Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters. Talk about targeted Political Extremes !
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Talk about targeted Political Extremes !


  2. #2
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Those folks are more than a little extreme....though I sense more than a little bias in the writer's tone (against environmental causes).

    Question to pose: what is NASCAR doing to find a lead alternative, make more efficient vehicles, or progress to a more sustainable/eco-friendly program? Maybe if they publciized their research efforts it would be better.

    Personally, I'd rather work with NASCAR on getting recycling programs at all races, using compostable packaging for their food products (rather than plastic or wax paper, there's a corn - based wax paper type material) and real-world, effective and sponsorable changes.

  3. #3
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Question to pose: what is NASCAR doing to find a lead alternative, make more efficient vehicles, or progress to a more sustainable/eco-friendly program? Maybe if they publciized their research efforts it would be better.
    I think we are decades away from Nascar using hydro electric or alt source fuel cars,If ever.
    Its already been proven the cars go faster and are safer for the drivers with leaded gas.
    I have a hard time beliving if a pregnant woman goes to see a race,she is going to somehow hurt her unborn baby or cause lifelong problems.


    Personally, I'd rather work with NASCAR on getting recycling programs at all races, using compostable packaging for their food products (rather than plastic or wax paper, there's a corn - based wax paper type material) and real-world, effective and sponsorable changes.
    Right now a to go carton runs a vendor around 7-15 cents per.The corn based product is 3-4 times more expensive and will be passed on to the customer who is already paying silly amounts for "ball park"food and drinks.

    As the stock car racing season has just kicked off, I'm sure NASCAR won't be too happy if eco-activist protesters start showing up at races wearing gas masks and chanting "Get the lead out!" and "NASCAR pollution lowers kids' IQs!"
    This is the really funny part of the story IMO.
    If someone really wants to start a riot,go to a nascar race and protest against Nascar,the war,the confederate flag,equal rights for gays,etc.

    It would have the same results as if the KKK did a march down the center street of Harlem.Its not gonna be pretty.

  4. #4
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Quote Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
    I think we are decades away from Nascar using hydro electric or alt source fuel cars,If ever.
    I didn't even mention alternative fuels or when it would happen...but if NASCAR were making efforts, sponsoring research (not like there's no money to be had there) or something it would lead to a solution and also be great PR




    Right now a to go carton runs a vendor around 7-15 cents per.The corn based product is 3-4 times more expensive and will be passed on to the customer who is already paying silly amounts for "ball park"food and drinks.
    1. not sure i agree with your numbers, the limited research I've done shows more 20% to twice as much (in reasonable quantities) for the alternative packaging...in NASCAR volume (and with the associated PR for the product line) I could probably nearly match existing prices.

    2. Again, if NASCAR were sponsoring research, studying the problem or demonstrably moving in the direction....it would go a long way.

    3. the cost of sponsoring recycling programs would be minimal, and would provide NASCAR another thing to sell a sponsorship on (Waste Management Recycling sponsored by FORD - with WM and Ford sharing the cost)

    4. the extra packaging cost could be underwritten by a sponsor, paid for by NASCAR as a PR effort, or simply eaten by the vendor as part of doing business - along with great free PR.

    Keep in mind, we're starting work on a concert series in the Great Lakes that will include this, as well as bringing these concepts to our local venues

  5. #5
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    This is so funny to me for many reasons.

    Im NOT a Nascar fan,I think its a non sport.Anything a 16 year old kid can do on the streets of germany or a cab driver in new york city can do,and do everyday somewhat well,isnt a sport.
    Im more impressed with secretaries on the highways in the "late for work"hour then with guys who only turn left.
    That being said,i have worked in many different regions where Nascar is huge as a dj(we have a track here in Richmond Va).Its not possible to work in big clubs in those areas and not meet alot of the drivers and thier crews.
    Its not possible to work in those areas and not see how its a family event where kids can come and for the most part,enjoy a wholesome day.Its very family oriented now.(a far cry from thier moonshine running days)
    Most of the people i have ever met that were mechanics,were nascar fans.
    Most car fans i have met,are nascar fans.

