Car Tech: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars?
- 6/6/07 1:57 PM
Saturns
by nitecourt - 6/8/07 5:27 AM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
Funny, I had a 96 Saturn SL2 that used plastic body panels. After 11 years it still looked brand new since there wasn't any dents or dings because of the plastic. I live in a snowbelt area around the Great Lakes and getting tired of sliding around in the snow so I got a Saturn Vue which also has plastic body panels. Now the funny part, I was told 2007 is the last model year for the plastic panels since, with the high price of oil, it is now less expensive to make them out of metal.
Plastic...... Hmmm, I wonder where that comes from
by sgordonson - 6/8/07 8:39 AM In reply to: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars? by wcunning
While plastic reduce the weight of the car and improves mileage, plastic is a petroleum product so you aren't reducing oil dependence.
Ultimately you'll spend more for the car and the vehicle use if more plastics are used and the price of oil coninues to rise ( which it will ).
It would be great if the auto mfgs could come up with a way to recycle the plastic parts for the same use. Current plastic recycling results in a lower grade or mixed product that wouldnt be suitable for new parts.
Plastic and mileage
by mwooge - 6/8/07 9:10 AM In reply to: Plastic...... Hmmm, I wonder where that comes from by sgordonsonI expect the miniscule mileage improvement made using plastic will more than match the amount of petroleum used to make the part. The part is made once, the gas to move it replaced over the course of 100,000 miles.
By my ballpark guestimate, about twelve pounds of gas per pound of car.
100,000 miles at 20 MPG = 5000 gallons, divided by 2500 pounds for the car makes 2 gallons (12 pounds) per pound.
So, given a lot of assumptions, you'd save twelve pounds of petroleum for every pound reduced by using plastic.
re: Plastic and Mileage
by mlf1142 - 6/10/07 1:33 AM In reply to: Plastic and mileage by mwoogeYes, the idea of plastic bodied cars would be the ideal substance to use to reduce weight on the road and increase mileage, and these body parts can be moulded in the colors needed for that particular car, thus eliminating the painting process, but as everything else, it's gonna cost money for factories to change over to injection moulding machines let alone the continual design factors that would definitely raise the price of a standard vehicle to absurb levels to where the rich (stupid) and famous can afford such a vehicle.
Eventually, the world of the new car with their high prices are going to fit in the area of the 'survival of the fittest' which could eventually hurt the automakers in the long run .. why the leasing program is such a huge hit to autobuyers and automakers now: just flushing the toilet once a month and losing the pride of ownership.
I agree about the prices.
by batman823 - 6/11/07 7:11 AM In reply to: re: Plastic and Mileage by mlf1142While motorcycles are cheaper to buy than cars, for the most part, the crotch-rockets are expensive to repair. The majority of money spent on repairs are simply on cosmetics. I think the same would happen with all plastic panels. I realize that motorcycle ferrings are not a simple plastic, or so they say. But they are priced high because there is not other source of the same fit and design.
Plastics are more expensive. Steel cars will be lighter.
by Bill F. - 6/8/07 9:14 AM In reply to: Plastic...... Hmmm, I wonder where that comes from by sgordonsonIts simple economics, something that companies understand. Its more expensive to build a Plastic automobile. They are not really any lighter then a steel shelled automobile. Steel is much stronger by weight then Plastic is. All plastic automobiles depend on steel for their safety aspects. Plastic is only useful for making low quantities of automobiles or if no other material can make a specific shape. Its a style thing. People's thinking on energy awareness is also lacking a great deal. Like the big push for E85 fuels, because 'its good for the environment'. No its not, its a huge shell game. It actually costs more to make E85 then it does gasoline because they have to use, food, plus loads of electricity and fresh water in order to make Alchohol. When you add up what this does, you burn more 'carbon' to make E85 then you would if you just used gasoline. Its the dumbest idea yet. The myth of hydrogen is also a big issue. To make hydrogen you need either electricity (which make CO2) or you need to reform natural gas (which is in short supply).
You could just burn the natural gas in a vehicle now.
Plastic costs more then steel, it always will. So your notion in the lead article is not sound economics. This is why you don't see aluminum cars, they cost too much.
plastics are cheap
by batman823 - 6/21/07 5:44 AM In reply to: Plastics are more expensive. Steel cars will be lighter. by Bill F.Plastics are cheap. It's the design factors that make fiberglass and plastic parts to cars, boats and motorcycles expensive. Pig iron is cheaper than plastic, but refined steel is more expensive. By unit volume, tin and steel are heavier than most plastics. So I don't know where you got the idea that a plastic bodied car would be more expensive. Ethanol can be cheaper because alcahol is easy to make and doesn't need to be shipped for as long of a distance than gasoline or diesel does.
