Nobody NEEDS a TV, or a private house, or large tracts of land (unless you are a farmer), etc. So you are saying the government should decide what we need and don't need and place us all in small publicly owned apartments, give us a bicycle to ride to work, etc. I think that was tried once or twice already. The outcome wasn't pretty...
Matt
Sorry, I just can't subscribe to your socialist and communist approach. And how is a senior citizens income fixed and mine isn't? Do you think I can just walk into my boss's office and demand a raise because gas prices went up? Actually, my parent's SS cost of living increases have outstripped my annual increases for several years now...
Matt
Not from where I sit. The fact is that cars that got in the range of
50 miles per gallon were available decades ago for people who wanted them. They did not use batteries or highly-complex hybrid drivetrains. Thus it is difficult to consider today's hybrids to be a particularly remarkable or useful achievement.It's hard to judge participants' age in a forum such as this but you sound a little wet behind the ears yet.
It's good enough for me. What anyone else does is their own business. ("New" and "improved" are not necessarily the same thing.)
Adjusted for the rate of overall price increases in other commodities, gasoline is no more expensive today than it was 40 years ago.
Due to limited supply and high prices Europeans have always had smaller cars at least since the end of World War II, even before specific fuel economy standards were developed. (Remember the BMW Isetta?)
Your desire for more government control over our lives is very disconcerting. Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of government as an institution. It is in fact a system of force and plunder, not one of compassion and service, and needs to be kept strictly under control for personal freedom to exist.
Who are you to determine what is a "poor" decision, and to forcibly impose your values on everyone around you?
By the way, we are nowhere near "running out of oil" (a cry I've been hearing for at least 50 years now). Particularly when sources like tar sands are taken into account, there is enough to last for centuries and there are large deposits in North America. No doubt alternative energy sources will ultimately be developed, but the immediate need is to develop new sources of oil and build new refineries, not to find a replacement.
You have not made a convincing case as to why the year is of any relevance.
I prefer a vehicle that is reliable, simple to work on, and easy to maintain. Air bags are not needed (they are merely a supplement to seat belts, and were introduced because people were not buckling up), and antilock brakes etc. are no substitute for driver skill. It is also questionable how well those systems will perform over the long term, as the vehicle gets to be 10, 15, 20 years old or more. If you want those features that's your business, I have no interest in them.
You are the one looking to forcibly impose your values on others. Nowhere have I attempted to "drag the rest" of you anyplace. (Even here at home, the wife prefers a newer car for herself and I don't have a problem with that. On the other hand, my own preference has been to drive the same car for the last 30 years. Having driven both, I prefer my older vehicle.)
You really seem to have a problem with anyone who does not arrange their lives in accordance with what *you* want.
Who are you to dictate what is "waste?"
And not that I have to justify anything to the likes of you, but just for grins go find out how much energy and raw materials are consumed, and waste produced, in the manufacture of a new car. Then calculate how much I have prevented from being "wasted" by not purchasing a new car every few years. (That's not the reason I drive an older car, it's just a side effect.)
No, I do not. Your arguments are specious, frivolous, and without foundation or merit.
That's what the electric car advocates were saying 30-40 years ago. We've been 10 years away from a practical battery for as long as I can remember.
"Better" is in the eye of the beholder.
If there is meaningful competition, then yes, consumers control the market. Companies have to build products that consumers want or a competitor will do so instead. This is Economics 101. Detroit found this out the hard way.
The theory of government in this country is completely different than in most other countries. In the European model, the individual is merely a subject of an all-powerful State. In the U.S., the function of government is supposed to be strictly limited to enumerated powers that are delegated to it from the citizens.
Why is it when a Republican can't think of anything better to retort, the de facto response ALWAYS IS to call the opposition communist or socialist? Do you guys go to Republicanism 101 classes? Is there a book of common retorts? I'm sorry but you've offered not solutions to the problem much less chosen to even admit that the US faces any energy problem. Typical Republican: all blame and no game. Alexander Hamilton said it best: If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. If you think there is no problem for the American people currently, you're welcome to keep your head in the sand.
Something that is advantageous to a populous and a nation is always socialist / communist and backwards to Repub mentality. Something that benefits everyone is not a negative last time I checked.
Not only can you walk into your boss's office and ask for a raise, if a person never does this at least once in their life, their loss. The worst he / she can say is no. The only times in my life I ever asked for a raise, not necessarily to afford gas, was to afford my Hyundai. I did tell my boss why and he didn't have a problem with a salary bump. It was my performance that got me the bump, not my wanting to buy a car.
Last I checked, I don't think your monthly SS check post retirement goes up if you're not contributing to SS. Can someone fact-check this please.
For the record, I am neither a Repub, Democrat, Commie, or Socialist.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
If you know, care to share? You're quick to point out fault, you're not very forthcoming to support with facts?
- Thee Chicago Wolf
You must have missed my response from 5/2/2007 @ 7AM.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
You are correct, your are just an ignoramus.