    I see what happens for everyone in this town during nascar weekend where 300,000 people flood into town for the week.Everyone is making good money off the fans.Its like bike week/MTV spring break etc,two times a year here.

    Only no riots from the fans.Whens the last time you have seen a riot at a nascar race??
    Or a "arena"town turned upside down because a certain driver didnt win??

    What your saying is correct and if its the same price in the end,I think everyone should be doing it.Not just the food vendors at ball parks or race tracks,but also fast food vendors and private restaurants.

    Most of this can be done by protesting the food distributers themselves like U.S.Foods and Cysco etc,your club uses someone as well.There are actually only a handfull of really "big guys"that are the main arteries of the food chain to food vendors.

    I just think protesting them to only sell one standard of packaging will eliminate all the problem instantly.
    It wont be as much TV time for the protesters,or line space for the writers as a Nascar race would be,and it will probably be alot of court time,and high paid corporate lawyers,but in the end,the problem will be solved.
    Im with ya on the problem,im just hazy on where people have chosen to start the battle.

    Protestors really screw up a family day and im sure if you ask every parent who will be there at the races with thier kids if they agree with you,they would say yes.Your preaching to the working class of america.

    I say civilians are being targeted and the smart bombs should be pointed at a different target.
    The worlds food chain reads like a road map,it is very easy for someone to strike where needed to complete a mission,unless of course,they had other motives.

    I just see alot of publicity hounds not really caring about the actual solution and only the publicity in this story and protesting movement.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    I just see alot of publicity hounds not really caring about the actual solution and only the publicity in this story and protesting movement
    There you go! I suspect that a significant portion of 'kook' protesters are actually more concerned with the media coverage (or the contributions that media coverage will bring) than in actually succeeding in their protest.

    I actually found the following excerpt the most entertaining and unfortunately ironic.

    "As the stock car racing season has just kicked off, I'm sure NASCAR won't be too happy if eco-activist protesters start showing up at races wearing gas masks and chanting "Get the lead out!" and "NASCAR pollution lowers kids' IQs!"

    Assuming the protesters survive amid the loyal stock car racing fans who are unlikely to appreciate their disruption, let's hope NASCAR isn't the next brand-sensitive business to surrender to junk science-fueled eco-activist harassment and extortion."

  7. #7
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    I'm certainly no scientist. However, I'd be willing to bet that there are far more harmful emissions generated by the thousands of cars going to and from a NASCAR event (and idling in long lines to get out of the parking lot) than by the 30 or so race cars burning leaded fuel.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #8
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Destiny - that's probably true, and both sides of the track wall should be striving for better, more fuel and pollution efficient vehicles. Trouble is, I'll bet 70% of the cars in NASCAR parking lots are larger than currently regulated under CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards. Most SUVs and Trucks and Minivans are at least less regulated or maybe not at all.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    I'll bet 70% of the cars in NASCAR parking lots are larger than currently regulated under CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards. Most SUVs and Trucks and Minivans are at least less regulated or maybe not at all.
    Yet another example of the law of unintended consequences regarding extremely tight environmental regulations ? IMHO the same arguments would apply - that if emission standards for cars had been more reasonable and affordable in the first place, that today there would be fewer SUV's and trucks being used as substitutes for 'family cars' and much less total vehicle exhaust pollution would have been generated as a result. However, with the pricing of cars increasing (partly to cover the extra emission control hardware) and with the performance of cars decreasing (partly as a result of the extra emission control hardware), many consumers found that buying an SUV instead of a last decimal point pollution abated car amounted to a much better deal.

    This point also has an important corrolary. As the price of last decimal point pollution abated new cars has continued to rise, many people of limited financial means decided to simply keep driving their old car longer ... cars which already generated much more exhaust emissions when it was new due to the more reasonable emissions requirements in force when it was manufactured, and cars which generate more and more exhaust emissions with every extra 10,000 miles driven. This problem is now starting to draw official attention which in many states has resulted in exhaust gas emissions testing as part of the annual vehicle inspection. It remains to be seen whether or not the environmental lobby will be strong enough to force the owners of cars which can no longer pass the exhaust gas emissions test to take them off the road !
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-05-2005 at 07:56 AM.

