Obama '08?

And you know what's really galling? With the auto makers already scrambling to produce fuel efficiency cars--it's going to become difficult to find any new vehicle that isn't--the nation will be buying less gasoline. And there goes some of the funding for roads, bridges etc. that are paid for via fuel taxes. So guess what will happen next? Higher fuel taxes.

0 Replies

Fuel prices are driving up prices of goods because of shipping costs, but I am not one to think that fuel prices are disastrous for private citizens yet. After all, you need to look at comparisons, and one only needs to look at the proliferation of fast food places and other eating establishments as one comparison. There is little doubt in my mind that most people waste more money on eating out than lots of things, and I happen to think there is alot of frivolous driving. Also, if you go on a trip, has anyone mentioned the high cost of lodging, or motels? In comparison, I still think fuel is not that bad. Also, stand around in a convenience store and watch how much junk people buy, and that includes me at times. I even buy bottled water sometimes, which is insanity in terms of wasting money. But instead of grilling the oil companies, why not outlaw the lotteries, that would save consumers untold billions that are spent on nothing of value. And cigarette prices are outlandish, why not outlaw that first?

People merely need to become more price conscious, and start managing their mode of living and budgets in a more efficient manner. The kinds of vehicles purchased is a biggee for sure, but there is no doubt that vehicle buying habits are changing right now in a very big way.

0 Replies

okie, I can agree with some of your opinions on the use of fuel vs lodging costs and other non-essential spending by consumers, but I think that only impacts a smaller percentage of Americans. I believe most middle class families and the poor are taking it in the chin; they're struggling to make ends meet from paycheck to paycheck, and consumer spending that made up to 75 percent of our economy will begin to show the signs of recession - if not already.

Millions of families are losing their homes and health insurance; it's no longer a matter of filling up the gas tank in their cars; it's a matter of financial survival.

With the cut in tax revenue for all governments, both federal and local, we're going to begin seeing huge layoffs from government jobs; they in turn will be amongst the uninsured - and possibly lose their homes.

The future for the next four to eight years do not look too promising for those looking for jobs - or keeping their jobs. When retail sales drop, there will be more people out of jobs.

It's an economic cycle that will impact many families in many negative ways.

Hang onto your hat; the winds blowing now is but a small storm compared to what's coming around the corner.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The future for the next four to eight years do not look too promising for those looking for jobs - or keeping their jobs. When retail sales drop, there will be more people out of jobs.

But I thought Obama was going to fix everything if he got elected!!
To hear some people, everything will be a paradise if he gets elected.
Are you saying those people are wrong?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

But I thought Obama was going to fix everything if he got elected!!
To hear some people, everything will be a paradise if he gets elected.
Are you saying those people are wrong?

You see, mm, that's the wrong hope: after having had a King as head of state, you don't get automatically God for the next terms.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.

That's funny, he's proposing that sort of thing through tax credits and raising of the fuel economy standards. Detroit screams bloody murder every time someone brings higher fuel efficiencies up, though...

Cycloptichorn

Who cares what Detriot has to say. Obamas plan is not strong enough as I believe the benchmark is 7 years? If you want to sell a car in the US, it must get 40MPG or it can not be sold.

Govt regulates everything except this.

woiyo, what has happened to your brain lately? I thought you were sensible?

What if I live 1 mile from work, and want to buy a truck or suv that gets 15 or 20 mpg because I have 5 kids to take to baseball games, or because I use my vehicle to haul lumber to a construction job, or because of a thousand reasons? I may not burn as much fuel than some joker that drives a roller skate 50 miles to work. What right does the government have to tell Detroit what they can sell me?

The point is that the free market is a much better arbitor of what is the most efficient. If gasoline stays at $4.00 per gallon or higher, you can bet that used car lots will stay full of gas guzzlers and the highways will become increasingly traveled by a more efficient fleet of vehicles, however, if you have government mandate every vehicle has to get 40 mpg, you will end up with one huge bureaucratic disaster. First of all, many people need vehicles to haul and tow cargo, and there is no current technology to build vehicles that can do some kinds of jobs and get 40 mpg, so you end up with a situation of exemptions or special cases, and then how do you administer that?

You need to rethink what you said. You should not mandate a minimum mpg that high any more than you should mandate how far people can live from work, or how many miles they can drive per year, or how big of a house people can live in, or how much food they should eat, or the list is endless.