Truthfully, I never said or used the word "mandated" with respect to a higher mileage standard. I did, however, state that the loophole that exempts trucks should be closed or brought into the 21st century. When the 1978 Energy Tax Act was instituted, SUVs and Hummers weren't on the market nor on anyone's mind. People used trucks for utility most of the time not to drive 2 blocks to get a loaf of bread (and re-fuel probably). Whatever a person wants to buy with their money is their deal. Nothing anyone can say about it. So no, my argument was not self-imploding or self-refuted. Twisting someone's words or re-interpreting them inversely does not stand as well as a good counter argument. Europe is just as dependent on other countries' (Russia) energy and the amount of manipulation they face in THEIR markets is deplorable. To a large extent, they don't have the freedom of market that we Americans enjoy. Again, $3.50 a gallon is nothing to complain about if you compare what they pay per liter. They have smaller cars as a direct result of this. No one in the states drive micros because we're American, we like our cars big. You are also aware of the fact that the large majority of European cars are stick shift and that stick shift is more fuel efficient than automatic? Last I checked, Europe had somewhere in neighborhood of 80+ % stick whereas the US is, again, last I checked, a 90+ % automatic country. Funny that in the car commercials the drivers almost always look as if they are "shifting"...their automatics. Ha! Cheers.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
That was very helpful.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
Why is it that you can't read? I didn't call you anything. I called the approach that you are espousing communistic and socialistic, which it is.
What you are suggesting doesn't benefit everyone.
And a senior citizen can get a part-time job if they want to increase their income. Their income is no more fixed than is mine.
You are proposing economic policy and you neither understand the SS system nor how to use Google? Wow, that is scary.
Yes, I agree that you appear to be none of the above based on your recent posts...
Matt
I just did your homework for you on SS COLA. It is time that you did a little yourself. You are acting like a person on welfare who expects Uncle Sam to take care of you and do everything for you. I hope that isn't the case, but it looks more that way with every post.
Matt
This would constitute a mandated increase in required fuel economy. Do you know what mandate means?
I drive a stick shift. However, if you check you'll find that the difference in fuel economy is now pretty slim. There are many other reasons that Europeans drive standard shift. Europeans also drive a very high percentage of cars with diesel engines as compared to the US.
Matt
I see this post which shows as 8 AM, but that is probably due to time zone differences. Is this the one you mean? If so, I don't see anything close to an apology here. Maybe you can point it out.
===================================================================
I guess the irony here is that: 1) BOTH are Hybrids, 2) BOTH are front-wheel drive. Those number assume people do 45% HWY driving and
55% city. I don't speak for most people in this group but I'd say my ratio is closer to 75% CITY and 25% HWY. While on paper those numbers may be true, in ideal condition, you know the old saying: "Actual Experience May Vary."Honda Civic Hybrid:
- Thee Chicago Wolf
So the statement above with the word "your" doesn't imply what you think I am? I don't interpret it any other way.
Yikes, I don't what happened to this country Matt. We used to all want to help each other. Now it's become dishonorable to want to help people. When did the climate become "me first and screw everyone else." Sorry, you may only accuse me of wanting to help people and nothing more.
By the way, who does not benefit? Explain.
Ok, I should have said RETIRED senior citizens on SS. They have a fixed income. They cannot make more than their social security check if they do not work. No overtime, no bonus. That is defined as fixed income. Sure, I've seen seniors in the stores bagging groceries but they should not have to be doing that if they are retired. That's why they call it retirement. That indicates to me there is a problem. Do you want to be working in your retirement to continue to supplement your SS. I don't.
I'm not proposing economic policy and what I stated was correct although not stated well. If you do not work, you do not contribute to a higher SS check after you retire. The Cost of Living increase is not a product of employer and employee contributions. That's the Fed's end of the bargain after employer / employee contributions stop. What you make after retirement essentially becomes supplemental.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
Your facts were wrong, the above links from the same web site point to actual consumer numbers and experience. I don't owe you an apology.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
Yes, your approach is communistic, but I don't know if you personally are a communist or not. I've voted in the past for Democrats, but that doesn't make me a member of the Democratic party.
It doesn't benefit people who need or want to drive real trucks and SUVs. The modifications required to make a 3/4 ton pickup get 30 MPG would make it not useful for plowing snow or towing anything bigger than a utility trailer.
Neither do I which is why I save a large percentage of my income and live pretty frugally relative to my income. However, I don't want to subsidize those who chose to live their life beyond their means.
The COLA is the annual increase that all people drawing SS get in their check. You are showing a profound ignorance of the SS system.
Matt
You are really show "So, I don't mean to feed trolls but if Matt says your car is such a "gas hog" and there are ALL THESE CARS THAT GET OVER 50 MPG...well, Matt, put your money where you mouth is. And be sure to put it with the updated EPA standards as well. he ain't a hypocrite. I think he just reinforced the fact that since you have no evidence to support your claim, you're like a Republican debating a Democrat: all blame and no game."
I showed you data using the updated EPA standards. Now you are changing the rules because I called your bluff. That shows you have no integrity and thus aren't worth further effort to educate. Adios.
Matt
Matt, you did in fact show me two cars that, according to the EPA, that do in fact get 50 MPG. You are correct. I look at and saw those EPA numbers. Did you follow the links posted by me? It seems you purposely chose to ignore them and didn't even acknowledge them. Why? I didn't change the rules. I thought it was common knowledge that the EPA rating in no way reflects real world performance. I'm sure you know that. Anyone who buys a car knows that what's printed on the sticker is never what the car gets. That's why I supplemented what you showed me from the exact same web site. I felt you were omitting facts, that's all. Why you choose to ignore the same data from exactly the same source is to your convenience, not mine. From the exact same web site, real world customer performance is showing it be under 50 MPG, albeit close. The EPA ratings, while correct and true on paper and according to an ideal driving situations and the percentage of city to highway ratio they specify, could not possible reflect all driving conditions of all drivers. You see the same tiny text printed on the bottom of TV ads for cars: actual result may very. And that is all I am saying.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
You claim was that I couldn't produce cars that got 50 MPG according to the new EPA standards. You didn't say anything about "real world" mileage. I consistently match or exceed the EPA ratings for all three of my current vehicles.
Matt
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.