  10. #10
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Mel, though the larger vehicles may never meet the same CAFE standards as their smaller brethren, they still should have SOME motivation to become efficient. Instead, the law allowed companies to design what would be passenger cars (Subaru has several like this) a little differently so the CAFE standards didn't apply. More than the law of unintended consequences, it's the law of politicians creating loopholes for their friends.

    As for people of more limited means driving old cars longer because of emissions standars...that's simply bull. Today, you're hard pressed to find a car (besides a classic) that was built before the CAFE standards hit their max in 1985 (yep, folks...we've made NO progress in 20 years!) If you do buy such a car, your repair bills will probably far exceed the additional payments on a newer vehicle...trust me, most of my cars have been old clunkers

    Interestng fact I learned yesterday:
    Since 1985 the improvements in CAFE standards have basically flattened out,...companies didn't need to improve so they didn't

    The number of vehicles built to be exempt from the law (the quantity of models) has about doubled, and the amount spent to advertise these vehicles (first minivans then SUVs) has gone up tremendously...resulting in the increased popularity

    Result? Our national fuel economy has gone DOWN in the last 20 years....the % of oil we use has increased about 40%, and our oil imports have gone up about the same amount. Oil companies know our untappe US reserves (even the arctic refuge, which would be a travesty to touch) would provide LESS THAN A YEAR (more like 4 months) of oil.

    Meaning? We're using more oil, less efficiently than we have in 20 years. What other industry has gotten WORSE in 20 years - or even stayed the same? Do you still use a computer from 1985 (the year Bill Gates sayd 640K of ram would be enough for anyone forever)? Are computers the same speed they were even 2 years ago? Is your TV the same technology you had in 1985 (look on the back -0 no screw terminal antenna port)?

    Why do we want progress in every area of life, but not when it impacts our use of resources or the pollution we allow? How about the national security issue of a country who imports nearly 50% of its energy from unstable, unfriendly parts of the world....when technology, money and brainpower exist in this country to at least begin to replace 200-year-old sources?

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Instead, the law allowed companies to design what would be passenger cars (Subaru has several like this) a little differently so the CAFE standards didn't apply. More than the law of unintended consequences, it's the law of politicians creating loopholes for their friends.
    Is that a reference to Bill Clinton receiving political contributions from Asians ?

    Actually, I would say that it's a result of unintentional loopholes being left behind by well intentioned but misguided drafters of the environmental laws.

    Today, you're hard pressed to find a car (besides a classic) that was built before the CAFE standards hit their max in 1985 (yep, folks...we've made NO progress in 20 years!) If you do buy such a car, your repair bills will probably far exceed the additional payments on a newer vehicle...trust me, most of my cars have been old clunkers
    I wasn't specifically referring to the very beginning of CAFE standards, but the ratcheting up of tighter standards in subseqent years. For example, while both built under CAFE standards, a 2005 car of a particular make and model must be built to meet tighter emission standards than a 1995 car of the same make and model. There are still a ton of 1995 cars on the road, and NONE of them still meet their original 1995 emissions limits let alone meeting the 2005 limit ! Thus if for the sake of discussion the 2005 limits are twice as strict as the 1995 limits were, and if a 10 year old car with 100,000 miles on it emits twice as much exhaust pollution as when it was new, then every 1995 car still being driven is emitting 4 times as much exhaust pollution per mile as if that person had traded in the 1995 model towards a new 2005 car. This is probably even worse than the emissions from a 2005 SUV or truck.

    Are computers the same speed they were even 2 years ago? Is your TV the same technology you had in 1985 (look on the back -0 no screw terminal antenna port)?

