There are currently 9 users and 254 guests online.
A simple plan to reduce oil consumption
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 10:03am.
Congress should pass a "consumer protection disclosure and warning label" law that requires the following:
1. The EPA fuel economy must be prominently displayed on all print and television vehicle advertising in a clearly legible type face that is at least the same size as the name of the vehicle or manufacturer, whichever is larger. For radio ads, the EPA fuel economy must be mentioned at the beginning and end of the spot. (Have you ever noticed how most car ads don't mention it at all?)
2. The EPA fuel economy must be permanently etched onto the bumper of all vehicles sold in the U.S. using a clearly legible type face that is at least the same size as the name of the manufacturer's make and model badge.
When I put the aero package on my Honda Accord after I gut the fuel mileage with the performance chip do I have to get a special tag with the new EPA rating or can I just skip it because that would look stupid and girls wouldn't want to go out with me?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by charles (not verified) on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 10:50am.
I don't know. You don't really need to see the number on an Escalade to know that whoever drives it spends big money on gas. A lot of people are into conspicuous consumption, so the number on the bumper may just be one more way for the aspiring rap stars to one-up each other.
I hear that banks aren't even bothering to repo the damn things anymore because there is no market for them if they get their hands on them. Down the road from me is the state vehicle auction (NJ does the dirty work for the banks). I went down there to see if I could snag a deal on a Honda. Hell, those go for over blue book at Auction. The two large SUVs I saw went for $1000 and $1250 respectively. The Escalade retails for what?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Andy Axel on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 10:57am.
The EPA fuel economy must be prominently displayed on all print and television vehicle advertising in a clearly legible type face that is at least the same size as the name of the vehicle or manufacturer, whichever is larger.
The H3 already brags about its effective highway mileage in bold chrome relief:
(H)ighway - (3)
and anyone driving one of those is impervious to peer pressure.
A lot of people are into conspicuous consumption, so the number on the bumper may just be one more way for the aspiring rap stars to one-up each other.
Yeah, the only thing between the CAFE standards of today and our ultimate goal of fuel independence is hip hop.
Wait... what???
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 11:05am.
Yes, the Hummers and Escalades are saying look at me and my conspicuous consumption. They won't be persuaded.
The benefit is for the people buying a Malibu or a Fusion or a Sebring. Having MPG drilled into our collective lizard brains by all the advertising we're subjected to will make people start making MPG a higher priority in their comparison shopping, and asking why don't these cars do better? As it is, we have been conditioned to not think about it so much. The government will take care of high gas prices, so no worries!
Subaru is great example. Their first car had one of if not the highest MPG at the time. Now they make all four-wheel drive, larger, heavier vehicles and have some of the worst MPG performers.
GM just introduced a Tahoe "Hybrid" that they tout all over their green-tinted TV ads. I'm not sure if they mention the MPG or not. Probably not, because it's pitiful. They have other standard SUVs that get better mileage.
The other thing is to make the idea of higher MPG "cool" and "hip" and have your teenage daughters telling you they don't want to ride to cheerleader practice with Jenny's mom because her minivan only gets 18MPG and it says so right there on the bumper! Ewwwwww!
I drive a pickup with a V8, and I would support a HIGH fuel tax to expand public transportation. I enjoy riding the bus and having someone else drive. I will always need a truck but there is no need to drive it everywhere.
I drive a pickup with a V8, and I would support a HIGH fuel tax to expand public transportation.
That's all great but what about carpenters and other lower payed workers who rely on their trucks to make a living. It's tough enough getting jobs as it is. But I guess it doesn't matter because the illegals have taken over most of these types of jobs anyway. They won't have any problem with the higher costs considering they all live, work and commute together.
One of my favorite people in the whole world (this means that he is not American) runs a very successful roofing business with one of these:
I do not and will never buy the argument that people need 3/4 ton pickups with "Powerstroke" diesels to do work, once I saw Igor do epic amounts of work with a little truck possessing about 100 horsepower.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Yep. He carries the ladders and equipment. Everything else is a scheduled delivery from the wholesaler. It's a better system and works like a charm. I helped him put two roofs on that summer just to learn how to do terra cotta roofing and it was a real learning experience.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
But I guess it doesn't matter because the illegals have taken over most of these types of jobs anyway. They won't have any problem with the higher costs considering they all live, work and commute together.