Then build a "SUV" that get 40 MPG. How hard is it? We put a man on the moon with a ship that had the computing power of your wrist watch, and our engineers can not build an efficient vehicle??????

0 Replies

Typical Obama supporters are not very smart

When asked: Should Congress Continue To Fund National Public Radio ...

This guy said:

http://sayanythingblog.com/images/200806091407.jpg

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

But I thought Obama was going to fix everything if he got elected!!
To hear some people, everything will be a paradise if he gets elected.
Are you saying those people are wrong?

You see, mm, that's the wrong hope: after having had a King as head of state, you don't get automatically God for the next terms.

I dunno, on the night that Barack Obama clinched the Democrat nomination he was in St. Paul, Minnesota - there to deliver this absolute gem of a quote:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

0 Replies

So is that all you got McG? I admit the quote seems a bit overly grandiose but not much to get excited about one way or the other.

In the end this is all going to come down whether people want the country to keep running the way it is or try it another way. If the economy doesn't improve and the price of gas keeps getting higher (that and the Iraq war are major contributing factors of the economy imo); McCain will be in trouble no matter how Obama does from here on until the general election. I personally think he will surprise people like he did during the primaries on well he does in November.

McCain has openly admitted that he don't know economics as well as foreign and military issues, though now he claims those statements were taken out of context. At one time he was against the tax cuts but decided that now he is for them, I guess he thought they worked so well for economy that we got to keep it up. I think he needs to consult Greenspan's book a little more.

links for statements here

0 Replies

Obama need not surprise

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In my estimation; Obama's race is the only thing that will hold him back from winning in a Land Slide.

That's weak.

It's his hard core, left wing Liberal agenda that will hold him back from winning.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

okie wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.

That's funny, he's proposing that sort of thing through tax credits and raising of the fuel economy standards. Detroit screams bloody murder every time someone brings higher fuel efficiencies up, though...

Cycloptichorn

Who cares what Detriot has to say. Obamas plan is not strong enough as I believe the benchmark is 7 years? If you want to sell a car in the US, it must get 40MPG or it can not be sold.

Govt regulates everything except this.

woiyo, what has happened to your brain lately? I thought you were sensible?

What if I live 1 mile from work, and want to buy a truck or suv that gets 15 or 20 mpg because I have 5 kids to take to baseball games, or because I use my vehicle to haul lumber to a construction job, or because of a thousand reasons? I may not burn as much fuel than some joker that drives a roller skate 50 miles to work. What right does the government have to tell Detroit what they can sell me?

The point is that the free market is a much better arbitor of what is the most efficient. If gasoline stays at $4.00 per gallon or higher, you can bet that used car lots will stay full of gas guzzlers and the highways will become increasingly traveled by a more efficient fleet of vehicles, however, if you have government mandate every vehicle has to get 40 mpg, you will end up with one huge bureaucratic disaster. First of all, many people need vehicles to haul and tow cargo, and there is no current technology to build vehicles that can do some kinds of jobs and get 40 mpg, so you end up with a situation of exemptions or special cases, and then how do you administer that?

You need to rethink what you said. You should not mandate a minimum mpg that high any more than you should mandate how far people can live from work, or how many miles they can drive per year, or how big of a house people can live in, or how much food they should eat, or the list is endless.

Then build a "SUV" that get 40 MPG. How hard is it? We put a man on the moon with a ship that had the computing power of your wrist watch, and our engineers can not build an efficient vehicle??????

We drive a SUV that gets 35 mpg if we drive defensively and it isn't a hybrid. The "smart car" (50 mpg) is looking really good especially for city driving these days, but there is a 18-month waiting list to get one.

But Okie's point is also well taken. The guy who drives his Hummer one mile to work is more 'green' and 'fuel efficient' than the guy who commutes 30-60 miles one way in his Prius. And if you need the extra cargo space for a soccer team or extra power and weight to pull your boat or camper or whatever, it will devastate whole industries to make it impossible for manufacturers to provide that.

Freedom of choice has always served us well. If consumers go for the high fuel efficiency vehicles (and they are), the manufacturers will provide them (and they are). Let free trade and the time proved system of supply and demand handle the problem and keep government out of it as much as possible as nothing good is likely to come from excessive government regulation of free enterprise.

Neither Obama nor McCain give me a whole of hope that they understand that and won't try to meddle.