    Why do we want progress in every area of life, but not when it impacts our use of resources or the pollution we allow?
    Well, if the price of 2005 cars was say one third the price of a 1995 car, as the price of a 2005 computer is now one third the price of a 1995 computer, or as the price of a 2005 42" screen TV is one third the price of a 1995 42" screen TV, then I'm sure that you would agree that lots of people would choose to buy new cars too !!!!!!

    Obviously this is not the case. The price of cars has continued to increase, with strict environmental regulation compliance being a significant contributor to the higher prices. Your point about 'progress' in regard to cars only comes at a significant additional cost to the consumer/taxpayer in one form or another, which is not the case with computers or large screen TV's.

    However, I'm sure that if the US auto industry made the same sort of changes as the computer or large screen TV industry ... i.e. replacing highly paid union jobs in tightly regulated auto plants with the importation of low cost vehicles from low labor cost countries with lightly regulated manufacturing, that costs would go down as well. Certainly Kia and Hyundai are steps in that direction.

    An 'easy' solution also exists as well in regard to 'MicroCars', which are very popular in Europe and Asia but which the US refuses to legalize. It's difficult to find much info on these MicroCars in english, but here's a starting point.



    and even better

    Now why do you suppose that the US has so far refused to legalize this class of cars even though they have a very successful history elsewhere in the world ?
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-05-2005 at 09:56 AM.

  12. #12
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Personally, I think this is what happens when politicans attempt to overregulate markets. The Soviet Union tried central planning of their economy and look where that got them.

    As far as pollution controls, If we as a society decide that we want to encourage efficient, clean, cars, I think a far better way to handle it would be through a tax system. Every vehicle gets put through the same test every year. SUV, mini-van, car, they all get tested. The test results determine the amount of tax collected. So if you drive one of those new hybrid cars you would probably pay no tax. You drive a Ford Expedition, you pay $5,000 a year. However, you test all the cars, even the old ones. The old cars are polluting the air too, so they have to pay.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  13. #13
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Actually, I would say that it's a result of unintentional loopholes being left behind by well intentioned but misguided drafters of the environmental laws.
    Either way, the loophole is known, exists and needs to be closed. Look how much regulation and corporate effort has gone in the last 20 years to car safety (seatbelts, then airbags, etc) - We simply should expect as much progress in efficiency and environmental/health areas as in safety. Breathing polluted air, drinking polluted water is unsafe too.

    I wasn't specifically referring to the very beginning of CAFE standards, but the ratcheting up of tighter standards in subseqent years.
    Which has been rather limited...from my research.

    For example, while both built under CAFE standards, a 2005 car of a particular make and model must be built to meet tighter emission standards than a 1995 car of the same make and model. There are still a ton of 1995 cars on the road, and NONE of them still meet their original 1995 emissions limits let alone meeting the 2005 limit !
    Same thing could be said for safety issues. Do we repeal those advances so that newer cars become cheaper but more affordable, damn the death/injury rate!

    Thus if for the sake of discussion the 2005 limits are twice as strict as the 1995 limits were, and if a 10 year old car with 100,000 miles on it emits twice as much exhaust pollution as when it was new, then every 1995 car still being driven is emitting 4 times as much exhaust pollution per mile as if that person had traded in the 1995 model towards a new 2005 car.
    Well, I'd have to see the statistics (have you got any?) but since the average fuel economy has gone down in the last 20 years, the CAFE standard hasn't changed in 20, and there is not alot of difference in the emissions control system (catalytic, etc) I don't think we're talking a 2:1 ratio

    Especially since SUVs have very low standards, and more vehicles in that class are being built.

    Well, if the price of 2005 cars was say one third the price of a 1995 car, as the price of a 2005 computer is now one third the price of a 1995 computer, or as the price of a 2005 42" screen TV is one third the price of a 1995 42" screen TV, then I'm sure that you would agree that lots of people would choose to buy new cars too !!!!!!
    I paid $2,000 for my first computer in 1986, $2,000 for another one (I'm a mac user - they last longer) in 1995, and $2,000 for my new ones (one mac and one PC) last year, I don't see the price has gone down 3 times.

