The Interstates are funded by the tax on the gas you bought, so you paid for the use.

It's the "I hate Obama" thing, and the "oppose Obama at every turn" thing, and the "party of NO" thing, and the "democrats and liberals are bad" thing...

I attended three tea parties, and did not see all the negatives you guys are bitching about. It is about left and right abuses, and destroying our currency by printing trillions that we will never be able to pay back. When the rest of the world gets fed up, and dumps dollars, all the stimulus pork bills won't amount to 35 cents. And Hoover didn't solve the depression, neither did Roosevelt. WWII ended the depression. Raising taxes on business when we are in recession makes no sense whatsoever. If business spent like government, they'd be out of business. Oh wait, General Motors, Fannie Mae et al did spend like government, and now they get us to pay for their excesses. People making $80 an hour to make cars for people who make $15 an hour doesn't work. Queen Pelosi needing a 757 to go back and forth to California 2 or three times a week while we're in a financial crisis doesn't work either. All the tea parties are saying is, WE CAN'T AFFORD YOUR EXTRAVAGANCE! CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND PORK!

Stop buying into that bullshit - that is total and complete bullshit.

That's bullshit too.

The truth is painfull. The Democratic party needs to go to Rehab.

[offtopic]

btw, the original tea party is where you all went wrong. Not politically, but you shoved the tea into cold saltwater and your technique hasn't changed much since. WTF? You need to pour boiling water onto the leaves. and then leave it to brew for a few minutes. it is not ok to drop a teabag in a mug of cold water and shove in in the microwave for two minutes. it is not Ok to add half-and-half to Earl Grey. c'mon, people, no wonder your ecomony is fucked -look what you did to the very foundations of society!

[/offtopic]

oh good, I'm not scrounging.

So c'mon. All y'all who hate the fed taxes -exactly how much is it you resent paying? because you sound to me like a bunch of kids whining about homework. Except that I actually have sympathy for them and your Fed taxes probably do you more good....

Now now now, SG, I'm positing a jump from the left. So if you don't quite stick the landing, there's a step to the right.

Yeah, I'm sure I would have. I'm keeping a ear open for the next one in-county. Heck, near it.

What I Missed April 15, when American income taxes are due.

A little more from the same blogger. Links too.

And one David Atkins, writing on the Ventura County Democratic Party webpage, demonstrates how little he wants a clue. Grammatical perhaps, but I wouldn't call it intelligent.

David Atkins

Not as far as I can actually see and personally experience. By contrast, you're just reciting what somebody else told you to think. These people seem to figure inflation is quite bad enough without printing money to buy more.

Didn't anybody ever tell you not to pour Kool-Aid on your breakfast Sugar Pops?

My god, here it is again, blame the workers for all the bad decisions made at the top by the fucking CEOs and executives. If you took all the union workers and added up their pay, it would be less than what the executives at the top made. And ftr, they weren't making $80/hour. They were making only a few dollars more per hour than workers at Toyota. The difference is, Toyota doesn't have the health care costs and other costs that are added in when quoting the pay scale at American car companies. http://blogs.payscale.com/ask_dr_sal...3-an-hour.html

Most economists believe the reason why it took the war to really end the depression is the fact that Hoover did nothing but cut taxes, and that is exactly what the republicans want to do now, cut taxes and let the market take care of itself. In the case of Hoover, it meant the depression just kept sliding downward. The things Roosevelt did were making the economy better, but because they were done so late in the game, it took a long time for things to work. And, why do you think the war ended the depression? It's because there were JOBS.

The stimulus is investing in things that need to be done anyway. The budget is investing in things that need to be done anyway. Yes, it costs money now, but down the road, the money will pay for itself. The banks were leant money, and hopefully it will all be paid back over time, at something like 8% interest. And let's set the record straight here, a LOT of that money went out under Bush, NOT Obama.

That does not mean I agree with everything Obama is doing, because I don't. Personally, I think he should told GM they had to make electric cars, and compressed air cars, and hybrids. No more low milage cars that run solely on gas. I would have liked to see more money going to create jobs by building/fixing more infrastructure. But I do believe he is doing what he believes is in the best interests of the country, and he is a pretty smart guy. I am willing to give him a chance.

So you believe it was the war that finally ended the depression and not the policies of Roosevelt?

re: toyota, they don't have the retirees to pay yet either. and the $80hr figure is total bullshit - we rectified that right wing crap long ago.

What about the workers!?!?!