How is being against someone coming into our country illegally and taking our jobs bigoted? Actually, I fault the companies that hire them. My family is probably one of the most diverse families you can find, and I think it is absolutely great. The diversity has probably brought our gene pool up. But when jobs are undercut and the money doesn't stay in our country, no, I'm not happy about it.
jin·go (jngg)
n. pl. jin·goes
One who vociferously supports one's country, especially one who supports a belligerent foreign policy; a chauvinistic patriot.
adj.
1. Of or relating to a chauvinistic patriot.
2. Characterized by chauvinistic patriotism
Jingo \Jin"go\, n.; pl. Jingoes. [Said to be a corruption of
St. Gingoulph.]
1. A word used as a jocular oath. ``By the living jingo.''
--Goldsmith.
2. A statesman who pursues, or who favors, aggressive,
domineering policy in foreign affairs. [Cant, Eng.]
Now come on Metulj, name calling? Isn't that rather childish? You even used a childhood song for it.
I refer you to metulj's post above.
Pam Strickland
..and Pam, I feel like the little kid on the playground surrounded by bullies, and getting made fun of.
Daddy Neal, please forgive me!
Metulj and Pam sitting in a tree....
P.S. Metulj and Pam, no hard feelings, I wrote this in jest.
I just think the whole "immigration problem" is an overstatement of the whole "immigration problem." You are never going to get any traction within the current political economy of the United States if you try to prevent cheaper labor from coming in. I think that if you really want to fix the "immigration problem," we should be talking to the people who are immigrating here, working with them and finding common ground with them. The people who exploit them are never going to listen. Who are those people? You and me. Maybe we (two) do it to a lesser degree, but there are plenty of folks who have no compunction when it comes to using immigrant labor in illegal and unethical ways. Unfortunately, those ways keep prices down, so if you mess with it, you get burned on the other end. Pick your poison. I think the enemy isn't the immigrants. They are, by and very large, great people. As a matter of fact, I think they are some of the best the world has to offer.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
You are never going to get any traction within the current political economy of the United States if you try to prevent cheaper labor from coming in.
But why does the poorest people have to be the ones who have to fight for their jobs? They are struggling to survive anyway. The competition is only driving their wages even further down. Why not let some of the white collar workers into the country. I don't know, maybe they have, but I sure haven't seen any evidence of it.
My brother has a friend who is Panamanian, she is a highly qualified nurse and she wants to come to the US. We want even grant her a visa to come here to work, and she would be willing to work for far less than what nurses are paid here.
"But why does the poorest people have to be the ones who have to fight for their jobs? They are struggling to survive anyway."
Welcome to capitalism. Sorry. That's just how it is. If you restrict the free flow of better value labor and if you advocate for it (no matter the income level or class), then you are anti-capitalist.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Let's see, just in this thread alone I've been called a racist, a bigot, a Jingo, a nativist, and you top it off by saying I watch Fox news. considering, I don't think I've over reacted at all. Did I once call you a name?
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 5:38pm.
You aren't checking out whose really doing the work, plus you appear to be racists.
I know plenty of folks who aren't immigrants who are carpenters and bricklayers and plumbers. And, some of them need a big heavy truck (those bricks aren't easy to haul around), but others could easily use something smaller. I know someone who uses a Honda Element for hauling around fresh vegetables to sell.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Pam, I'm sorry you feel this way but it has nothing to do with racism. Are you okay with outsourcing jobs to other countries? If not, how is this different?
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 5:59pm.
What I'm telling you is that immigrants are not taking away jobs. There are still plenty of folks working out there -- the ones who are willing and want to work.
As for the immigrants, they work hard. An honest days work.
Outsourcing is another issue entirely.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
As for the immigrants, they work hard. An honest days work.
This is not an issue of an honest days work, and I know many of them work hard, and a lot of them are excellent craftsmen, but they are here illegally! We citizens of this country are expected to obey our laws but we allow outsiders to break them? Where's the justice? If we are going to ignore our border laws just to get cheap employment then let's just completely throw out our border laws, do away with passports and allow free travel for all. Work where we want, go where we want, without consequences.
