Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's put the cards on the table here. You and people like you who espouse these kinds of 'socialist' tendencies/philosophies are basically scared. You're scared you won't make it on your own and you want the 'collective' there to be your safety net. That's just a sad way to live, and if you DO insist on living that way, there are plenty of other countries out there who have already adopted those philosophies and will welcome you with open arms. You will trade your autonomy for security.
I want to help my fellow man, but I want to help him be the biggest bad-ass he can be - not give him a teat to suckle on contentedly so that he never feels the big, bad danger of real adult life coming after him.
You are so wrong about me, and If you had read all my posts you would know that. I have always been a small business man, 40 years on my own, the good times and the bad, so, I DO think I have earned the right to collect my SS , that I paid in all those years.
If you hate the system, I can help , send me your SS check when you get to that age, I will do the right thing with it...turn it around and donate to a dreaded liberal Charity.
I have no problem with the social security system or medicare. Those people worked hard to put into the system and deserve to take out.
See the difference, though? They PUT IN the system first.
The point made its a form of Socialisum, which you seem to hate. Your post painted with a very broad brush..( offencive).your Conservative undies are showing...lets keep this about economizing the Nation, and , I will back off on the Liberal talking points.
Socialism has never worked....what makes you think it will work now?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Socialism worked so well in Sweden that it raised the economic status of all classes to a level at which socialism was no longer necessary and capitalism could safely be turned free to run loose. A century ago, Sweden's teeming capitalist shore sent us the most wretched of refuse, and look what socialism has achieved there.
Russians are no better off economically today than they were 50 years ago under socialism, and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are certainly worse off under capitalism.
To blame Socialism for North Korea's failure is no more valid than to blame Capitalism for Haiti's or Zimbabwe's failures. That would be a truer definition of insanity.
Russians are no better off economically today than they were 50 years ago under socialism, and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are certainly worse off under capitalism.
.
That's funny. My dad has worked in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan for the last 15 years and says the exact opposite. That finally the people have something. And problems that are there stem from the corrupt government. But what does he know? He's only been there 15 years, dealt with locals, the government, foreign ambassadors...please peddle your pucky elsewhere.
To say nothing of Eastern Europe's virtual renaissance since being freed from the Soviet grasp. Not to mention freed from pitiful state-designed/engineered/distributed darstar-mobiles like Skodas and Ladas and Trabants.
Socialism worked so well in Sweden that it raised the economic status of all classes to a level at which socialism was no longer necessary and capitalism could safely be turned free to run loose. A century ago, Sweden's teeming capitalist shore sent us the most wretched of refuse, and look what socialism has achieved there.
Russians are no better off economically today than they were 50 years ago under socialism, and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are certainly worse off under capitalism.
To blame Socialism for North Korea's failure is no more valid than to blame Capitalism for Haiti's or Zimbabwe's failures. That would be a truer definition of insanity.
So true...and then there is Canada. They held up quite well in the Housing/banking collapse compared to the US. And the bigger point is Canada mirrors so much the culture,the lifestyle, we are so used to here.lessons are to be learned from our neighbor to the North.
Looking at the limitations imposed by State speed limits, I still find it hard to justify motor vehicle engines exceeding 2,5/3.0 liters which would certainly bring down the consumption of gas and valuable resources which are being burned up daily.
it is called free market economics.
people want big engines.
Quote:
I do believe that a more practical approach should be sought by the Administration and auto manufacturers to support smaller engine use.
Those wishing to have larger cc's/horsepower and etc could either be subject to the following:
For those buying vehicles in excess of 3.0 liters-
a: For fun; - subject to a slight tax increase
b: For work/farm/business vehicles: having justification would not
require additional taxation
c: Collectors: Taxed in Collectors license
d: Government/service vehicles: Not taxed
How does one feel about a proposal or lobbying in the administration for a general reduction in the size of engines for the sedan/wagon/smaller sports car /SUV categories for a real change in fuel conservation measures for the future?
My reasons for suggesting this are that I see so many high cc engines that really have no justification (i.e. the high school kid with the "cool" 5,7 liter V8 that he drives 2 miles to school in and his main use is for weekend "fun" time) that could be amply performed by a very much cooler looking 1,8 liter engine......would be a lot faster in many cases if he is looking for that little extra....
I would appreciate any comments or opinions......
i don't like the idea. it seems like a silly european idea, where the politicians think they are smarter than not only the present markets, but the future ones too.
i think it is oppressive for the government to de-incentivize the 17 year old who wants his 5.8L V8. He should have every opportunity to pay for his fun, and there is certainly no reason to give the government or industry any loopholes; hell, they use the most gas anyway. As an American, I hate, hate, hate the arbitrariness of your idea's little classifications. Why 2.8? Why not 2.4, or 2.6, or 3.0, or 3.1, or 3.5, or 3.8?
it makes much more sense for me, if we (A) stopped giving the gas and oil industry so many subsidies and (B) doubled, perhaps tripled the national gas tax. We want less gas consumption, not smaller engines per se.
To say nothing of Eastern Europe's virtual renaissance since being freed from the Soviet grasp. Not to mention freed from pitiful state-designed/engineered/distributed darstar-mobiles like Skodas and Ladas and Trabants.
They tried building cars in Ireland also...did not work out so well ether. Brazil has a strong Automobile MFG. heratiage....and they are getting off oil, one car at a time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Socialism has never worked....what makes you think it will work now?