    However, whether the price has gone down or not we expect BETTER AND MORE from our new computers than we did our old. Including efficient use of energy. Why is the same not true for cars?


    The price of cars has continued to increase, with strict environmental regulation compliance being a significant contributor to the higher prices. Your point about 'progress' in regard to cars only comes at a significant additional cost to the consumer/taxpayer in one form or another, which is not the case with computers or large screen TV's.
    No doubt emissions controls cost money, but the COULD ALSO LOWER THE TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST OF CARS. '

    Also, the biggest increase in car cost is not the emissions controls (as I said, virtually unchanged in years or decades) but the computers, DVD systems, air conditioning and other technology - this right out of an auto industry report I saw last month. Mostly, the auto industry cites the consumers' desire for gadgets as a huge impact on price of cars.

    However, I'm sure that if the US auto industry made the same sort of changes as the computer or large screen TV industry ... i.e. replacing highly paid union jobs in tightly regulated auto plants with the importation of low cost vehicles from low labor cost countries with lightly regulated manufacturing, that costs would go down as well. Certainly Kia and Hyundai are steps in that direction.
    Agreed, but name one automaker that still makes its cars and 100% of its components in the US? Jeep claimed to, except their plant was in Canada...not a state last time I checked.

    Now why do you suppose that the US has so far refused to legalize this class of cars even though they have a very successful history elsewhere in the world ?
    1. cost of retooling
    2. less oil used, less motivation
    3. SUVs would crush them


    A different question comes to mind, since a car with lower fuel needs is cheaper to run in the long term. One that works better is cheaper to maintain, and needs replacing less. Neither of these are motivators for the car industryu because they may cause higher up front costs and (especially in case of the latter) reduce the numbers of new vehicles bought. Since both are good for us as consumers, why don't we make more requests/pressure of the industry and say that's what matters to us? Why do people defend the auto industry's lack of progress in these areas instead of standing up and demanding better results? It doesn't hurt them if we buy more gas - the more we do that the more oil stock goes up (and you bet alot of the corporate folks are cross-invested).

    Are we that willing to blindly follow, being distracted by new shapes of grilles (when the rest of the car is the same, the grill makes its "new for 2006!) and DVD players? People demand more progress from their TV manufacturers than from their car manufacturers. Why?

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    I think a far better way to handle it would be through a tax system. Every vehicle gets put through the same test every year. SUV, mini-van, car, they all get tested. The test results determine the amount of tax collected. So if you drive one of those new hybrid cars you would probably pay no tax. You drive a Ford Expedition, you pay $5,000 a year. However, you test all the cars, even the old ones. The old cars are polluting the air too, so they have to pay.
    Ah yes, but then the real 'evil' escapes from Pandora's box ... i.e. charging applicable taxes based on actual fair share of costs rather than by social engineering ! Thus while the hybrid vehicles would pay a low 'emissions tax' they would pay the same high 'road maintenance tax' - thus removing much of the financial incentive which promotes customers to buy them currently (along with the direct income tax credit for hybrid vehicles of course - blatant social engineering at the expense of other taxpayers).

    Also, don't forget that your tax plan if fairly applied will wind up billing 'poor' drivers of older cars the same $5,000 a year in 'emissions tax' as a new Ford Expedition, since their old cars are emitting just as much pollution from the tailpipe (if not more). What sort of additional social engineering will be necessary to deal with that unintended consequence ? Increase welfare benefit payments by $5,000 a year ?

    Some sources are saying that these diametrically opposed 'special interests' are gradually leading to the unravelling of the democratic party .... i.e. it's impossible for the democrats to continue to champion expensive environmentalist causes and at the same time avoid taking heat from activists for 'the poor' when they must eventually pay some of the newly created costs. However, if the 'poor' are exempted from complying with environmental regulations, then a vast collection of US businesses who have been virtually bankrupted by environmental regulations are going to be very busy in court. Of course this would benefit another important democratic 'special interest' costituency ... trial lawyers !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-05-2005 at 10:24 AM.

