of power that did not directly benefit them. The main tie is what marks believes is the end result of a capitalistic society is a socialist or more likely a communistic society because of the uneven power structure. With that said the moves towards socialism as described wouldn’t be considered as socialist by Marx
Honestly what is the difference of the café and eco rules to any other rules we have on trade, tax and travel, each and every government policy is made, each have a social effect, each have had some play in what is currently America. This political game is not new and is not exclusive to any party or president. Café spread the change from carbureted cars to fuel injected cars… it didn’t have much support when I was in placed and many people thought it would be the end of the US auto industry which was neglectful to change but its end result has lead to a cleaner US which is less dependent on oil... Could you imagine a US that was still using cars the engine mechanics of the 1970’s?
As for as the negative effects of café and environmental rules lets really look at them, It doesn’t hurt the consumer because they asked for it, if has little effect on government as they don’t profit or lose on environment change, and as for big business, the consumer (us Americans) where and will continue to let our American auto makers die... with or with out café rules the American auto industry would have died with out government assistance. Simply giving them money with not stipulation wouldn’t have motivated them to up there MPG to make them competitive in a society looking to cut everyday cost since they had already known what was killing them and did almost nothing to prevent it. Gov assistance plus café laws will likely put the US auto industry back on an equal playing field at least in 2016 and then the rest is up to them.
Also, Marxism and socialism are two completely separate ideas that share few things in common… Marks believed that there were competing social groups fighting among each other for the mode of production, those in control of the mode of production get to make and maintain the rules and do so in a way to maintain there rule… the is little that is done by those in power to help those outside of power that did not directly benefit them. The main tie is what marks believes is the end result of a capitalistic society is a socialist or more likely a communistic society because of the uneven power structure. With that said the moves towards socialism as described wouldn’t be considered as socialist by Marx
I never said that Marxism and Socialism were the same thing, but rather varieties of similar power structures. Marx, as well as Trotsky, both saw Socialism as an intermediate step between pure Lasse Faire Capitalism and pure Communism (this was part of the schism between Trotsky and Stalin that eventually lead to Trotsky's assassination while exiled in Mexico). Both require governmental intervention in the private sector, but to varying degrees. Socialism/Fascism (more similar in economic theory than you would think) both have a government/industry synergy as part of their structure whereas pure Marxism has the means of production controlled and owned by the soviet of workers at a local level. Some have said that a pure Marxist system has never existed, and I tend to agree because it is not possible to make it work due to human nature. Go back and read The Communist Manifesto again. If nothing else, it is an interesting read.
I will also say that as a general principle I oppose most laws and regulations.I want the elimination of 50-70% of the government's authority, and about that many government jobs as well. The difference it makes is in the cost of living. We all pay for increased regulation in the cost of goods. There is no regulatory free lunch. While I want the products produced by these regulations to still exist in the marketplace, I also want the option to, say start building new 1969 Camaros with 1969 mechanical systems to be available if the market will support it as well. Let me drive whatever I want from wherever I wish to buy it. Let me buy Russian or Egyptian cars if I so choose. If someone else wants a safety feature packed Volvo, or a hyrbid, they should be allowed to buy that too. And yes, I REALLY DO want to drive an Egyptian car- the Egyptian copy of the Soviet copy of the 1966 Fiat 124. In the Soviet Union it was the AvtoVAZ Lada 2107. It was also sold in Canada as the Lada Riva.
I will also say that as a general principle I oppose most laws and regulations.I want the elimination of 50-70% of the government's authority, and about that many government jobs as well. The difference it makes is in the cost of living. We all pay for increased regulation in the cost of goods. There is no regulatory free lunch. While I want the products produced by these regulations to still exist in the marketplace, I also want the option to, say start building new 1969 Camaros with 1969 mechanical systems to be available if the market will support it as well. Let me drive whatever I want from wherever I wish to buy it. Let me buy Russian or Egyptian cars if I so choose. If someone else wants a safety feature packed Volvo, or a hyrbid, they should be allowed to buy that too. And yes, I REALLY DO want to drive an Egyptian car- the Egyptian copy of the Soviet copy of the 1966 Fiat 124. In the Soviet Union it was the AvtoVAZ Lada 2107. It was also sold in Canada as the Lada Riva.
Tony_SS said:
I agree that they should not be the only choice. However, I do welcome them as an alternative to the overpriced nightmare that is the new car landscape of today. I have shopped for new cars and found very few viable alternatives for a minimalist car with a small engine, low weight, A/C and a manual transmission. Right now, the cheapest thing I can get with those features is a Nissan Versa 1.6 with optional A/C and it costs around $12,000 when tax, dealer prep and destination are tacked on. I want a cheaper alternative and don't care that it is small and lacking in creature comforts. All I want is A/C and a hole that can take a radio. Sadly, only the Versa and Yaris are offered that way. Surprisingly, both are cheaper than the Hyundai Accent when equipped with A/C. If the Tata Nano is sold with A/C for $6,000 when it gets here (which is the projection), I will consider buying one. Right now though, I am continuing my hunt for an old Moped as a way to save money when going anywhere but work. I want a Honda C70 Passport (Super Cub) from the 70's or 80's, but can't seem to find one for the $100 I want to spend (I expect a title, but not necessarily a running bike for that price). It does about 50mph and 120mpg...just about right for where I live.
I can admit when I am wrong and your right, i read too much into your post thinking you pawned them off as the same thing ( I blame it on it being past midnight85 Cutlass Brougham said:
)As for the elimination of government regulations i don’t see how it will help the consumer or the nation as whole, sure it may an good effect in beginning but the issue is that business no longer what to be fair in our pricing, instead they want the most for the product they sale, the only time product prices go down is when there is an over supply. With out regulation all product will rise in cost since no one wants to make the least profit (i.e. the product is needed and cost me $4 per unit… since it is in demand I sale it for $20 per unit, company #2 also gets it at #4 per unit and but sales it only pennies less to show they are cheaper but both companies have prices unfair to the consumer, We can already see this with the oil industry, they pretty much set there profit margin and as a group maintain supply levels to “justify” pricing. While the whole nation when negative the oil industry post earnings? I believe it was in ‘02 the price per barrel was $36 and gas was just under $1 per gallon, in ’08 when the price per barrel was $36 gas was at $2 a gallon and was 10%-15% ethanol which also cut cost. This is how the whole nation will become with out that interference of the government
- Status
Similar threads