Water required a high voltage to be applied for the oxygen and hydrogen to separate. A high voltage doesn't mean that it requires a lot of current. The electrolytic oxygen generator on my submarine runs at 2000 volts but only uses 300-900 amps. At 300 amps, it can supply oxygen for over 100 people and charge all the oxygen banks to 3000psi. It requires about the same amount of energy to create, store and supply the electricity required to do this. But if you consider nuclear power, which is much cleaner than coal, hydrogen would be much more efficient. The only problem with that is we don't have enough plants that use the uranium yet.
I'm not exactly what you would call a bush supporter, but he's not doing everything wrong. He is pushing for more nuclear power plants. Even though he says "nucuulleeeer", he's still doing something right.
People usually think of 3MI and chernoble when you say nuclear, but they don't think of the hundreds of nuclear power plants that have been operating for decades without incident. Let alone all the carriers and submarines that use reactors for electricity and propulsion. If anybody reads this and thinks "bomb". To put you at ease, a nuclear bomb has to be intentionally created and a nuclear reactor cannot explode.
How does this forum have all the fortune teller?
by Andy77e - 6/9/07 9:06 PM In reply to: Plastic...... Hmmm, I wonder where that comes from by sgordonson"price of oil coninues to rise ( which it will )"
How does everyone know this stuff? I mean, I was alive in the 90s, it wasn't that long ago. Does no one remember when it hit $2.00 a gallon in the early 90s, and everyone said, "it'll go up! It'll keep rising! We know it!" and what happened? Late 90s, it was $0.79 a gallon here. Now why does everyone think they can predict the future and yet always be wrong, but that never stops them from doing it again!
Maybe you all know this for certian because you plan to keep electing people that will cause the price to rise. That's the only thing I can think of. By electing Al Bore types who prevent us from drilling for oil, thus forcing us to import it, that would cause the price to rise. By electing tax and spend liberals who would hike the (already a dallor a gallon) taxes on fuel, you'd cause the price to rise.
But other than you *choosing* to vote for people who's *legislation causes* fuel prices to rise, how do you think you know what the price will do?
Sorry about the rant on the fortune telling... other than that I agree with your post. It's amazing the number of people who arrogantly claim their personally saving us hundreds of barrols of oil, while they buy a car the uses oil extensively in it's construction.
You contradict yourself
by batman823 - 6/11/07 7:27 AM In reply to: How does this forum have all the fortune teller? by Andy77eYou talk about electing people who will cause the price of gas to lower... Thanks for voting for bush. He has undone all the good to the economy that clinton did. So do you want Clinton in office or Bush? I'm cunfused. Don't even try to defend bush about the economy. Read the "No child left behind"(crap) and 'welfare reform'(crap) and medicare/medicaid "funding reforms"(crap) which he's put into place. Then try and tell people he's helped our children and country.
The anylization of cost trends prove what the market has done and what it will likely do. Variables do exist, such as war and natural disaster or acts of God, etc. But gas prices continue to rise and they should. We pay less for fuel than any european country. If you plan on going to Canada, fill up before you cross the border. Not the same with Mexico, but you don't seem the type to visit mexico.
Simply put, we drive the largest and least efficient vehicles on the planet. We are spoiled and wasteful as a whole. If you had to pay $3.50 per liter, not gallon, as it was in spain and england last year when I was there, than you would consider owning a slightly smaller car. Go to Europe, it's fun. But you also notice it's a totally different society and most of them hate us.
If you want to know how I have been to these places, andy, I was on a submarine for about 2.5yrs before I ruptured 2 discs. I've been to Norway, Scotland, the North Pole(under the ice), Japan, Guam, under the ice again, and England one one deployment, in that order. Then I was on another deployment doing 'war on terror' super-secret-squirrel-stuff(a little catch phrase for us) and went to Greece(crete), Gibraltar, and was med-evac'd through spain because of the injury I told you about. It's also on my profile.
No I don't lol
by Andy77e - 6/11/07 1:28 PM In reply to: You contradict yourself by batman823Really, so Clinton did the economy good? I buy that if you name the legislation he sponsored and passed that "did the economy good". Name ONE... I'll take just ONE bill that he wrote or sponsored that helpped. Good luck, you'll not find it.
Further, the economic trend was going up since Reagan, Clinton didn't start that trend, it was already going before he got in office. And maybe your memory is a bit weak, but the economy started it's crash in 1999 when Clinton was in office. So what the hell are you talking about?
I don't know about you, but I got a very needed income tax cut from Bush. Further, I didn't vote for Bush because of gas prices, I voted for him on the war, whether you agree or like it, I support our nessary war on muslim extreemist. I knew Bush wouldn't sway in the wind like Clinton on matters of national security. The last thing I want is poll numbers determining matters of life and death nationally.