But you commented my post, and I was referring to the millions of workers that are here illegally and I beg to differ, they have taken jobs.
They aren't eliminating jobs that Americans are taking.
Which Americans are you talking about? The rich and middle class Americans or the poor Americans. No they are not taking the rich and middle class American's jobs, yes they are taking the poor Americans jobs. The middle class Americans on the other hand, their jobs are being outsourced. Hence, the bad economy!
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 12:02pm.
I would go the full nine yards and put an LED readout of your real time RPMs and MPG in the back window. Chicks will dig it.
I've wanted one of those for a long time. (The chicks would of course be nice too, but I don't know if they'd really dig the LED and my wife wouldn't dig them!)
Also, I could speak to dictate any message (e.g., "Get off my ass!") and the message would appear on the display in my back window.
I like your suggestion, Ray, but how many would cry fowl about anti-"free market" "intrusion" from the government?
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 1:00pm.
From a philosophical standpoint, I consider all forms of taxation outside of usage fees inherently immoral. It's taking by force - theft. Okay, I'll pause ten seconds to let you move beyond that.
Problem is, that's completely impractical, and I'm more influenced by what's practical than what's philosophically pure (hence, no membership card to the anarcho-libertarians' club). So, accepting taxation is both necessary and, by default, immoral, I really don't have a dog in the fight as to how we tax or what we tax.
I think heavy government investment in non-fossil fuels is completely justified philosophically on the grounds of national defense and imminently practical in terms of protecting our own economic self-interest. Oh, and there's that whole global climate change thing, too.
You are nothing if turgid. Please help me understand how one goes from taxation-as-immorality to supporting nationalized alternative energy without exploding from the centripetal forces.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 2:25pm.
Turgid? I try to comply with a request to keep it short, and I get Turgid? Damn, I should stick to trying to explain everything in detail.
I'll try to walk through my, admittedly unusual, thought process without being bombastic or ostentatious. Philosophically, the primary justification for any government to a good libertarian is to protect the individual's rights and freedoms from those who would infringe upon them - whether from outside the tribe or inside of it. Does it take a huge leap to see a critical and unbalanced economic dependence on governments generally hostile to ours as a threat to the rights and freedoms of the individuals of this country? I mean, assuming one agrees U.S. dollars obtained through the sale of oil are directly funding active terror cells?
Sticking to a philosophical viewpoint for the moment, I can generally reduce most immorality to one offense - theft (the taking by force or stealth that which the owner does not willingly surrender). Whether it's theft of life, of control of one's physical self, of property, or of natural rights, it's taking by force from the individual. By that definition, except for usage fees, taxation is theft/immoral, no? I mean, it's taxation fully equipped with prison time for noncompliance, not a PBS pledge drive that comes around every April 15.
Problem: how do you reconcile the need for resources required by a government to fulfill its mission with the notion that the use of force to take from others is immoral? One way is to pretend usage fees can be structured to provide the government with the necessary funding (essentially, minarchism). Two is to deny the necessity of government itself. Everyone can protect themselves indivdidually or through voluntary, temporary, and shifting cooperatives (anarchy grossly and inexcusably oversimplified in the interest of space). Three is to accept the necessity of an immorality to achieve an imperative (the ends justify the means). As I've gotten older and less idealistic, I've moved from 2 to 1 to 3. Once I'd - to use factchecker's phrase - drunk the kool-aid and accepted something more than a minimalist government is needed to protect the liberties of its citizens, my basic philosophical bent just start ebbing away as an active influence.
I only get my philosophical dander up these days when a government attempts to blatantly intrude on individual natural rights. Big things like suppressing equal rights and protections for homosexuals or little things like creating an art review board downtown because someone didn't like a bear and because every other municipality our size has something like that in place already.
I have a preference for freer rather than more command driven markets (not, the big Market from earlier) because I value innovation and efficiency (growth) over stability and predictability (stagnation). It's not philosophical and it's not univerally true for every market. Sometimes, a freer type market isn't going to spawn the innovation and efficiencies that give me preference for that model. Health Care, Pharmaceuticals, the so-called "private" prison industry, etc., aren't providing the benefits of a functioning free market system and - in point of fact - are performing worse than a command market would in their place.