0 Replies

I have a sneaking suspicion that 90+% of people drive more then a mile to work. And that their SUV/truck usage makes them less efficient then those who have more efficient vehicles.

Just b/c you can envision a scenario, doesn't make it at all likely...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

No one understands the economy, especially economists. Greenspan was a screw up himself. Whats that old saying about those who don't understand teach.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

So is that all you got McG? I admit the quote seems a bit overly grandiose but not much to get excited about one way or the other.

In the end this is all going to come down whether people want the country to keep running the way it is or try it another way. If the economy doesn't improve and the price of gas keeps getting higher (that and the Iraq war are major contributing factors of the economy imo); McCain will be in trouble no matter how Obama does from here on until the general election. I personally think he will surprise people like he did during the primaries on well he does in November.

McCain has openly admitted that he don't know economics as well as foreign and military issues, though now he claims those statements were taken out of context. At one time he was against the tax cuts but decided that now he is for them, I guess he thought they worked so well for economy that we got to keep it up. I think he needs to consult Greenspan's book a little more.

links for statements here

That's the reason McCain keeps pushing the idea that he has "more experience" than Obama, and hope people don't notice the many shortfalls he brings to the campaign. I remember one of his first visits to Baghdad where he came back and said "it was safe," while he was surrounded by soldiers to protect him. His perspective is way off the mark, because he couldn't even remember who our enemy was when he returned from Iraq on his last trip.

He's senile - with experience.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the reason McCain keeps pushing the idea that he has "more experience" than Obama...

The reason: because he really does have more experience than Obama.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the reason McCain keeps pushing the idea that he has "more experience" than Obama...

The reason: because he really does have more experience than Obama.

So what? Rumsfeld and Cheney had more experience in government then anyone alive, and look at the dog's dinner they made of things.

Folks don't really vote on experience all that often.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The difference in experience for Obama can be augmented with the right advisers. What does it take to augment McCain's perceived problems?

McCain isn't going to be able to sell a vision for the US that people want. The best he will be able to do is convince some that they can't have what they want or that they can't have it now.

For the Republican base, McCain is going to just be a check list.

-abortion
-iraq
-taxes
-etc

Scoring a C will pass him.

Obama is campaigning to the south and to the evangelical. In the end this may be a totally futile effort, but to me it says that he's ready to be the president for all the citizens, not just those who agree with him. I think that campaigning in the red states has a profound effect in purple states like Missouri.

I'd like to remind people of the Indiana primary. Many of us remember staying up late watching the comical coverage on CNN (or any other channel). When the votes finally came in from Gary, Barrack almost closed the gap. What needs to be remembered from that night is that a district that normally has some 23% attendance had an astronomical jump in attendance to (if I remember correctly) 83%. Of that, it was almost entirely for Obama. I think in the general election, we will see that people will come out to vote for Obama.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion that 90+% of people drive more then a mile to work. And that their SUV/truck usage makes them less efficient then those who have more efficient vehicles.

Just b/c you can envision a scenario, doesn't make it at all likely...

Cycloptichorn

Do you realize what is being debated here? If you mandate auto manufacturers to build only vehicles that get 40 mpg as woiyo does so casually, then why not mandate size of homes, and mandate distance from work, and mandate what the thermostat can be set at at home (welcome thermostat police), and what about outlawing any wasteful appliance or vehicle, how about boats over a certain size, lawn mowers, size of yards to mow, size of gardens, rototillers, ATVs (how about farmers and ranchers using for business vs recreational use?).?

Why stop at energy? Why not limit food and what type of food to eat, after all medical costs are spiraling out of control. Food bureaucrats would need to approve your weekly purchases and menus.

The possibilities are endless in terms of mandates. I favor stopping the insanity before it starts in earnest.

In regard to distance from work, I have always chosen to live within about 15 minutes from work, and right now it is about 9 minutes. I don't drive a Prius, but I would challenge most Prius owners to show they burn less fuel going to work than I do.

For the people that advocate vehicle police, next it will be the thought police. Which we already have in regard to hate crimes. Its worse to kill somebody if you hate them, than if you just kill them for another reason.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Then build a "SUV" that get 40 MPG. How hard is it? We put a man on the moon with a ship that had the computing power of your wrist watch, and our engineers can not build an efficient vehicle??????

Why don't you just make it a 100 mpg, woiyo, or why not 200 mpg? After all, we sent a man to the moon?

Laughing

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know