I disagree with funding reform. Welfare reform was done in the 90s, and was very much needed. Medicare reform, should be disbanned, not reformed. I supported "No child left behind" when it included vouchers, aka putting control of ones money back in the hands of those that earned it.
I know we pay less for gas than any European nation, because we don't stick as much taxes on our fuel, but we're trying. That's not a good thing, that's bad. We should not have our government artificially raising the cost of gas with taxes.
Yeah, they hate us because we have freedom. We can buy a large car, they can't. We can afford our gas, they can't. We can choose to buy a huge land barage and drive it where and when we want, they can't. Why on in the world do you want to adapt that here?
I sure hope not many follow your logic that if Europeans do it, we should too. Maybe you forget but UK had a hugh nation wide protest over fuel prices. You really want that wonderful system adapted here? It's like health care. France's government is nearly bankrupt, yet everyone says we should have government health care like them... what? You want to bankrupt our government just because someone else did?
You have so much freedom here, you have it so good, yet all you do is complain and demand gas prices increase because it's higher elsewhere? Yes if I had to pay $7.80 a gallon like other countries, I'd buy a smaller car, or buy a motor bike. But thank God I live in the US where I don't have to (not yet at least).
yet is a key word
by batman823 - 6/13/07 11:13 AM In reply to: No I don't lol by Andy77ehttp://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html
to name one
notice the .gov
there are very strict regulations on who can and cannot use .gov
They also have to have solid proof with references to post these facts on websites like that.
I recommend you do your research before you claim certain things on open forums. Don't just watch Fox "fair and balanced" right-wing news. Actually go to government sites. The DOE for example, is a great resource of information.
Gas prices continue to rise. If we raised the gas prices with federal taxation, there is all the money you would want for roadways and for public transportation. That would, due to the reduced dependant use of oil, reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. Global warming, no matter how much you say it doesn't exist, is happening. It's been proven by studies of CO2 in the air, by the change in ocean currents, changes in world-wide weather, etc.
Along with the added funding for roadways and such, there would simply be fewer cars on the road. That would make an average commute much easier than it is now in any populated area. Not just in major cities. It would also discourage people from buying rediculously wasteful vehicles.
Here's a note that has a direct affect on the soldiers and sailors that you so proudly support. Me being one of the injured ones. Because of bush's wasteful use of the budget, not only can we not afford to fund our schools properly, the military gets the standard annual raise of around 2%/year. That sounds like a good thing. By numbers, it's a higher percentage than during Clinton's term. But when compared to inflation, bush has only cut our pay. That's just the base pay, not to mention the cuts made on our Basic Allowances for Housing and Sustanance(BAH and BAS)
E-6's, for example, got a $200/month cut in thier BAH in my are last year. We live in the 'wealthiest state' in the union. Housing costs went up by almost 10% in the area of my base. That includes all property value, meaning cost of houses and cost of rent. But they got a roughly 15% cut in the allowance for that same housing.
Those are just a few examples on bush and his 'reform'
No child left behind is so similar as the daddy bush's "Right to work" so-called reforms. They imply one thing and mean another, just to trick people to vote for them. A right to work state allows employers to fire any employee, regardless of standing and reputation or contract, for any legal reason, without any notice of time. They don't even have to tell the employee why they're being fired! Not even if they ask. The no child left behind program simply cut out the bottom end of the student body in public schools so the stats would look better. The schools get less funding per student and even less for special education students. Read it, I'm sure all your republican fantasies will come to an end on that issue.
I agree that welfare needs to be much more controlled and regulated. But part of that is disability. I also think welfare should be more readily available to those who need it. When I get medically discharged from the Navy, if I want to apply for disability, I would have to wait a minimum of 6mo to find out if I even get it. I could wait over 2 years for a decision. I'm barely able to walk because of my spinal cord injury that happened during mission. I'd say that your beloved bush has done this country more harm than any other president in our history. If you didn't read the study I mentioned to you either. Almost 500 political scholars agree with me.
That tax cut you referred to actually raised the lowest bracket to 15% without raising the standard deduction. Just because you got a $1000 check at the time doesn't mean it was a good thing. You've already paid more than that back if you don't have at least 2 dependants. So which tax cut are you talking about? Oh, yeah, it's that tax raise, just like his daddy's, that was labeled as a tax cut.
As far as national security was concerned, you need to do your research about Clintons actions too. During his last year in office, he had apprehended three of Osama's top people. One of which released critical information to the FBI and CIA. He was tricked by a friend who didn't believe in the cause and was caught in a hotel room. But the next year, bush didn't follow up on it because he didn't see Osama as a threat.
I'm not saying I'd like to pay more for gas, I like keeping my money. But I think a higher tax on gas is a necessary evil. The europeans hate us for all those reasons you listsed and then some. Not just because of jealousy, but also because of our attitude when they meet us. They also dislike us because of how wasteful we are, but that might just be sprouting from jealousy. We wouldn't know either way.