Any of this making sense to you? Probably not... but you did ask.
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 12:09pm.
I saw a Mini Cooper the other day with a scrolling LED display on the license plate holder. Never seen one before. Didn't catch what it was scrolling, he went by too fast...
Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Wed, 2008/04/30 - 4:15pm.
I want one of those. Someone sells a tiny van in europe that looks like an old toyota or VW van that's gone through the wash and shrunk. Thats what I really want.
I would be thrilled beyond words if my Frontier got the city mileage EPA promised. Maybe they can send someone to tweak the engine?
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
But why does it get only 28 MPG? I can get the rated 25 MPG in my V-8 350-powered wagon. My mileage is pretty miserable, but the car can seat 8 and tow 5,000 lbs (it's what an SUV was/could be if they made it aerodynamic and didn't jack it up in the air). If a car isn't doing more than hauling butts around, 35-40 seems like a reasonable minimum. What this country needs is a good $10 gallon of gas.
In what industry analysts are calling a first, about one in five vehicles sold in the United States was a compact or subcompact car during April
...
In another first, fuel-sipping four-cylinder engines surpassed six-cylinder models in popularity in April. ... 42 percent of all vehicles sold in April were equipped with four-cylinder engines, compared with 38 percent for six-cylinder engines.
...
In California, motorists bought 4 percent less gasoline in January than they did the year before, a drop of more than 58 million gallons,
Congress should pass a "consumer protection disclosure and warning label" law
If Congress would pass such a law, it would probably be amazing how our consumption of oil could decline. Of course, as they were in the late 70s and 80s, the US auto companies are late to the ball game and would put a lot of pressure on Congress to ignore this type of requirement.
When I put the aero package on my Honda Accord after I gut the fuel mileage with the performance chip do I have to get a special tag with the new EPA rating or can I just skip it because that would look stupid and girls wouldn't want to go out with me?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I would go the full nine yards and put an LED readout of your real time RPMs and MPG in the back window. Chicks will dig it.
Yes. Also, you can have a third display showing your running depreciation on that Accord before and after you screwed it up.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I don't know. You don't really need to see the number on an Escalade to know that whoever drives it spends big money on gas. A lot of people are into conspicuous consumption, so the number on the bumper may just be one more way for the aspiring rap stars to one-up each other.
I hear that banks aren't even bothering to repo the damn things anymore because there is no market for them if they get their hands on them. Down the road from me is the state vehicle auction (NJ does the dirty work for the banks). I went down there to see if I could snag a deal on a Honda. Hell, those go for over blue book at Auction. The two large SUVs I saw went for $1000 and $1250 respectively. The Escalade retails for what?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
The H3 already brags about its effective highway mileage in bold chrome relief:
(H)ighway - (3)
and anyone driving one of those is impervious to peer pressure.
Yeah, the only thing between the CAFE standards of today and our ultimate goal of fuel independence is hip hop.
Wait... what???
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
Yes, the Hummers and Escalades are saying look at me and my conspicuous consumption. They won't be persuaded.
The benefit is for the people buying a Malibu or a Fusion or a Sebring. Having MPG drilled into our collective lizard brains by all the advertising we're subjected to will make people start making MPG a higher priority in their comparison shopping, and asking why don't these cars do better? As it is, we have been conditioned to not think about it so much. The government will take care of high gas prices, so no worries!
Subaru is great example. Their first car had one of if not the highest MPG at the time. Now they make all four-wheel drive, larger, heavier vehicles and have some of the worst MPG performers.
GM just introduced a Tahoe "Hybrid" that they tout all over their green-tinted TV ads. I'm not sure if they mention the MPG or not. Probably not, because it's pitiful. They have other standard SUVs that get better mileage.
The other thing is to make the idea of higher MPG "cool" and "hip" and have your teenage daughters telling you they don't want to ride to cheerleader practice with Jenny's mom because her minivan only gets 18MPG and it says so right there on the bumper! Ewwwwww!
