Promote Conservation: A Short-Term Solution - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-26-2006, 10:27 AM   #21
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 331
Country: United States
Send a message via MSN to n0rt0npr0
'

Heard all of our bigtime neighbors like China INVEST in the USA. The US has money to spend because they create it. And inflation goes up to reflect that. Also, whomever may be loaning money to us, they are reaping HUGE profits from us paying the interest.
__________________

__________________
"You have to know the truth, and seek the truth, and the truth will set you free."
-unknown
n0rt0npr0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 11:09 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 183
Country: United States
They are investing in

They are investing in KILLING us. They have annihalated our manufacturing base. Once they get to where they can build Airplanes, Autos, and Caterpillar type equipment for export, what will there be left here?

Then they shut off the credit, and we are done. We are done because we are so deep in debt, that when the rates rise, there will be no way we can even pay the interest, let alone pay back the loans to reduce the debt. End result will be the U.S. goes bankrupt, IMO. China, Russia and OPEC get to decide when.
__________________

cheapybob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 12:05 PM   #23
Moderator
 
GasSavers_DaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
Re: I thought that the real

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
IMHO there is no salvation for this country...
I must disagree with you - believe it or not, we the people hold the power to turn this all around through voting. It's just as much our fault for not voting these big spenders out as it is for them doing the spending. I love America and wish to see it succeed for long years, and I think it's going to take what's happening to get people to wake up and take the power back away from the huge government and chop big parts off to minimize the government, then we can run the country as the people want it. It sickens me to see how many things big government has it's hands in where it doesn't belong (can you tell yet that I'm a huge proponent for pivatization? ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
...and it's horrible spending tactics.
Unfortunately this is true. We need to actually CUT spending, instead of cutting "spending increases."
GasSavers_DaX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 01:01 PM   #24
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Re: I thought that the real

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
IMHO there is no salvation for this country...
I must disagree with you - believe it or not, we the people hold the power to turn this all around through voting. It's just as much our fault for not voting these big spenders out as it is for them doing the spending. I love America and wish to see it succeed for long years, and I think it's going to take what's happening to get people to wake up and take the power back away from the huge government and chop big parts off to minimize the government, then we can run the country as the people want it. It sickens me to see how many things big government has it's hands in where it doesn't belong (can you tell yet that I'm a huge proponent for pivatization? ).
The unfortunate reality is that when you vote you can either vote in a party that spends a lot, or a party that spends a lot more.

IMO the only way to solve this problem is at the legislative level, which would require a Congress who was 1) not crooked, and 2) not getting paid tons of money to remain crooked.

These guys are never going to change the system, and they are the only ones with the real power to do so. They just make too much money and get too much power.

I'm pretty certain that the people wanted to vote in a president with a conservative fiscal policy, but they got Bush instead. He has outspent any Democratic president even, and that's not even including the cost of the war.

I honestly have no idea how giving the people the vote is going to make a difference when they only get to choose between a bunch of evil white guys.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 01:14 PM   #25
Moderator
 
GasSavers_DaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
Re: I thought that the real

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
The unfortunate reality is that when you vote you can either vote in a party that spends a lot, or a party that spends a lot more.

IMO the only way to solve this problem is at the legislative level, which would require a Congress who was 1) not crooked, and 2) not getting paid tons of money to remain crooked.

These guys are never going to change the system, and they are the only ones with the real power to do so. They just make too much money and get too much power.

I'm pretty certain that the people wanted to vote in a president with a conservative fiscal policy, but they got Bush instead. He has outspent any Democratic president even, and that's not even including the cost of the war.