Look at Norway and Canada. They have universal health care and they're doing fine. The French are not exactly a good example. Spain's a medium example. They have the same universal health care. People think they pay more taxes than we do too. They don't. We pay a lower federal income tax at the lowest two brackets. The second to lowest is only lower by 10% than most of the european countries. But there's sales tax, state income tax, state and federal income tax, sin tax, property tax. A lot of states have all of those. Most states with an income tax match the federal income tax. That means we pay as much or more than european countries in taxes but don't get the benefits. Instead, we waste it on military. We will never stop the genocide that happens in the Holy Land, not matter how long we stay there and pretend we're making a difference.
I have to get back to work, but there's a more appropriate thread in the off-topic forums to discuss this and I would rather not do it here or in the car tech forum. I ask you again, please stay a little closer to topic and bring your extra political issues to the proper forum.
I know we're butting heads but there's no intended malice in my posts, so I ask that you do the same. Keep it factual.
Wow, this is a joke right?
by Andy77e - 6/13/07 8:13 PM In reply to: yet is a key word by batman823I recommmend you do research before you start blindly believing things. This is a political web site, and politics as always is full of half truths. Once again, I'm shocked someone who at least seemed intelligent would fall for this kind of propaganda.
Since responding to each every claim would require hours and hours as well as dozens of references, I'm simply not going to do that. Besides you seem entrenched in your uninformed opinion, so telling you all that would waste both of our time.
But just to prove my point, I will post the most obvious and clear example of it. The claim is made that he improved fiscal responsibility and that we had a surplus. There was no surplus, and his "fiscal responsibility" was a shell game. Our debt increased every year from '93 to 2000, According to the US Treasury, that's www.treas.gov (notice the .gov. there are very strict regulations on who can and cannot use .gov), our debt in 1992 was 4 trillian, and in 2000 was 5.8 trillian. I'll let you figure out which dot gov is lying and which is telling the truth.
Further, I told you I wanted to know what bill he passed and he sponsored or at least supported, that did anything good. Most of those bills on that site were Republican bills that he originally opposed. For example the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, was part of the Republicans "Contract with America" of 1996.
So look, I'm not going to bother going over the rest of the stuff, because I can already tell you wouldn't believe it even if I sent you certified hand signed documents from actual Congressmen. Moving on.
Gas is still dropping here.
Yes yes, of course Global Warming is happening and CO2 is the cause, which is why: (1) the satellite microwave-sounding-unit temperature record, which in the absence of the massive 1998 El Niņo heat pulse shows no warming whatsoever from 1979 to the present, (2) the weather-balloon temperature record, which for the same circumstances also shows no warming, (3) the surface- and satellite-derived temperature records of earth's polar regions, which also show no warming, and (4) the high-quality U.S. Historical Climatology Network data base, which, not surprisingly, also shows no statistically significant warming over this period.
So I'll let you ignore those facts. Moving on.
There is no "right to work", never was, and shouldn't ever be. The idea that a company must tell why you are being let go is not right. If I own a business and you are my employee, I owe you nothing. I'm the one paying your wages, you're the one looking for work. If it's my job, I don't, or shouldn't need any reason to let you go.
Republican fantasies? You think I'm a Republican?! LOL You don't even know how are government works, and you think Clinton is great, now you are going to tell me I'm a Republican! You are a trip. Hint: I hate them both. You think I like everything Bush has done? No sorry. They are politicians. <-- says it all
Yes I got a tax cut. My taxes were, and are, lower than before. If I thought I'd convince you, I'd post my tax forms. But since I only keep the last 3 years, it wouldn't be conclusive, but yes my taxes are lower, sorry to break that to you.
I am starting to wonder if you know anything about the topics you talk about. The Saudis asked Clinton if he'd like Osama in the mid 90s, Clinton said no "let a sleeping dogs lie" was the exact words according to an official.
I agree with you about "no child left behind" but likely for different reasons. I believe the federal government has no legal constitutional authority to have any direct or indirect involvement in education. Education should be handled and funded at the state level by the citizens of that state.
Canada's health care system is bad. People fly here to get treatment. I may still have the 10 page report on Canadian health care from my days in College, but I'm not posting all of that here. Norway, ugh, man do some real research. Read this from Norway's own news papers. The title is "Protests against health care cuts" dated January of this year. I'll give a few highlights
Government issued cost control methods that prevented the 4 of the 5 state run health agencys from having a deficit budget. The worst off of the 4, issued a 4 day work week for surgery and non-acute treatment (that would be you) and also cut 145 jobs. If your back went out again and you were in pain, how'd you like to know the reason you have to wait 4 months for treatment is because the surgery section only works 4 days a week?