1. Put a permanent, scannable bar code on the inside of the gas cap cover that identifies the make and model of the car.
2. Add a fairly large surcharge gas tax to help fund non-fossil fuel burning vehicles.
3. Have the pumps not start until the barcode in (1) is scanned.
4. Discount the gas surcharge by the city mpg rating for that vehicle.
Somehow I don't think the good old boys who buy Truck Nutz would be embarrassed by having their EPA mileage estimates published?
biodegrade.
Visit us at
The Home
I drive a pickup with a V8, and I would support a HIGH fuel tax to expand public transportation. I enjoy riding the bus and having someone else drive. I will always need a truck but there is no need to drive it everywhere.
That's all great but what about carpenters and other lower payed workers who rely on their trucks to make a living. It's tough enough getting jobs as it is. But I guess it doesn't matter because the illegals have taken over most of these types of jobs anyway. They won't have any problem with the higher costs considering they all live, work and commute together.
One of my favorite people in the whole world (this means that he is not American) runs a very successful roofing business with one of these:
I do not and will never buy the argument that people need 3/4 ton pickups with "Powerstroke" diesels to do work, once I saw Igor do epic amounts of work with a little truck possessing about 100 horsepower.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
That is a cute little vehicle but I don't see carrying hundreds of pounds of 16' lumber and ton's of rock, sand and block in it.
He may run the business in it, but I bet he doesn't haul the ladders and shingles needed for the job in it.
Yep. He carries the ladders and equipment. Everything else is a scheduled delivery from the wholesaler. It's a better system and works like a charm. I helped him put two roofs on that summer just to learn how to do terra cotta roofing and it was a real learning experience.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Who makes this little truck?
Nissan/Renault.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
But I guess it doesn't matter because the illegals have taken over most of these types of jobs anyway. They won't have any problem with the higher costs considering they all live, work and commute together.
Bigoted much?
How is being against someone coming into our country illegally and taking our jobs bigoted? Actually, I fault the companies that hire them. My family is probably one of the most diverse families you can find, and I think it is absolutely great. The diversity has probably brought our gene pool up. But when jobs are undercut and the money doesn't stay in our country, no, I'm not happy about it.
There was a poster
who made a post
and Jingo was his name-o
J-I-N-G-O x 3
And Jingo was his name-o
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Metulj, I'm probably the only person on this board who doesn't know what you mean by this post. Could you at least give me a hint?
Hint: http://www.m-w.com
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
jin·go (jngg)
n. pl. jin·goes
One who vociferously supports one's country, especially one who supports a belligerent foreign policy; a chauvinistic patriot.
adj.
1. Of or relating to a chauvinistic patriot.
2. Characterized by chauvinistic patriotism
Jingo \Jin"go\, n.; pl. Jingoes. [Said to be a corruption of
St. Gingoulph.]
1. A word used as a jocular oath. ``By the living jingo.''
--Goldsmith.
2. A statesman who pursues, or who favors, aggressive,
domineering policy in foreign affairs. [Cant, Eng.]
Now come on Metulj, name calling? Isn't that rather childish? You even used a childhood song for it.
..and Pam, I feel like the little kid on the playground surrounded by bullies, and getting made fun of.
Daddy Neal, please forgive me!
Metulj and Pam sitting in a tree....
P.S. Metulj and Pam, no hard feelings, I wrote this in jest.
OK. I take it back. Nativist.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Relentless!!
Now dang it Metulj, I wish you would use words that I didn't have to look up.
I'm not against immigration, but shouldn't it be controlled so that it doesn't hurt the citizens who already live here?
I just think the whole "immigration problem" is an overstatement of the whole "immigration problem." You are never going to get any traction within the current political economy of the United States if you try to prevent cheaper labor from coming in. I think that if you really want to fix the "immigration problem," we should be talking to the people who are immigrating here, working with them and finding common ground with them. The people who exploit them are never going to listen. Who are those people? You and me. Maybe we (two) do it to a lesser degree, but there are plenty of folks who have no compunction when it comes to using immigrant labor in illegal and unethical ways. Unfortunately, those ways keep prices down, so if you mess with it, you get burned on the other end. Pick your poison. I think the enemy isn't the immigrants. They are, by and very large, great people. As a matter of fact, I think they are some of the best the world has to offer.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
But why does the poorest people have to be the ones who have to fight for their jobs? They are struggling to survive anyway. The competition is only driving their wages even further down. Why not let some of the white collar workers into the country. I don't know, maybe they have, but I sure haven't seen any evidence of it.