  15. #15
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Ah yes, but then the real 'evil' escapes from Pandora's box ... i.e. charging applicable taxes based on actual fair share of costs rather than by social engineering ! Thus while the hybrid vehicles would pay a low 'emissions tax' they would pay the same high 'road maintenance tax' - thus removing much of the financial incentive which promotes customers to buy them currently (along with the direct income tax credit for hybrid vehicles of course - blatant social engineering at the expense of other taxpayers).

    Also, don't forget that your tax plan if fairly applied will wind up billing 'poor' drivers of older cars the same $5,000 a year in 'emissions tax' as a new Ford Expedition, since their old cars are emitting just as much pollution from the tailpipe (if not more). What sort of additional social engineering will be necessary to deal with that unintended consequence ? Increase welfare benefit payments by $5,000 a year ?
    Yes, and I'm sure that the congressmen from the farm states would vote to exempt farm vehicles from the tax because such a tax would be too great a burden on the "family farmer". So before long there would be thousands of "farm vehicles" on the streets of Manhattan!

    As far as the poor people that are driving the old dirty cars. Well obviously we would need a new federal agency, the Office Of Evironmental Equality to pass out government checks so the poor people could pay their environmental tax. Hey, since it was my idea, maybe Bush would appoint me Secretary of OOEE?

    While I think my idea makes more sense that current system, I have no dellusions that such a system would ever be enacted. Like you said, most politicians (on both sides) cannot resist the urge to engage in a little social engineering.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    As far as the poor people that are driving the old dirty cars. Well obviously we would need a new federal agency, the Office Evinronment Equality to pass out government checks so the poor people could pay their environmental tax. Hey, since it was my idea, maybe Bush would appoint me Secretary of OFF?
    It would probably be cheaper, politically more palatable, and more acceptable to the environmentalists and auto unions to simply add eligibility for a discounted/subsidized new vehicle to existing eligibility for free/subsidized food, discounted/subsidized utilities, discounted/subsidized rent etc. within the existing welfare system (I'd say LOL but it's really no joke). The Social Equality crowd would love this too ! Of course, taxpaying workers probably won't take it well, but since when did the tax consequences of such programs matter for anything ? So what if a 'poor' person gets a new car but a working taxpayer can't ? The exact same situation exists today with health insurance !

  17. #17
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    It would probably be cheaper, politically more palatable, and more acceptable to the environmentalists and auto unions to simply add eligibility for a discounted/subsidized new vehicle to existing eligibility for free/subsidized food, discounted/subsidized utilities, discounted/subsidized rent etc. within the existing welfare system (I'd say LOL but it's really no joke). The Social Equality crowd would love this too ! Of course, taxpaying workers probably won't take it well, but since when did the tax consequences of such programs matter for anything ?
    You missed your calling in life Melonie. You should have a been a Spin Doctor for politicians. Promise me right now that you will only use your gift for good and not evil.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Promise me right now that you will only use your gift for good and not evil.
    In an objective sense, I promise ! However, in a political sense, one person's 'saintly act' is another person's 'evil agenda' !

  19. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    I go to the drag races to watch alcohol funny cars and top fuel brackets I am doing my part they burn much cleaner . I plan to one day buy an alternative fuel or hybrid car but not for a while yet they are not proven enough for me and the repair bills can really be up there .

  20. #20
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Talk about targeted Political Extremes !

    Curious..."Alternative Fuel" cars have been in use for decades in Europe - Biodiesel (made from used veggie oil at restaurants), Ethanol (contrary to the American theory, it does work), etc - even hybrids and electric cars are used overseas.

    So...don't let the "unproven" concept scare you.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 09:58 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 02:22 PM
  3. To talk or not to talk is the question???
    By **Sincerely** in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 09:05 AM
  4. Ordinary small talk or naughty talk
    By Kira320 in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 01:43 PM
  5. Ohio Anti-Adult Bill Goes to Extremes
    By Head Boy in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2005, 12:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •