Joined
·
50,578 Posts
What was uninformed? I read it and found it pretty spot on... If there is any exaggeration, it is Obama. 80% renewable energy and 1 million commercial made EV by 2015. He is smoking crack again.I honestly don't agree with that article at all. I found it extremely biased and uninformed, and I'm a fiscal conservative.
First of all, it was 80% clean energy by 2035, not 2015, so they got that piece of information wrong. Second, they made a lot of incorrect assumptions about electric cars in this scenario.What was uninformed? I read it and found it pretty spot on... If there is any exaggeration, it is Obama. 80% renewable energy and 1 million commercial made EV by 2015. He is smoking crack again.
Since virtually nothing they said in the article was political, just basic economics, it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to read it - if even to know your enemy better- before spewing intellectually flawed and politically biased political comments.I saw "Heritage Foundation" which means I don't even have to read it. It, like all the crap they spew, is intellectually flawed and politically biased.
Neither one is happening, and given how many times EVERY Administration has changed their position I have little doubt that someone is on tape as saying 2015.First of all, it was 80% clean energy by 2035, not 2015, so they got that piece of information wrong.
There were zero assumptions. They stated clearly that blizzards are one fatal flaw in the theory of pushing too quickly for EVs to replace 100% of our vehicles, which is a fact. Many people who spent 6 hours or more trapped in their cars in this recent even would have suffered from extreme exposure when their batteries would have been drained by the heater. Too, there are many other reasons - "unintended consequences" - which is why they concluded (correctly) that the free market is a better mechanism for determining how quickly they should be adopted.Second, they made a lot of incorrect assumptions about electric cars in this scenario.
Go read all the other threads on this issue in the Chit Chat section. There are no oil "subsidies;" only political rhetoric CLAIMING there are oil subsidies. What there are is BRIBES to the industry to re-direct their investment in ways the Government prefers. A subsidy is a grant to sustain an industry that cannot make it on it's own. The products of oil companies are taxed far more than almost any other product on the market; it is from this confiscatory taxation that the BRIBES euphemistically called "subsides" by dishonest politicians are funded. However, since you cannot truly be "subsidized" by your own money, like so many other things in Washington it is simply another lie.I also cant help but notice they rail on government subsidies for EVs and talk of the free market, but conveniently forget about all the money doled out EVERY YEAR for oil subsidies.
Do you have even a fundamental understanding of what our Federal Government was constructed to do? I sincerely recommend that you read the Constitution. Whether I agree or not on HOW our foreign policy money is spent, it is nevertheless one of the few activities our Federal government engages in today for which it was specifically chartered.Not to mention how much is spent with our foreign policy to protect our oil interests.
I agree with getting the electric car, but you might wish to re-think who it is that is un-informed (or, more precisely, mis-informed). The hardest thing to do is to acknowledge when you have been scammed.Let them pay through the nose for oil and keep their taliban fueled car. I'll take my chances with electric. It's only a matter time until we have batteries far better than we have now. I happen to agree with the government subsidies of electric vehicles. You will too when you can't afford to buy oil based fuel, your company is getting crushed because of fuel costs and every thing everyone buys goes up in price along with fuel because of the price of oil. It's coming sooner than most think. And the sad thing is, most people are CLUELESS that the worlds oil supplies are being used up faster than we're finding new sources and that new sources that are found are very hard to get, ie BP's deep water drilling, shale deposits etc.
Enough of the ranting. I just can't believe so many people are so uninformed, especially republicans. And I'm far from a liberal.
*Sigh* Sucked into yet another political debate in yet another forum. They were referencing his State of the Union speech, and he clearly stated 2035. I'm not really sure why you would choose to argue this.Neither one is happening, and given how many times EVERY Administration has changed their position I have little doubt that someone is on tape as saying 2015.
Extreme exposure? How cold was it exactly in D.C. during this storm? One of the assumptions I was talking about is assuming the heater would need to be on the whole time for the cabin to be warm. It doesn't. You would probably be shocked how little I run my car's heater here in MN, even when its below 0 out. If the car is spending most of those hours sitting still in gridlock, it would probably use A LOT less power than you would think. Nevermind the fact that we are talking about a HIGHLY unusual situation.There were zero assumptions. They stated clearly that blizzards are one fatal flaw in the theory of pushing too quickly for EVs to replace 100% of our vehicles, which is a fact. Many people who spent 6 hours or more trapped in their cars in this recent even would have suffered from extreme exposure when their batteries would have been drained by the heater. Too, there are many other reasons - "unintended consequences" - which is why they concluded (correctly) that the free market is a better mechanism for determining how quickly they should be adopted.
I've heard similar arguments before, but I can't say I agree. However, such a debate would go WAY beyond the scope of this thread. Also, I just don't care to debate these things on yet another forum.Go read all the other threads on this issue in the Chit Chat section. There are no oil "subsidies;" only political rhetoric CLAIMING there are oil subsidies. What there are is BRIBES to the industry to re-direct their investment in ways the Government prefers. A subsidy is a grant to sustain an industry that cannot make it on it's own. The products of oil companies are taxed far more than almost any other product on the market; it is from this confiscatory taxation that the BRIBES euphemistically called "subsides" by dishonest politicians are funded. However, since you cannot truly be "subsidized" by your own money, like so many other things in Washington it is simply another lie.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, considering you don't know the slightest bit about me or my political affiliations. Your assumptions about me are most likely the opposite of what I actually believe. I actually know A LOT more about the Constitution than you seem to think I do. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that waging war without a declaration is actually not constitutional. At the very least, I would say our foreign policy goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and would probably be viewed as imperialistic. However, debating about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act would DEFINITELY be beyond the scope of this thread.Do you have even a fundamental understanding of what our Federal Government was constructed to do? I sincerely recommend that you read the Constitution. Whether I agree or not on HOW our foreign policy money is spent, it is nevertheless one of the few activities our Federal government engages in today for which it was specifically chartered.
