Please explain to me what solutions were offered by the
Bush/Cheney administration. My fuel costs doubled, my salary/cost
of living/cost of health picture is worse, my health costs prevent
my retirement, and my grandchildren will never see a balanced
budget or recovery from massive war debts.
I am more than ready for change. I think I am ready for Ron Paul.
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
I guess you live in a different US than I do. Bush and Co. are total
morons (as are all our current potential replacements), but during the
past half dozen years:
My fuel costs have decreased
My salary and bonuses have increased substantially
My health insurance coverage has remained good and the cost has been
I don't really expect to ever be able to retire, but that is not a huge
concern since I expect to drop dead at about 70 anyway.
While I don't have any grandchildren to worry about, the claimed
"massive war debts" are no bigger than any of our previous wars which we
recovered from financially just fine while also covering the costs of
rebuilding the countries we blew up and/or defended.
I'd also be a lot more concerned with protecting my grandchildren from
some insane theocracy (of any persuasion) than some mythical "war debt",
since it's abundantly clear from all the examples around the world that
Theocracy = Poverty for the masses.
Since Ron Paul is the only Constitutional canidate for probly the last
100 years, He most certainly will come the closest to steering the
country back toward the orgional intent of less Fed Gov. and that is
enough for me. (even though tax and spend critters and users will scream
its unfair) KB
Thunder Snake #9
"Protect" your rights or "lose" them.
Part of any politician's challenge surrounding this issue is that there are
very few solutions left. The best solutions cause a kneejerk reaction among
the stupidest members of the population.
Example: No more federal funding for widening or maintaining urban highways
unless mass transportation has been developed as far as possible in a
particular city. Some cities haven't even tried. Or, to put it another way:
Sorry, folks, but you need to consider taking a train of a bus, even if it
means you have to sit next to..you know...those kinds of people. The ones
who clean hotel rooms and wash dishes in restaurants. The ones you'd rather
not have to see.
The "no solution" rhetoric does nothing but lead those same stupid
people. For some odd reason, the weak-minded are so easily led to vote
for candidates who merely point out problems, but never offer
solutions. As though some magic will occur to address the issues when
they're fair-haired candidate takes office.
I remember Gore in 2000 ranting about how we "need" to address the
problems in the public schools. This from a guy in that administration
for eight years. What the hell did he or they do for the school
system, for eight years, that left it with "needs"?
Some areas or states simply have no public systems to enable taking
mass transit. In California, for example, it's common for people to
live fifty or more miles of freeway away from home. They have no
choice but to drive.
I'm not saying there's no solution. I'm saying there is no solution that
many people are comfortable with.
Loads of people live 50 miles from Manhattan, and take nice trains into the
city to get to work. The problem with some cities is that they have no
incentive to adopt these ideas. They also ignore what we now know about
widening highways to reduce traffic: It only leads to more traffic.
It is not yet known when we can expect vehicles with vastly improved gas
mileage. But, mass transportation is KNOWN to work, if some thought it put
I know what you meant.
Some areas or states simply have no public systems to enable taking mass
Nice if you have them. Here, if anyone suggests building trains, the
first thing that happens is environmentalist whackos getting court
injunctions to stop the laying of tracks. Much like people who say we
need to stop buying foreign oil, but won't allow the building of
refineries or drilling domestically. Much like those who want you in a
50+ mpg econo-box, while they drive around in SUVs.
We had an interesting situation here a few years ago. Along one of our major
highways was an old unused rail bed. The highway carries lots of traffic
from downtown to various sprawlville communities between 5 and 10 miles
away. Advocates for light rail service pointed out that a train would cost
less over any 10 year period than widening and maintaining the highway. The
highway project won anyway. I think part of the problem is political
connections to the construction industry. Matter of fact, I'm sure of it,
based on comments from an insider here in my town.
Maybe in NY. Here, if something has remained unused for any length of
time, some environmentalist will "find" and "define" a new sub-species
of rat, bird, or bug in the area to ensure nothing is ever used or
The entire attitude can be summed-up thusly: People are vermin, and
need to be eliminated to ensure the planet's survival.
This is common, however, to set goals that seem impossible, but timespans
that leave no one remembering how all this crap got started.
IF we could average 55 mpg, that would be superb...And we will never do
it unless goals are set and results demanded. (No, I dont think it is
by todays standards, but who knows??)
20 years ago, nobody new 5th graders would be using mobile phones and
exchanging SMS while listening to MP3s players the size of my thumb. 5
years ago there were no Iphones that can do all 3 and browse the
internet. Technology does that on their own and no need for govt.
intervention. But giving manufacturers a nudge wouldn't hurt
The Iphone is a rather bad example since there most certainly were
devices that do *everything* an Iphone can do years before the Iphone
came out. Of course they were not produced / marketed by the great Apple
so to the great Apple's loyal minions they didn't exist.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.