Socialist health care never works. The fact you support that is exactly why I don't want the president listening to polls.
Although I don't mind talking about this subject, this is a bit boring now. Especially on that web site you mentioned. I didn't even have to look up most of it, because it either had nothing to do with Clinton at all, like taking credit for their being sunny days during the 90s. And others were taking credit for things other people did, like Welfare reform, and saying how great it is that people living below the poverty line dropped. That was a Republican bill. And on and on. If you believe that stuff without even verifing it, then I'm wasting my time. You really need to do some actual research on some of those topics, and specifically look at both sides. That's how I came to my conclusions. I used to be very liberal in my beliefs, but most of that changed when I got to college and started doing my own research into subjects, instead of buying what others told me.
Best to you.
two totally differnt worlds
by batman823 - 6/14/07 5:53 AM In reply to: Wow, this is a joke right? by Andy77eI guess to sum the topics up, we could both say one thing. We look at different sources for our information. I use government resources. Obviously a government website is going to be political. Even my submarine base's website is political. But guess who maintains and controls all the .gov sites. The government, even our current one.
I truly have enjoyed our debate. Believe it or not, I have looked up some of the things you said and I was wowed. So don't just stop because you think I won't listen. It's even better if you provide a link like I did. That one site, out of many, has proof of Clinton's successes. But as I said, that was just one web site.
It is obvious that you are on the extreme end of the right wing. That makes me question everything you say. That's just from my hippy up-bringing. But I do my research and when I am wrong, I am wrong. There's no point in living in a fantasy world. My beliefs are not because of my extreme left-wing up-bringing. That is probably why I don't believe either side.
My father was injured and discharged from the army (airborne ranger - engineer) while in vietnam. His injuries were much more brutal than mine but not life-long. Which brings me to healthcare. We already have a form of universal healthcare. Anybody can go into a hospital and get care for nearly any illness without insurance or money. You can't necessarily go to a specialist for extended care without insurance, but you can get taken care of for real issues.
About the four month thing, and norway. I've been waiting for over six for the surgery my neurosurgeons recommend. That's because of all the beurocratic crap that has to be done to do a real surgery that isn't an emergency. I have had an emergency partial discectomy to regain the use of my legs. I have had six minor surgeries since then. But the one I really need is the one I mentioned earlier.
Every time there's a change in politics, there's a protest. So that's not a big surprise you bring that up on each topic concerning other countries' policies. Not only was I in Norway. But it just so happend that my LPO(leading petty officer) has a family. (dumb statement, I know but keep reading) That family is about 2/3 norwegian. Bothe the norwegians I spoke to and his family are very happy with the healthcare. You are misinformed about that subject. You may be right about the 4-day thing, but they are still happy with the healthcare. It's of high quality and easily accessible. They are one of the, if not THE, richest countries in the world. Meaning they have more money per person and per square mile. Not more money as a number amount.
The bush vs clinton stuff. I will not change my mind that Clinton was a good president and bush is the worst to have been elected. But I am definitely open on those subjects. Sources are not always trustworthy. Even though I have a valid SECRET government security clearance. I do not have access to a lot of the more secure government websites(top secret, SCI, etc.). But being in my position I am in a bit of an advantage for invormation than you.
I was so glad to read your line saying you agreed with me on the no child left behind. I believe the same things you said in most of that paragraph. But as far as the debate goes. That shows me that you're not just opposing my opinions and throwing complete B.S. just to stir up the pot. Because of alot of the extremely inaccurate things you've stated, I honestly thought that is what you were doing. So I now will more openly discuss religion, politics, or any other subject with you. You are intelligent, you lack a little as far as spelling and grammar. Just poking fun, none of us are perfect and I'm not that great with some things either. But I thank you for making the same observation about me.
I believe most of the things because I have certain privelaged information. I cannot allow civilians to access those sites though. Most of the sites are open like the link I provided, but others have secure sections that require me to do certain things on my computer to access the site. So I definitely trust my sources over yours.
As far as the deficit goes, Clinton and bush have both raised the national debt. I don't think any president in our future will turn the deficit around long enough to make a difference. But compare the two pres's about the deficit. Yes clinton did a dent into the national debt over a long period of time, but our economy soared. bush, has done the opposite. He's raised the debt by nearly 40% of what clinton did in last fiscal year alone, not to mention the extra >$100 billion dollars just signed away for the war. He's done a lot more damage and a lot quicker, while ruining the economy. Inflation is very high, wage increases are not following as quickly as they mathematically need to. Taxes are higher, not just income, but the others as well. Plus the dollar is worth less and less. Also, you are likely paying different or less taxes for a diferent reason than bush's tax raise. did you have a kid or get married? or are you just being smarter with your deductions? None of that is my business, it's more rhetorical than anything. But the percentage still raised from 12% to 15% in the lowest taxable bracket and the deduction did not raise. There are a few more loopholes and I love the thing he did with taxes and retirement funds. I don't remember how much it's changed but it's made about and extra $500 on each tax return for me. That's the only tax benefit I'm seeing from him.