However, you should understand that in principle your desire to see foreign expenditures reduced would be a point of agreement between yourself and the Heritage Foundation.
![]()
THIS is why no gov. has substantially decreased fuel consumption...where is the money going to come from to replace the road fuel tax every state and the fed receives? We are talking several hundred billion dollars every year, the single largest income the government has.
My whole point is that the article was remarkably apolitical given the political nature of the authoring organization. Both sides exaggerate, and most likely, it was a simple typo and not worthy of discussion - the point I was trying to make, if poorly.*Sigh* Sucked into yet another political debate in yet another forum. They were referencing his State of the Union speech, and he clearly stated 2035. I'm not really sure why you would choose to argue this.
All we are arguing here is whether their analogy was reasonable. I believe it was. Many of those people, not knowing better (some percentage, generally around half, clearly has less than average IQ), would have left their lights and radios and heaters running; run out of juice; panicked, and gotten stuck in a snowdrift and likely died. Thus, irrespective of what conclusions we draw from such an event the article's thesis remains valid - even if they were stretching a bit to use current events to support their position.Extreme exposure? How cold was it exactly in D.C. during this storm? One of the assumptions I was talking about is assuming the heater would need to be on the whole time for the cabin to be warm. It doesn't. You would probably be shocked how little I run my car's heater here in MN, even when its below 0 out. If the car is spending most of those hours sitting still in gridlock, it would probably use A LOT less power than you would think. Nevermind the fact that we are talking about a HIGHLY unusual situation.
I've done a pretty good job, IMHO, about avoiding the political and simply defining a word. If you TARGET a business and take more tax money from it than everyone else, and then turn around and offer to give some of it back if they do something - it isn't a subsidy, it is extortion. Since oil has more and larger targeted taxes than almost any other industry, this can be demonstrated to be the case - rendering arguments otherwise false.I've heard similar arguments before, but I can't say I agree. However, such a debate would go WAY beyond the scope of this thread. Also, I just don't care to debate these things on yet another forum.
If I drew a wrong conclusion, it was based on the few words you wrote on this article. Based on that, it appeared that you might find it offensive to be found to have views similar to the Heritage Foundation. However, I personally happen to agree with every position you mention above, and was only pointing out that irrespective of how you or I feel about it that particular expense at least falls under the CATEGORY of things which our government was chartered to do.You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, considering you don't know the slightest bit about me or my political affiliations. Your assumptions about me are most likely the opposite of what I actually believe. I actually know A LOT more about the Constitution than you seem to think I do. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that waging war without a declaration is actually not constitutional. At the very least, I would say our foreign policy goes against the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and would probably be viewed as imperialistic. However, debating about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act would DEFINITELY be beyond the scope of this thread.
I'm sorry if this seems lame, but don't expect more than a couple sentences out of me in any subsequent posts in this thread. I'm afraid I just don't care to expend the energy required in such debates on forums these days. I debate this stuff enough as a BPOU Chair and Central Committee member for the Olmsted County Republican Party.![]()
FYITHIS is why no gov. has substantially decreased fuel consumption.
However, it is a very silly question because WE the people pay that money PLUS the hundreds of BILLIONS in profit for the oiligarchy.
It would be MUCH CHEAPER to just pay the road tax without the extra billions in profit and the trillions in WAR spending.
Their propaganda has you thinking you need them... You don't.
I live in Minnesota. Many people here keep survival gear in their cars, and personally, I don't drive my EV in the middle of winter. I have an ICE pick-up for cold weather, hauling stuff, or going further the my EV can do.My whole point is that the article was remarkably apolitical given the political nature of the authoring organization. Both sides exaggerate, and most likely, it was a simple typo and not worthy of discussion - the point I was trying to make, if poorly.
All we are arguing here is whether their analogy was reasonable. I believe it was. Many of those people, not knowing better (some percentage, generally around half, clearly has less than average IQ), would have left their lights and radios and heaters running; run out of juice; panicked, and gotten stuck in a snowdrift and likely died. Thus, irrespective of what conclusions we draw from such an event the article's thesis remains valid - even if they were stretching a bit to use current events to support their position.
I've done a pretty good job, IMHO, about avoiding the political and simply defining a word. If you TARGET a business and take more tax money from it than everyone else, and then turn around and offer to give some of it back if they do something - it isn't a subsidy, it is extortion. Since oil has more and larger targeted taxes than almost any other industry, this can be demonstrated to be the case - rendering arguments otherwise false.
By the way, I'm all in favor of ending all payments to oil companies defined as "subsidies." And, to everyone else. And foreign aid. But all of that is for the Chit Chat section.
If I drew a wrong conclusion, it was based on the few words you wrote on this article. Based on that, it appeared that you might find it offensive to be found to have views similar to the Heritage Foundation. However, I personally happen to agree with every position you mention above, and was only pointing out that irrespective of how you or I feel about it that particular expense at least falls under the CATEGORY of things which our government was chartered to do.