My brother has a friend who is Panamanian, she is a highly qualified nurse and she wants to come to the US. We want even grant her a visa to come here to work, and she would be willing to work for far less than what nurses are paid here.
"But why does the poorest people have to be the ones who have to fight for their jobs? They are struggling to survive anyway."
Welcome to capitalism. Sorry. That's just how it is. If you restrict the free flow of better value labor and if you advocate for it (no matter the income level or class), then you are anti-capitalist.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I'm sorry but I meant 'We' as in the 'US' and 'want' as in 'won't' (Typo) but the difference is, the nurse was trying to come here legally.
I think you're overreacting, but you're also overreacting about the immigration issue, so I'm not surprised.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Just making conversation.
Mighty contentious for "just making conversation."
As for the poorest people fighting for jobs, take a look around. Everybody is fighting for jobs right now.
I get the feeling you're getting all your talking points from Fox News. Bad idea.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Let's see, just in this thread alone I've been called a racist, a bigot, a Jingo, a nativist, and you top it off by saying I watch Fox news. considering, I don't think I've over reacted at all. Did I once call you a name?
and the reason this is?
George Bush, the war, the housing bust. There's not a single reason.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Times they are a changin'
Job Market 2009 - video powered by Metacafe
Doug McCaughan
Link...
You aren't checking out whose really doing the work, plus you appear to be racists.
I know plenty of folks who aren't immigrants who are carpenters and bricklayers and plumbers. And, some of them need a big heavy truck (those bricks aren't easy to haul around), but others could easily use something smaller. I know someone who uses a Honda Element for hauling around fresh vegetables to sell.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Pam, I'm sorry you feel this way but it has nothing to do with racism. Are you okay with outsourcing jobs to other countries? If not, how is this different?
What I'm telling you is that immigrants are not taking away jobs. There are still plenty of folks working out there -- the ones who are willing and want to work.
As for the immigrants, they work hard. An honest days work.
Outsourcing is another issue entirely.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
This is not an issue of an honest days work, and I know many of them work hard, and a lot of them are excellent craftsmen, but they are here illegally! We citizens of this country are expected to obey our laws but we allow outsiders to break them? Where's the justice? If we are going to ignore our border laws just to get cheap employment then let's just completely throw out our border laws, do away with passports and allow free travel for all. Work where we want, go where we want, without consequences.
How is outsourcing different?
You failed to read my post. They aren't eliminating jobs that Americans are taking. Also, they are not all here illegally.
That's all I have to say in this conversation.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
But you commented my post, and I was referring to the millions of workers that are here illegally and I beg to differ, they have taken jobs.
Which Americans are you talking about? The rich and middle class Americans or the poor Americans. No they are not taking the rich and middle class American's jobs, yes they are taking the poor Americans jobs. The middle class Americans on the other hand, their jobs are being outsourced. Hence, the bad economy!
I refer you to metulj's post above.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Next...
Hey you are not playing by the rules. I figured I had a free shot!
"Outsourcing is another issue entirely."
Indeed!! The jobs were sent over seas legally.
I've wanted one of those for a long time. (The chicks would of course be nice too, but I don't know if they'd really dig the LED and my wife wouldn't dig them!)
Also, I could speak to dictate any message (e.g., "Get off my ass!") and the message would appear on the display in my back window.
I like your suggestion, Ray, but how many would cry fowl about anti-"free market" "intrusion" from the government?
From a philosophical standpoint, I consider all forms of taxation outside of usage fees inherently immoral. It's taking by force - theft. Okay, I'll pause ten seconds to let you move beyond that.
Problem is, that's completely impractical, and I'm more influenced by what's practical than what's philosophically pure (hence, no membership card to the anarcho-libertarians' club). So, accepting taxation is both necessary and, by default, immoral, I really don't have a dog in the fight as to how we tax or what we tax.
I think heavy government investment in non-fossil fuels is completely justified philosophically on the grounds of national defense and imminently practical in terms of protecting our own economic self-interest. Oh, and there's that whole global climate change thing, too.
