Not The Dealers Fault. . .
. . .but one can't seem to convince GM and Chrysler (or perhaps the Oblahma administration) as they close nearly two thousand in the first round. This George Spaulding piece addresses the issue quite nicely.
Another thought. I have been lead to believe stimulus packages involve “jobs.”
Chrysler will be axing 40,000 jobs; GM, 63,000 jobs. All of a sudden, “jobs” are
unimportant.
All of the sudden? Has Spaulding been paying attention to the moves this administration has made to date? It's going to get worse kids. It's going to get worse.
Several years ago Ford and GM tried to buy out and run auto dealerships, with
disastrous results. My fear now is a similar government type of intervention in
the auto industry …
This is the same government that is forcing automakers
to make (green) cars nobody wants. If the government REALLY WANTS to help the
auto industry, remove the 35 mpg average that is mandated for 2015 and allow the
manufacturers to build cars and trucks that will sell, without rebates and tax
credits.
Under this administration we'll not be seeing government meddling in the private sector reduced. This is the Bush administration kicked up notches unknown. Hang on if you can.
Just an observation.
posted by Ol' BC @ 2:43 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:
There are two reasons why I've decided not to buy a new car in the foreseeable future. The minor reason is to protest Guber Schwarzengroper's increase of registration and tax fees for plates. After campaigning against Guber Davis the Grey, in part on the basis of high plate fees, and lowering them (not enough) after his election, he has now increased the fees to Davis levels.
The other reason is that I refuse to buy one of these aluminum-foil-and-plastic genericars being sold now.
I was thinking of buying a Dodge Magnum, but Mopar, no doubt because of average gas mileage requirements, has stopped production.
Going for high gas mileage at the expense of safety just isn't a good tradeoff, to me.
Government has no role here. B Hussein has committed crimes against his Oath of Office (as have his predecessors) by usurping private property rights. The car companies should go into bankruptcy, get reorganized, then be left alone and let the car buyer be the judge.
Frankly, the government is playing just the role it should be playing. We cannot leave the protection of our environment up to the free market. The free market is much to blame for the raping and polluting that goes on today.
Now, if you are one of the folks who believes that the environment is just hunky-dory, then there is no use in arguing with you. However, the majority of people in this country do in fact want someone in charge of making sure their air, water, and soil is clean. Mandating cleaner cars is simply a step in this direction, and it must be done by the government.
Environmental changes need to be addressed in Asia and Europe before getting too wound up in the U.S. I can't believe the algore hasn't already been over there. Amazing how the plant life flourishes when carbon dioxide levels increase. Any changes made by man in the U.S. will be like the old woman pissing in the ocean as far as the total environment is concerned. The costs will far outweigh any benefit. As far as the government running anything - it is zero for ever. These programs that the left profess are for one reason. They want to keep the poor in their place. Give them a little handout and take their votes. Don't offer any opportunity to improve or amass personal wealth. It's been that way since the communists in the forties, fifties and sixties. They just about have enough on the handout rolls now the be assured of keeping us poor. (I'm not saying everyone who supports these programs recognizes the end result.)
BC,
Well said! You have it in a nutshell.
Mark, ask if all the cash handed out to those who just don't feel like working, how many of them have been moved into the mainstream by those handouts.
If pollution were really a problem, then why aren't European and American harbors--not to mention Hawaii's Pearl harbor, awash in the oil and fuel of sunken ships and crashed planes? According to the wizdumb of you algorians, those harbors and shores should be thickly coated in sludge to this day.
And why are they not?
Because our planet heals itself. There are countless species that eat that stuff, and most of the other things algorians call "pollutants." One critter's waste material is another's gourmet dinner.
Additionally, who is the greatest polluter on the planet? Government. Recently, the government decommissioned two large Marine bases in Southern California. They're planning to turn the land over to civilian use, but there's been a big delay because of the decades of pollution on the ground. At the Tustin base, there's a creek that's normally dry. It runs only for a short time after rain storms. It has oil pollution that goes many feet deep and follows the creek for miles, because the Marine mechanics used to just dump used motor oil into the creek. Then it rains and carries the stuff along the creek bed for miles.