Clinton and bush both passed republican-written and democrat-written bills. They have both vetoed bills as well. But a bill is niether republican or democratic. Both parties in congress have to vote on it and the pres. still has to sign off. But I undersatand what you're saying.
Yes, gas is finally dropping. But how long is that going to last? I'm betting that it's not going to last long.
We've already gone over the global warming stuff. There's much more overbearing proof that it is happening at an exponential rate than the statements that you're making.
I don't think anybody has a RIGHT to work. But I do believe that the employer should be obligated to give an employee the same 2-week notice that the employer is supposed to recieve. Not to mention people under contract. There should be exceptions. If a person is caught violating certain laws or company policies, I don't think they should be given advanced notice. But on the other hand, if an employer wants to simply fire somebody to cut back on overhead, they should be given an appropriate advanced notice and severance pay. I also think that the employer should be required to give the reason. If a person works for you. You are obligated to pay them, and you may not fire them for reasons of discrimination or for reporting you to the BBB or the DOL. But the "right to work" states allow that to happen. That is because the employer doesn't have to give notice or reason of why they are firing somebody.
I am also glad to read that you don't label yourself as a republican, but you do have some extreme right-wing/republican views. So I apologize for making that assumption. I still think it was a fairly safe one, but still I am sorry for offending you by that. I completely agree with your statement about politicians. That's why we are no longer a democracy. Politicians, like bush and Clinton(I hate to admit), say many things to get elected and take completely different actions.
I really have enjoyed the conversation, but we have exhausted ourselves and will just cover the same topics over and over again. We've already started that.
God Bless. And I wish the best to you,
Chris.
Yes very different.
by Andy77e - 6/14/07 8:02 PM In reply to: two totally differnt worlds by batman823I am a horrible speller. If I had a penny for every visit to dictionary.com, I'd retire.
I have to admit, at the end of the last post I thought you were hopelessly lost in some crazy looney liberal land. I do feel better about this now, even though we are still at polar opposite views. I had the exact same thought, that there's no way you could believe (that) and you must be just a political hack who's bored.
I consider myself a constitutionalist. The views I have, are the product of years of learning about various issues, and by living them. I was, past tense, about as far left on the political scale as one could get.
As a die hard liberal, I first started thinking about my "world view" when the issue of Gun control becaues a major topic. So I looked into it, and the more I looked at both sides, the more I realized I was wrong. When that occured to me, I started looking at many issues I believed so strongly in, and one by one, just by examining all evidence, not just one side, my world view changed drasticaly. (please don't start talking about gun control)
The key is, I have looked at government information, and CNN, and drudge, and Washington post, and CBS/NBC/ABC, and Fox News, and WorldNetDaily, and Salon.com. (no I still don't have a TV, but I do visit their web sites now and then) That's why I got bored with the last post, all that stuff is old news that, to me, is disproven. Especially since I lived those years, and know some of it is baloney.
Like the debt. The point isn't who raised it the most, that's not important in this case. The important point is, the surplus was a lie. A complete total fabrication based on cooked numbers. Read up on this, it's a hallmark of our governments accounting methods. Social Security had a tax increase. The result was for a dozen years it collected more money than it paid out. With that extra income, they added that right into the general budget which had a deficit. In turn, for a few short years, the amount of surplus from SS was greater then the deficit from the general budget... A "surplus!". Problem is they only get this "surplus" by taking money from Social Security that has to be paid back.
The best proof of this scam is when Bush first moved into the White House, the first thing that comes out is "he's raiding Social Security". I bet you know this drill from the military. How does the guy in charge take the heat off himself when he screws up? He points to someone else doing something similar and tells everyone. Yes Bush is taking from Social Security, so has every president and congressman since the mid 60s.
This is how they not only claimed a surplus, while the debt increased every year, but they also claimed to pay off some debt, yet the debt didn't go down. To illistrate this, it would be like me having a credit card with a $200 debt, and me spending $100 more money every month, than I make. Then getting a second card, and pulling out $150 cash on that credit card, and claiming wow, I have $50 more income this month than I'm spending! I'll pay off $25 of the debt on my first card with this. Now I owe $300, but I had $50 surplus, and paid $25 off my debt. Basically borrowing a ton from peter, to pay a little back to Paul.
Like I said, nothing on that site was new to me. I've been over those topics a million times. Interestingly, a book just came out you may find interesting. Outrage by Dick Morris. I bet you are not ready for any hard hitting stuff about Clinton, but Morris was his campain advisor, so he's got some real liberal leanings, but he also has the insider perspective. I wager you'd like it.