The unions would never have supported it.

yeh thats feasible :eyebrow: Are you serious? Do you have any concept of what it would take for them to stop making what they are making and start making a product that doesn't really exist in a production ready way yet?

That mandate would have been total disaster for GM. They were told to get competitive which is reasonable.

It looks like selective bankruptcy is in store.

From an economic viewpoint, they are identical. Ask yourself this: what would have happened if we had just pretended there was a war, spent all that money on building all those planes and munitions, but then just dumped it all into the ocean instead? Would it have had the same effect on the economy? How would that be different from spending all that money on anything else?

No. I think the policies Roosevelt enacted were working slowly, and the war helped put the economy into overdrive by creating many more jobs. I think it was a combination. You can't deny that those policies didn't bring the unemployment rate down significantly. But we were already in such a black hole, because of Hoover's nonaction, that it was going to take a very long time to come out of it.

What really kills me, is that we have allowed it to happen again, by deregulating everything in sight. It's really too bad we can't regulate greed. And ethics.

GM successfully made electric cars back in the 90s, so don't tell me they don't already have the technology. And they are already making compressed air cars in Europe.

Why is so hard to find innovative people here, in the US? We are supposed to be the almighty greatest country ever, right? :rolleyes:

Why?

They would have been put out of work while the companies completely retooled. The process of mass producing a new car, esp one as radical as the one you are talking about, would require a massive amount of work and change. The unions want status quo or more, not less. It is not like flipping a lightswitch.

And that is probably going to happen anyway. At the very least, they could have been making more fuel efficient cars and hybrids while they design the other ones. And as I said, they successfully made electric cars in the 90s. They could easily start making them again.

I don't believe they successfully made electric cars. They made some. They were not successfull and they were not mass produced. We can debate why but the reality is that they are going to make what they can be profitable with. The bottom line is the dollar. It was so in the 90's and it is so now.

A prototype is very different than mass production and meeting all the requirements that go with it.

More half truths. When the employee retires, GM stops paying. Why? The retirement fund is fully funded. No legacy costs exist when management is honest and responsible.

You conveniently forgot facts to post a myth. GM stopped funding those pension funds in the 1990s. Therefore GM still owes that 1990 money - with interest. Toyota does not have this problem because corporate management was honest. Toyota funded their pension funds when required.

Anyone who believes GM has legacy costs is forgetting facts to promote a myth. GM's legacy costs are directly traceable to people, including Rick Wagoner, who stopped funding the pension funds to avert the 1991 bankruptcy. GM was four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991 because their problems today have existed that long ago. They stopped funding pension funds so that management could reap bonuses for ill begotten corporate profits.

Damning fact - GM cars sold for less than what they cost. GM profits were estimated at about $100 to $200 per vehicle. That was not legacy costs. That was bean counters doing what is necessary when the purpose of a company is its profits.

I am pretty sure from design to production is at least 5 years.

The US government paid for each company to design hybrids. Functioning electric cars existed in all three companies. Called the Prodigy, Precept, and ESX3. For 30 years, automakers would not innovate unless required by government regulation. So when George Jr came to power, all that innovation was quashed - no longer required. For 30 years, innovation appeared as an expense on the spread sheets.

Could these electric cars been marketed successfully? Yes. Toyota and Honda both proved that in spades. Success if government had not stopped forcing these automakers to innovate. But the new president was an MBA. Therefore hybrids - the auto industry's future - appeared in foreign products. American hybrids could not be successful because we elected an administration that routinely stifled innovation. Even had White House lawyers rewrite science papers.

Government should not have to force innovation. That is the underlying problem. Innovation was not possible in MBA dominated auto companies - which is why electric cars (innovation) were quashed.

Obviously, electric cars could easily be successful. But that meant management had to believe a company's purpose is its products. Therein lays the only threat to innovation in the American auto industry. Eliminate that problem and these vehicles easily could have been successful. It’s no longer even debatable.

The designs even existed in 2000. And the 70 horsepower per liter engine existed in 1975. It too was quashed for 30 years for the same reason. Not available in America until patriotic auto companies such as Toyota, Honda, Nissan, VW, etc brought it SUCCESSFULLY into America. Radial tire – 1948 and kept out of America until 1975. Different product. Exact same story.

The hybrids designs started in 1994(?) when Clinton gave them free money to design them. These were ready for moving into production in 1999 and demonstrated in 2000. But then I am only posting these facts for what - the ninth time?