Stuff government does makes industry look squeaky clean by comparison.
And you want to trust them. How utterly naive!
As I said earlier, it is quite pointless to argue this with you. You see what you want to see, read what you want to read, because your mind is made up before you ever "research" the topic.
However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that human beings are doing vast amounts of damage to the planet. The idea that CO2 is good for plants is one of the weakest, short sighted arguments the right has to offer.
Yes, Co2 is good for plants. However, if the world continues to heat, plants will shrivel up and die due to drought.
Anyway, I can see that this will go nowhere. I might as well be talking to Holocaust deniers! Never underestimate the power of denial, I guess.
Hogan, you basically contradict yourself. You ask where is all the pollution, then you go on to tell us. Government is not the only polluter. It boggles my mind that you see the world so black and white as to say: Government is always evil and the private sector is always good.
This is simply not the case. Things we do on a daily basis affect our environment, and whether it is the government or the private sector makes no difference to me. We need to clean up HUMANITY'S act and minimize our impact on the world.
It is foolish not to at least think about it. We don't let our houses fill up with garbage. We don't shit on our floors. We don't do these things because it is unhealthy to live in such an environment. There is nothing to say we can't do this in the broader environment too. It is only common sense, really. Healthy planet, healthy people.
Here's a little tidbit for you. This is a swirling vortex of trash the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean. And this is just from careless debris strewn into rivers and ocean shores.
There's plenty more where that came from. It's not evidence of climate change, but you were wondering where the pollution goes. Here's a portion of it!
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans/ocean_pollution_animation
As for things eating the pollution, here is the downside of that:
From the Forest Preserve of Cook County Illinois:
"The most common and offensive effects of pollution arise from
household sewage and wastes from the processing of foods: packing
plants, canneries, distilleries and the like. This decaying organic matter,
as it becomes putrid, stimulates an enormous multiplication of water
bacteria and a host of other small plant and animal life which use it as
food. Like other living things, most of these "breathe" and use up the
oxygen dissolved in the water -- faster in warm weather, slower in
winter -- often reducing it to the point where fish, for example, must
retreat into cleaner water or suffocate."
Mark. The notion that carbon is a pollutant is ludicrous (not the rapper!). We're made of carbon--and for those of you that think humans are, by definition, pollution, let me remind you that all other life on the planet is made of carbon, too. Carbon and water. Very little else.
Shall we simply wipe out all life on the planet to end pollution? No. The carbon will still be here.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. At its extreme, CO2 is a teeny part of the atmosphere. It's colorless and odorless. It's good for keeping steaks frozen during shipment from the Chicago Steak Company.
The sun, on the other hand, is momentarily without spots. All that Clearasil that's evaporated into the atmosphere has cleared up the skin of the sun. That has made it a mite warmer. Shall we ban Clearasil?
Your teenage kids will kill you.
Lastly, just about every animal agrees--except for the Ice Road Truckers--that a few degrees warmer is a good thing. Look up the photos of the caribou huddling up to the Alaska pipeline.
Warm is good!
As for the contradiction, I was merely trying to show you that I can look at both sides of the discussion. Fair and balanced.....
You're as fair and balanced as Fox News. If your only argument is that CO2 is not a pollutant because we are made of carbon, then you really only show your completel lack of understanding on this issue.
If you don't want to call it a pollutant, that is fine. Call it a change in the atmosphere. The atmosphere of earth is exceedingly thin compared to the actual mass and size of the earth. Comparatively, it is about as thick as a coat of paint on a globe of the earth.
Co2 has and will continue to trap heat. This will have long lasting effects. Ice will melt, weather patterns will change. We have already seen vast evidences of this. Floods in the Midwest, hurricanes, and drought. And this is just the beginning. Eventually, the disruption of the streams of air due to ocean changes will ironically bring about the next Ice Age a bit sooner than was expected! So, get your igloo ready.
Anyway, it is pointless to debate this with a guy whose only argument is that animals are carbon; therefore carbon is not a pollutant. This is questionable reasoning at best.
Ol' BC said, "As far as the government running anything - it is zero for ever."