Just like Norway. Norway is a classic example of bad ideas going wrong. You may think I don't know what I'm talking about, but I did a mid-term on National Health Care for college about 4 years ago. I specifically went over a number of countries, Norway being one of them. The data collected from Norway alone was 10 pages long, from observers inside and outside the country. The key thing I learned about a Socialist system is, it works very well to start with, and everyone loves it cause it's free. But the system always collaspse on itself.
The French are just farther on the curve than Norway. Everyone loved the French system and it worked so well, but like all Socialist systems, now it's health care workers are under paid and lack training, there's no support for the infrastructure and medical equipment. The highly skilled doctors and surgeons move to other countries where they get paid for their work. So yes, no doubt the people love that system in Norway. It's still working thus far. But it won't. Like you said yourself, history repeats itself. Norway is starting that slide the French have been on. The government said it will not revoke the funding cuts.
Think about this. You have waitted six months because of beurocratic crap. Most people do not because they have their own health care, and spend the money to go and get the surgery done. If we have universal health care, what your going through will be the default standard for our whole nation. So, I'll leave that to you.
Yeah I give up on Global warming 
I mean if you are not going to believe the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, (and you trust government information more than I do) then nothing else I look up and referance will convince you
We just disagree on "right to work" state thingy. I'm not sure what the difference is between that and how it's always been. In the two jobs I've had where I knew the owner or "manager in charge", they always say "we don't need you". That was the only reason given when someone was laid off. The reason was, according to him, giving any real reason could result in a law suit. So I don't blame him.
Having been in these situations, I learned why employers do not do those things. First, the quality of the average American citizen has dropped by leaps in the last 40 years. Employers uses to give notice before termination of employment. But now employees steal stuff, break equipment, do low quality work, act disruptingly, and vandalize company property. So now no warning will be given, and I don't blame them.
You only deserve severance pay if you agreed on that when you were hired. People get this strange idea that if you accept a job at $X.XX rate, that somehow means you deserve more if they choose to end your employment. No sorry. It was their job to give, and their job to take. You have no right to anything beyond what you agree to with your employer.
Beats me, I file with TurboTax. I always make a note of the percentage of my income in taxes, thus far it hasn't changed. I got about $10 more a check in 2001-2, which equals about $520 a year of money I keep. Sadly it doesn't cover my yearly fuel costs like it used to, but the price here dropped again to $2.86, so I'm hopeful (cough).
Alrighty, catch you later.
I'm speechless but my fingers still work.
by batman823 - 6/15/07 7:10 AM In reply to: Yes very different. by Andy77eFor once, I actually agree with most of your post.
Global warming. I don't trust the government websites concerning that because the current administration picks on of the very few study groups who claim to have collected data, very convincingly, that it's not occuring or others who claim that it's hundreds of years off. Ithink this because of the other political things going on. The war for example. If everybody dismissed the war because they all know we're going to die in 50 years, then things would ratically change. But some of the gov't websites cite a few data collectors who get data from each season consistantly and from the same areas. So I don't necessarily trust all government information. I have very little faith in this administration. So some subject related sites are up to debate on thier credibility in my opinion.
You asked me not to talk about gun control. But I'm gonna say a couple of things that might surprise you since you view me as a liberal. By the way, I like the term 'constitutionalist', I think it means the same thing as independant, except that you want to do what's right for the people and stay within the constitution. Our constitution is designed to allow the government to govern, but it's supposed to limit the gov't in it's power. The totalitarian rule that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid has been reinstated "in the name and best interests of the people."
Back to gun control. I think it's B.S. I agree with limiting people from having fully automatic assault rifles for "home protection" and such. But I think gun control only takes money and guns from law abiding citizens. We are supposed to be able to keep arms for hunting and, more specifically by the constitution, to form militia groups to overthrow the government if that's what it comes to. But I won't annoy you with more gun control theory.
I don't completely agree with the surplus issue. For a few of Clinton's years in office, he did pay off some of the national debt. But he, like all recent presidents, just raised the debt in the end. I understand and agree with what you're saying about the peter and paul stuff though.
Maybe you're right about Norway, but they've had the health care for quite some time. I'm not sure how long, but the people I talked to said for as long as they can remember. A big difference between them and other socialist healthcare systems is that they have to pay some money when they go for issues that are minor. That discourages people from going to the doctor every time they get a sniffle. Which is why I think that it'll withstand the issues you brought up. If not indefinitely, then for longer than most socialist countries.