Which is what the 70 horsepower per liter engine addressed in 1975. Or the stratified charge engine that existed in the early 1960s.

When did the stratified charge engine finally appear? In 1980 in the Hondas - that immediately became the #1 and #2 selling models in America - despite American automaker claims that it could not work.

When did the 70 hp/liter engine appear? In 1992 in Japanese and most European products - despite American automaker claims that is could not work.

It takes decades to upgrade all models to better technology. Let's look at MPG mileage. GM claimed they had 19 models that exceed 30 MPG. Then we consult honest sources. Not one single GM model comes close to 30 MPG. Not one. Of 40 GM models, the average MPG is ... 18.5. Some examples: Buick 16.7. Cadillac 16.7. Chevy 19.2

Average for 109 models from 16 import manufacturers is just under 21 MPG. Only Mercedes (that has no small cars) has MPG numbers equivalent to the low performance obsolete technology engines in GM. GM numbers are equal because GM also has small cars – Mercedes does not.

But then if you think GM is bad, worse is Chrysler. MPG for their 21 models is 17. Lower MPG because innovation is not found in GM or Chrysler models except when required by CAFE standards and EPA requirements.

Why no innovation? Ignoring that many Americans told them to keep stifling technology by purchasing such crap? Engineers were not permitted to innovate unless government regulations required it. Which is why GM, et al campaigned so vigorously to have SUVs liberated from innovation requirements.

GM has lower MPG numbers because GM has not been doing engine engineering for 30 years - except when required by government regulation.

Well what do you think classic?

I dunno - from what I remember the Gov't gave them money years ago to innovate and investigate the alternate vehicle power systems. For some reason it didn't work. IIRC it was in the 80's when the got a bunch of money to try to build some hybrids. No one cared enough back then. Now, apparently people do and they should be ready to roll. They aren't because demand dictated what they built. Srsly, what good is a product that no one is going to buy? It took $4.00 gasoline to get people to give a shit.

But as is typical with the American mentality, they went for the money they could get and now they aren't prepared. I blame it all on the beancounter MBA mentality. you?

And look how short the memory banks are? Now that gas is generally less than $2 mid sized vehicles are still being bought and the Prius of the world are sitting on the lots unbought. No one cares about the electric cars. We sat in the Prius recently and Did not fit either in the drivers seat or passengers side. I would not buy one anyway. I did fit in the Mini Cooper so we bought one of those last week. :D Mommy is very happy.

Neighbor has a Prius - drove to CO with it to go skiing. They immediately put it up for sale upon returning. They said it was very uncomfortable, couldn't hold all their gear and was overall just not that nice a ride. I think its great that they get good gas mileage and I would drive one to/from work, but the cost to get one is still too prohibitive for my wallet.

That is bullshit. I lived in LA back when they were making them, and I used to see them on the street all the time. I suggest you watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" You can watch it online at surfthechannel.com. they weren't the only car maker making them either.

I know several people who own Priuses, and they love them. One couple likes them so much they own two of them.

FTR, about the electric cars, California spent hundreds of millions of dollars putting in electric charge stations around the state back when GM and others were making electric cars. Do you honestly think the state would have spent all that money for a few prototypes?

It is bullshit.

Read the history here:

http://www.hybridcars.com/history/th...-up-of-74.html

They never went to full production.

https://www.simplyhybrid.com/hybrid-...to-history.php

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/ele...-timeline.html

Only one of the links you provided said anything about the electric cars that were built in the 90s Merc.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind and yes I firmly believe they would waste all that money and many many millions more.

I was thinking the 70's. My bad.

Long history of the car in the 90's.

http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynami...ne/welcome.htm

My car is mightier than yours. ;) /offtopicsnarkiness

In actuality, I don't like that commercial. It would have been better if I really had gotten a cape and the silly decals when I bought the car.

:)

They did it believing the car manufacturers would keep the agreements about the regulations California had put in place. but they didn't. They fought them, and when Bush was put in place, it all went to hell, because you know, he was an oilman, so he took their side.

Those CA hippies are trying to dictate to the rest of the nation what to drive. Silly hippies.
Don't forget there are still plenty of gasp one car families in this country. And lots of people that drive a long way work or shop.
Electrics haven't come far enough to be viable for these people.
It's only been a couple years that batteries have been good enough for suburban viability.
The best option is electric motor driven wheels with a small gas or diesel engine with a generator/alternator to make the juice.