Do you mean to say that you want the military to be privatized as well?
The free market tends to underproduce public goods (such as roads and national defence), overproduce negative externalities (such as polution; watch "Erin Brokovitch"), underproduce postive externalities (such as education), and tends to extend the wage gap between rich and poor (the nations in the best shape have the smallest gaps - those with large gaps tend toward corruption). Because the free market tends this way, government interference in those areas are warranted.
Also, as far as car dealerships going under, it is interesting to hear the right rail about this now, especially after so many Republican Congressmen voted against the auto bail out. In essence, they voted to let lots of companies and dealerships go under, thus eliminating many more jobs than are presently being lost. H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.
Frankly, the government is playing just the role it should be playing.Article and Section, please?
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
However, if the world continues to heat, plants will shrivel up and die due to drought.And what if it continues to cool like it has for the last ten or so years?
You are a fool.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I would be curious to hear you site your sources that the world is cooling...
I am not going to quote articles to you. I am not talking about constituionality. I am talking about a necessary agent for the protection of the environment. The government can and must fulfill this role. If the founding fathers didn't forsee this, we shouldn't immediately cite the constitution. These men could not have foreseen the problems we face today. Thus, constitutionality has little or nothing to do with it. Hiding behind the constitution instead of addressing real problems and concerns serves no purpose whatsoever.
Vince,
The military is provided for in the powers granted to the federal government. Actually, I'm sure a private military would be more efficient. Remember the $500 hammers? Look at all the vehicles, planes and tanks sitting and rustingin deserts around the world. Look how Viet Nam was fought. Thousands of lives lost over money. I still believe JFK was shot over money. We weren't to be leaving when so many were getting rich.
Mark, Certainly you're not going to seriously cite the weather in the past couple of winters (or even summers) an an indication of global warming, are you? I think it's still blizzarding in Colorado!
I grew up in North Dakota. Floods like that don't happen every year, but I remember four of them in my lifetime. They're not an indicator of warming. They're an indicator of a long, cold, snowy winter.
Spring blizzards are relatively uncommon, but they happened all over the country this year. Other countries, too.
Vikings used to farm in Iceland and Greenland. Not any more.
Face it: you algorians and your global warming hoax are about over. It's coming apart at the seams.
Rather than using this fairy tale to impose a new reich 'pon the US, you should be planning to set up colonies on the moon, perhaps Mars and maybe the asteroids or the moons of the gas giants. Just in case.
The point I am trying to make, that is somehow being lost, is that there is nothing wrong with trying to keep the planet healthy and safe for human beings.
If you start with this premise, and I don't see how you could possibly argue otherwise, then you must conclude that certain people need to be in charge of enforcing cleanliness standards. Who are those people going to be?
I daresay the government, thus fulfilling its necessary and vital role. This is all I am trying to say. I am not here to debate climate change. I am here saying, we pollute. How should we combat the problem? It seems to me that government institutions should likely fulfill this role.
As an aside, climate change is occuring. Many scientists agree around the world that it is very probably man made. I find it difficult to understand how people can simply and flatly deny this possibility, as human beings are constantly changing their environments. I am not saying that it is definitely man made. But denying it is simply willful ignorance. Can you not even entertain the possibility? I mean, seriously. I can entertain the possibility that it is not man made. Still, regardless of which conclusion you reach, the truth is this: There is nothing wrong with trying to create clean energy and a clean planet. And there is nothing wrong with creating governmental institutions whose functions are to see that this happens.
Mark,
Algorians always fall back and play the "we just want a clean planet" card when they've been argued to the end of their ability to respond.
The planet has never been safe for human beings (or other living things), nor will it ever be. It has never been "clean," by any rational definition of the term, nor will it ever be.
Every plant and animal "pollutes," by any rational definition of the term, throughout all of its life. Fish shit in the water. Trees drop leaves and seeds. Carnivores leave blood and bones everywhere. It's not pollution, Mark, it's nature.
The way to keep our environment as "clean" as we want it is for each of us to keep our own property clean. There is no role for government here--though we could ask them to keep the lands they own clean--which they do not.