You are nothing if turgid. Please help me understand how one goes from taxation-as-immorality to supporting nationalized alternative energy without exploding from the centripetal forces.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Turgid? I try to comply with a request to keep it short, and I get Turgid? Damn, I should stick to trying to explain everything in detail.
I'll try to walk through my, admittedly unusual, thought process without being bombastic or ostentatious. Philosophically, the primary justification for any government to a good libertarian is to protect the individual's rights and freedoms from those who would infringe upon them - whether from outside the tribe or inside of it. Does it take a huge leap to see a critical and unbalanced economic dependence on governments generally hostile to ours as a threat to the rights and freedoms of the individuals of this country? I mean, assuming one agrees U.S. dollars obtained through the sale of oil are directly funding active terror cells?
Sticking to a philosophical viewpoint for the moment, I can generally reduce most immorality to one offense - theft (the taking by force or stealth that which the owner does not willingly surrender). Whether it's theft of life, of control of one's physical self, of property, or of natural rights, it's taking by force from the individual. By that definition, except for usage fees, taxation is theft/immoral, no? I mean, it's taxation fully equipped with prison time for noncompliance, not a PBS pledge drive that comes around every April 15.
Problem: how do you reconcile the need for resources required by a government to fulfill its mission with the notion that the use of force to take from others is immoral? One way is to pretend usage fees can be structured to provide the government with the necessary funding (essentially, minarchism). Two is to deny the necessity of government itself. Everyone can protect themselves indivdidually or through voluntary, temporary, and shifting cooperatives (anarchy grossly and inexcusably oversimplified in the interest of space). Three is to accept the necessity of an immorality to achieve an imperative (the ends justify the means). As I've gotten older and less idealistic, I've moved from 2 to 1 to 3. Once I'd - to use factchecker's phrase - drunk the kool-aid and accepted something more than a minimalist government is needed to protect the liberties of its citizens, my basic philosophical bent just start ebbing away as an active influence.
I only get my philosophical dander up these days when a government attempts to blatantly intrude on individual natural rights. Big things like suppressing equal rights and protections for homosexuals or little things like creating an art review board downtown because someone didn't like a bear and because every other municipality our size has something like that in place already.
I have a preference for freer rather than more command driven markets (not, the big Market from earlier) because I value innovation and efficiency (growth) over stability and predictability (stagnation). It's not philosophical and it's not univerally true for every market. Sometimes, a freer type market isn't going to spawn the innovation and efficiencies that give me preference for that model. Health Care, Pharmaceuticals, the so-called "private" prison industry, etc., aren't providing the benefits of a functioning free market system and - in point of fact - are performing worse than a command market would in their place.
Any of this making sense to you? Probably not... but you did ask.
I saw a Mini Cooper the other day with a scrolling LED display on the license plate holder. Never seen one before. Didn't catch what it was scrolling, he went by too fast...
I want one of those. Someone sells a tiny van in europe that looks like an old toyota or VW van that's gone through the wash and shrunk. Thats what I really want.
I would be thrilled beyond words if my Frontier got the city mileage EPA promised. Maybe they can send someone to tweak the engine?
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
Check out the Mazda 5.
That 5 looks like a nice car. Do you have one?
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
Don't have one. But have my eye on it, should I need a replacement vehicle.
But why does it get only 28 MPG? I can get the rated 25 MPG in my V-8 350-powered wagon. My mileage is pretty miserable, but the car can seat 8 and tow 5,000 lbs (it's what an SUV was/could be if they made it aerodynamic and didn't jack it up in the air). If a car isn't doing more than hauling butts around, 35-40 seems like a reasonable minimum. What this country needs is a good $10 gallon of gas.
Shut down NASCAR for a month.
Ground Air Force One and give George Bush a bicycle.
Prevent the GoVuls from playing after dark.
Put one of these in every garage.
Visit us at
The Home
The LA Times has this article about griping lawmakers who are being forced to lease more eco-friendly vehicles.
Visit us at
The Home
Congress should pass a "consumer protection disclosure and warning label" law
If Congress would pass such a law, it would probably be amazing how our consumption of oil could decline. Of course, as they were in the late 70s and 80s, the US auto companies are late to the ball game and would put a lot of pressure on Congress to ignore this type of requirement.
Post new comment