I honestly have no idea how giving the people the vote is going to make a difference when they only get to choose between a bunch of evil white guys.
I completely agree with you about presidential voting, but I'm talking more about voting at the local levels. Don't like how things are running? See where your state representative stands on important issues to you. Write him/her and tell them you'll be more than happy to fire them this November if they don't change their ways. It's an off year election this year, and all of our senators and reps should be on the hot seat! If I'm not mistaken, Jim Matheson is your rep Matt...he's a pretty good guy but you should check out his site to see what platform he's standing on and what issues are important to him.
GasSavers_DaX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 01:17 PM   #26
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
Re: I thought that the real

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaX
Quote:
Originally Posted by zpiloto
I thought that the real problems lies in the fact that the oil companies stop building refiners 10 years ago because of the environmentalist and regulations. It's not that the oils not availiable it's just that the can't refine enough to keep up. Drilling in Alaska is not going to solve the problem it would take a few years to get it going.
Hasn't it been more like 30 years since the last refinery was built in the united states?
And it will be even longer. I recently heard a radio quote that "no business wants to make a $5 billion gamble on developing a new refinery with such uncertainty in the gasoline market."

That sounds like a catch 22 to me. The gas market is uncertain because of supply issues that would be addressed by new refineries.

Besides, we now annually donate $14 billion in tax money to big oil in subsidies, royalty waivers and drilling incentives. After over $50 billion in profits last year I would think money shouldn't be the issue. But wait, big oil <strong>owns</strong> our government: atleast the legislative and executive branches anyway. They can gouge us with impunity.

I agree with the conservation idea but it's up to us consumers.
__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 01:23 PM   #27
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Re: I thought that the real

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaX
I completely agree with you about presidential voting, but I'm talking more about voting at the local levels. Don't like how things are running? See where your state representative stands on important issues to you. Write him/her and tell them you'll be more than happy to fire them this November if they don't change their ways. It's an off year election this year, and all of our senators and reps should be on the hot seat! If I'm not mistaken, Jim Matheson is your rep Matt...he's a pretty good guy but you should check out his site to see what platform he's standing on and what issues are important to him.
utah politics are funny. It's the only state they can call as being Republican before the votes even come in, and yet the capital city (Salt Lake City) is run by a Democrat who ensures that the city is in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

I think over 90% of the state government is Republican, and over 95% of the state government belongs to the dominant religion here. They of course wait for the go-ahead from their religous leaders before they vote. Utah is the closest thing to a theocractic state that we'll ever see in America.

I'm going to have to look into my representative and see what they stand for. In the end it's still the two-party system, which is inherently inefficient and breeds corruption.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 01:29 PM   #28
Moderator
 
GasSavers_DaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
Re: I thought that the real

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
utah politics are funny. It's the only state they can call as being Republican before the votes even come in, and yet the capital city (Salt Lake City) is run by a Democrat who ensures that the city is in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

I think over 90% of the state government is Republican, and over 95% of the state government belongs to the dominant religion here. They of course wait for the go-ahead from their religous leaders before they vote. Utah is the closest thing to a theocractic state that we'll ever see in America.

I'm going to have to look into my representative and see what they stand for. In the end it's still the two-party system, which is inherently inefficient and breeds corruption.
Well of course the state representatives are going to be bowing to the LDS's, because that's the MO of a rep - to represent the wants and desires of the majority of the population. The US house is designed to squash the minority in every possible way. The senate is where everyone is on a level playing field.

I actually think that efficiency breeds corruption. If things are way too easy to pass through the legislative bodies, who knows where we'd be as a country. I think that in my lifetime we will see the rise of a third party (libertarians, woohoo!) and the death of one of the major parties. You'll never see for very long more than two parties competing at the national level...only during a transition time.
GasSavers_DaX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 04:00 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Perot, Gubment, and Debt

I was about the same age when Perot ran to balance the budget. In science class at that time, they taught that 1 Billion current dollars could buy a house and car for every American. Now, 9 TRILLION bucks? Wasn't the budget balanced 7 years ago? I understand some events happened in late 2001 that changed some things, but the corruption is rampant, and Halliburton probably is getting most of that. We need to audit ourselves.

Yes, I'm one of those people who screwed everything up back in 2000. I was all for growing the 3rd party base, to hopefully get at least a few percentage points to get more funding and grow a 3rd party slowly over time. It was more on principle and I knew he wouldn't win, but Nader got my vote, and thus stole it away from Mr. Lockbox. I won't nor haven't made that mistake since. Not after 9/11, the War, Katrina, the Deficit, and gas crunch (ad infinitum). All of which were/are handled very badly, IMO. We need to clean house (ha, literally) and get some fresh -- eh, hold-on...sneezing (democratic), excuse me -- fresh faces in Congress. Must be the smog or allergies or something. Isn't our Government worse now that it has been in years, maybe 25-30? Sorry, not the place to discuss this, but It must be said to an audience, willing or not.