Honestly, I know that Clinton wasn't the best president, but I think he did a great all-around job. He is in no way my personal hero, but I respect him and think very highly of him. I don't think he was a "reed in the wind" but at least he listened to his people, as well as his cabinet. So I will put that book "Outrage" on my list of things to read. And I do keep a written record of books I'm interested in. I will keep in mind that dick morris has been questioned on his credibility and he also was known to have become very bitter when he was fired by clinton for having a ***** listen in to phone conversations. I don't know why he did that. Why a prostitute? But maybe she was labeled a prostitute by the democrats to protect Clinton's interests. Also, I will keep in mind that he's just one man, therefore the book is just one man's opinion, and I'm sure he'll have plenty of sources cited for me to look up. I'll keep an open mind when I read it though. But it'll be at least a year for me to get to that book.
There are many others I'm interested in but right now I read no books but the Bible. I'm trying to read cover to cover it in the KJV and NIV to cross-reference them and have a better understanding of my faith. With my progress, I'll be done with the NIV in about 7 months. I'm stuck and I keep re-reading parts of Exodus and Genesis because there's a lot of information that is the basis of a lot of standard Christian beliefs in those two books.
As far as the surgery, I'm not waiting on government or insurance beurocracy to work itself out. I'm waiting for policy to work itself out. Tricare (Military medical insurance) has already approved it. I need a two level fusion, desparately. My L4-L5 and L5-S1 discs are completely crushed and have no nucleus left. So there's physical pressure on parts of my spinal cord as well as chemical irriatation. It's that I'm turning 23 this month. The policies that govern a serious surgery like that dictate my age group has to go through a rigorous process to recieve such a surgery. Some of the tests are excrutiating. But I disagree with the process. The MRI's prove that I need the surgery and my primary neurosurgeon's recommendation should be enough. But I have to live in hell until the process is done.
About the "right to work". I believe in an employer's right to fire just as much as you. But if it's in your contract that you have to give 2weeks notice, the employer should be required to extend the same courtesy. The other issue is of separation pay and pensions. A company shouldn't be able to fire somebody for no reason when they are 6mo away from retiring, just so the company doesn't have to dish out. That just adds to the amount of people who rely on welfare and social security, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Bush has cut funding for three of those. The employer should have to give a good reason to the employee such as misconduct or well documented downsizing in order to fire them. I've seen it happen and that's just wrong. I'm not talking about the 17yr old working at Burger King, but the honest people that are loyal to the company they work for.
I am completely against most affirmative action laws. I don't think that a person should get preferencial hiring because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But I don't think they should be able to be fired for those reasons as well. That's another example of why a good reason should be given, in writing, of why a person should be fired. Even if the reason is "we don't need you anymore." They should get notice so they have time to look for another job. That 'rebublican', mislabeled bill got passed in a lot of states simply because its name sounds like it would be beneficial to the little guy.
Now that this conversation has taken a different turn, I find it much more pleasant. I think we understand each other a little better and both of our assumptions about each other were wrong. Once again, I would like to continue this in the proper forum, but it looks like people have exhausted the issue so it really doesn't matter.
I said before I like to discuss religion more than politics. So if you have any questions or complaints about religion, not just Christianity, I would be tickled pink, so to say. I bring that up because there's not much more about politics that I'm allowed to say (you know, military, UCMJ, stuff like that), so we'll just end up running aroung in circles.
About the taxes. One thing bush has expanded on that Clinton didn't is retirement funds. I'm grateful for that. I recieve some of the tax credit for investing part of my paychech in mutual funds. I get a little more back for that reason. But the actual tax percentage has raised, just like Bush Sr. did. It varied between 10-12% for most of Clinton's term and it didn't take long for g.w. to raise it to 15%.
Two years ago, I got a bonus for re-enlisting. The up-front portion was $30,000. That's 40% more than my entire year's income. It put my in the next tax bracket by just over $2000. I ended up paying almost $10,000 in taxes after my refund. The 2006 calendar year, with my wife working, our combined income before deduction was only $24,000. I live in connecticut. For a 750sqft apt., It costs about $900/mo to rent, not including utilities. People with my pay and without the military's BAH and Tricare would be screwed. The gas prices here are starting to drop, but they are still more expensive than most people in that situation to afford and there is very little public transportation in the New London area. The minimum wage is $7.65/hr but work is very hard to find for the unskilled laborer, which is most of the population. This is definitely a screw the little guy state. I find that odd because it's a very blue state. I hate the hypocrites here. They are just right-wing yuppies hiding under a liberal title.
About the spelling and grammar thing. I was just making fun, don't sweat it. You are actually much better at that stuff than most of the morons that post on this site. I can at least read your posts without having to read sentences twice and still find your arguments intellectual. Intellectually challenging even. So take the compliment for what it's worth. We just have different views and opinions and we are both pretty stubborn.
If I don't make another post today, you won't hear from me until tuesday. Our division is getting rewarded for good conduct so I have monday off.
Till next time,
Chris Bateman
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