The algorian scientists who spew the man-made global warming crap do so because that's how they get grants. Proof of their bias is in studies everywhere, and I've cited some of them in the past. They have no rational standing whatever.
Your argument is complete twaddle. You are essentially saying, "Do nothing, it's natural."
This is twisted logic at best. The point is that we can do something about it, and it is right to do so. By your argument, we should just let garbage heap up in our streets. It's just natural!
I do not rely on cleaning up the planet because you have backed me into a corner. You are not that clever. You back yourself into a corner when you claim we need do nothing because it is natural.
Yes, logically speaking, we are not obligated to do anything, and we can't do anything that is not natural, being natural creatures. However, avoiding cleaning up our own filth and pollution on this premise is apathy at its highest, and it flies in the face of reason. We are healthy and live longer because of cleanliness practices. To suddenly claim we should stop trying to clean up our act is ridiculous.
Mark,
Sorry, declaring yourself the winner without substantiation is not only indefensible, but childish. And bad sportsmanship. Name calling is the watchword of those who have no rational arguments to throw into the discussion, and are frustrated. It's also the primary method of leftist argument: Can't make an argument? Ridicule your opponent and call him names!
There is no garbage piling up in our streets. If there is, in some obscure socialist country, it's because the streets are owned by government, and government is the worst at cleaning up its property.
And whom do you propose should swim behind the fish and clean up their garbage? First, you have to define what "clean" is. No one has done that.
Oh, I know some of you algorians define it as an absence of humanity, but that's not only silly, but evil. Those of that mindset must, in logic, off themselves immediately.
If you could travel back in time to a period before mankind, you'd find feces and dead animal parts all over the place. You'd find old bark, leaves and other plant matter everywhere. The place was filthy. Animals don't clean up, either.
But, tellingly, you've never addressed the one proper way one can rationally and morally deal with the issue: keeping one's own property clean and groomed. I'd hate to have to set up a tent in your backyard.
"Name calling is the watchword of those who have no rational arguments to throw into the discussion, and are frustrated."
That is the pot calling the kettle black, what with all the "Oblahma" and "B. Hussein" and other labels you guys use, instead of "President Obama."
Here is a topical article on the subject:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming
It's a couple of years old, but it makes a good point, I think.
I don't believe I have called anyone a name in this thread. I did use the word hypocrite. This however was a label I applied to many people and not any one person here.
I have called you a fool, because quite frankly, you are one. I admit it is not the highest road to take, but it does stem from frustration. Not frustration based on inability to put forth a point, frustration from talking to someone whose eyes are closed and whose mind is made up.
I at least try to keep an open mind that takes both sides into account. I will admit that global warming may or may not be caused by man. I am willing to entertain both sides of the discussion. you are not.
Once more, by visiting this silly blog, I only prove to myself the complete waste of time talking to any of you ultimately is.
You'd think I would learn. Take care now.
Vincent,
I try to avoid Rolling Stone Magazine, just as I avoid the Weekly Standard, National Review and the Nation. I've checked 'em out in the past and found nothing of interest to me.
GW Bush is not anti-algorian. He was the one to start with that ethanol nonsense. Algorianism suffered not at all while Bush was in office.
Mark,
Attaboy. Throw in a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, and when challenged, just throw in some more patently silly assertions and leave.
A fact to a leftist is like kryptonite to Superman!
Yes. That is exactly what I have done. I am astounded and unable to reply to your "facts". If it makes you feel better...
Mark, I appreciate you "visiting this silly blog."
Well, it is all rather pointless, isn't it? You post stuff that has the following results:
1. Every right wing reader praises you, challenging none of your preconceptions.
2. Every left winger argues with you, yet due to typical idelogical mindset is unable to challenge any preconceptions.
The ultimate result is that I visit a site, waste time reading thought turds that do nothing for anyone, right or left, get frustrated, make an ass out of myself, then leave wondering why the hell I let thought turds get me riled up. LOL
The blog is silly. Yet, I am sillier!
.....And yet, you refuse to critically analyze the viewpoints of those who think differently than you do, and offer rational alternatives, and the reasoning behind your dissent.
You prefer to laugh and throw stones.
Post a Comment
<< Home