RH77
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 10:59 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
Quote:I must disagree with

Quote:
I must disagree with you - believe it or not, we the people hold the power to turn this all around through voting. It's just as much our fault for not voting these big spenders out as it is for them doing the spending.
Our elections have questionable legitamacy.

Excerpt:
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by Diebold and ES&S.

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the US voting machine industry.

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

We have no viable third party. The democrats and republicans have both been shutting third parties out of debates since the 1990s, effectively preventing them from any exposure to the mass public. Ross Perot scared the **** out of both parties in 1992, and that is when they decided to put a stop to that. Nader has covered this so eloquently in his recent books.

Essentially, we have a choice between:

1) A party that is moderate right on economic issues, moderately authoritarian on social issues, fiscally liberal, pro war (democrats)
2) A party that is moderate right on economic issues, extremely authoritarian on social issues, extremely fiscally liberal, very pro war (republicans)

Both parties refuse to promote real methods to decrease oil use such as electric vehicles, mass transit, and high speed electric rail, and instead promote measures like ethanol from corn that won't make a dent in oil consumption. Both parties support a bloated defense budget where 25% of spending is completely unaccounted for as admitted by the DoD's own accountants, both parties support NAFTA/WTO, both parties support an unconstitutional Homeland Security Department, both parties support an unconstitutional war on drugs, both parties widely supported an unconstitutional war in Iraq, both parties support burying nuclear waste on public land, both parties support continuing the $200 billion in taxpayer dollars each year spent on corporate welfare. Both parties hold national bonds, and are profiting off of national debt interest and thus have an incentive to drive the debt up to increase their wealth.

When it comes to it, there really isn't any difference. We have a bloated windbag like Ted Kennedy and a dog like Hitlery Klinton from the Democrats who wish nothing more than to instill a nanny government, and fascists like Condoleeza Rice, John McCain, and Dick Cheney on the side of the Republicans.

If I had my way, Congress would have three or four major parties. Perhaps the greens and libertarians could replace the democrats and republicans respectively, and a few more parties could be formed and have major positions in government. But we don't live in an ideal world.

Quote:
I love America and wish to see it succeed for long years, and I think it's going to take what's happening to get people to wake up and take the power back away from the huge government and chop big parts off to minimize the government, then we can run the country as the people want it. It sickens me to see how many things big government has it's hands in where it doesn't belong (can you tell yet that I'm a huge proponent for pivatization? Sticking out tongue).
You know what's interesting about governemnt?

1) Defense spending; $450 billion a year, $110 billion goes completely unaccounted for, and a large portion of the rest soaked up as corporate profit and corporate welfare
2) War on Drugs; unconstitutional, $40 billion a year
3) Homeland Security Department; unconstitutional, $50 billion a year
4) National Debt Interest; $300 billion a year
5) Corporate welfare handouts; $200 billion a year(according to Public citizen)
6) War in Iraq; unconstitutional, $80 billion a year

We could GUT the hell out of the federal budget before we touched any major social spending. Many of the items above overlap, yes, but we're looking at a minimum of $400 billion of our federal discretionary budget that could be cut.

We need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. If I were a politician, my goal would be to pay off the national debt with any budget surplus gotten from the cuts while spending some on ramping up alternative energy, then afterwards giving a HUGE taxcut starting from the bottom up. It would go to the poor and middle class, not the rich.


My own personal politics are somewhere between a liberarian and a green, if you didn't notice by now. I'm a registered libertarian. I'm quite pleased with most of their platform, but disatissfied with their positions on the environment and unions. I'm disattisfied with the greens when it comes to spending and taxes, and especially dislike the positions many greens hold in regards to firearms(Dare I say it is unconstitutional to regulate this issue?), but also fasvorable of much of their platform.
__________________

The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.