From here

Exerpt:

And some here insist I'm mad. I ain't mad -- just literate.

Tea Parties: What's Next?

A View From Main Street

Garofalo Highlights Left's Hypocrisy... Its last sentence reads:

No they aren't. Because California had a serious air pollution problem back in the 70s, and still do sometimes, they have continued doing what they need to do in order to clean the air up so it is safe to breathe. That's why they always had strictere standards. I think Bush may have watered them down significantly though.

Electrics ARE viable for a large portion of the population. Most people probably don't drive anywhere near 100 miles per day.

So if Obama had done nothing but cut taxes, like republicans wanted him to do, the economy would have barrelled downward at an alarming rate and we would be in serious depression right now, instead of showing some small signs of recovery. Hoover proved that already.

How do you figure? To this point all he has done is spend money, that doesn't really exist except on paper. So if he cut taxes and spent money that doesn't exist how would that change things for you?

Aside from "It's Bush's fault. Have you considered any other anything? The kneejerk reaction to just blame the prior administration is getting very old.

Whats the cost of an electric car right now?

Try this:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20125

It is a fact that Bush made the regulations weaker in California. I'm sorry, but that is the truth. You cannot deny the truth.

I have no idea what the cost of an electric car is right now. I haven't priced them because a) I can't afford a new car right now, and b) there are no plug in electric charge stations where I live. I know the Tesla is expensive, but that is a sports car, and the price is comparable to other high end sports cars.

Califorina sucks. That is all.

I love California. Have you ever lived there Merc?

If I ever go back, I would like to live in or near San Francisco next time. Or maybe Big Sur.

Big Sur is a fantasy hippie area. It is not what it seems. The wife and I have visited many times, she lived there for three years. Calif sucks ass. I would rather live in Texas where there is unity than in Calif where there is chaos.

My ex lived near Big Sur. I went up there a few times to visit him. And anyway, you know what a hippie I am. I would be perfectly happy living on a commune somewhere. Growing food. Drumming and dancing in drum circles. Having orgies. :D

True dat! :D and I still love you.

Big Sur is definitely still a place populated by weirdos. That's where our big wildfire was last July and let me tell you my crew and I ran into some pretty strange folks over our two week stint in Big Sur. The Buddhist monks/volunteer firefighters haha, and the good old Esalen Institute (if you're interested in "non-violent wood turning", I can point you in the right direction), and another engine crew we befriended found a half-acre pot field. Very nice people for the most part, though that may have had something do with the fact that we were protecting their homes.., and beautiful part of the coastline.

Did you all go and stand downwind? lol

(yes I realize this wouldn't be a good idea in theory, but I suppose that's where firefighters usually have to be anyway right?)

Then how can you say they are a viable option for many? How viable is an option most people cannot afford?

My ex's dad taught massage at Esalen. He's been working there for years. We visited him once. I LOVED it up there. I would love to work somewhere like that. Such amazing beauty. And the energy was delicious. :D

My ex grew up on a commune. Lucky bastard.

Nah we weren't with them when they found it. Just as well though because they had to sit there for hours as the police department, which was already stretched thin due to that pesky over 100,000 acre wildfire going on, went through the proper procedures to deal with such a large amount of growing plants.

Actually we go by the "one foot in the black"rule. You want to stay mostly in or near the already burned area attacking the flanks of the blaze never the actual head of the fire, be upwind of the fire (if you are facing the fire, the wind would preferably be at your back), no fuel between you and the fire if possible, and never ever ever ever uphill from the fire, no matter what direction it is heading or how far down the canyon/drainage/whatever it appears to be. Unless of course you have the task of securing a dozerline/firebreak, part of which entails spending all day or night chasing after embers falling on the unburned side of the line (not as fun as it might sound).
*~*~*~*~*~The More You Know!~*~*~*~*~*

We actually got an invitation from whoever was running/care-taking Esalen during those weeks to come use their hot springs baths and get some stress relief/meditation pointers for free. Sounded like an awesome deal until we picked up a catalogue of their courses at a gas station while stopping to pick up some chew and jerky. They offer some crazy ass sounding courses there. Some seemed perfectly legit, and I guess some universities have psychology class credit deals worked out with Esalen for particular courses. That said, there were others that left us speechless like a course on tapping into the combined knowledge from all time that everything in the universe shares with one another, etc., and the "non-violent wood turning" class. Kind of weirded us out. Very nice but interesting folks up there.