Yeah, it has, and look who’s president now. You’d think that the common worker would realize that most of those republican tax breaks aren’t going to him, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe it’s just people’s natural inclination to wish that they were wealthier than they really are, but targeting tax breaks toward the lower and middle classes doesn’t really seem to be politically beneficial.
Oh, c’mon. I didn’t say “force manufacturers”, I said “IN EFFECT, force them…” It costs money to design more efficient vehicles; horsepower gains are more easily accomplished through large-displacement, gas-guzzling engines. It’s difficult to make an engine more efficient. So if we give them a way to get around doing so, they are naturally going to do it that way. Do you really think we would have ever gotten from the 15mpg, smog-belching engines of the 1950s, to the much more efficient, cleaner engines of today without regulations? Think about it - if you’re the head of an auto manufacturing company, are you going to deliberately do something that will cost you more money, and net you less profit? No, you are IN EFFECT, forced (by the principle of what makes good business sense) to do it. In effect, not literally. Make sense now?
Except I didn’t say that. You really need to stop being so literal all the time.
Or fix the loopholes.
One could, but I don’t. I don’t think our dependence on foreign oil is doing us any good.
Oh, I thought you meant that proposing tax increases on the wealthy “isn’t going to get Kerry any more votes” in the sense that nobody would vote for it. If you mean that Republicans seem to have more success selling tax cuts for anyone, I agree.
I understand. I was not trying to mischaracterize your post. It simply threw me is all. I don’t generally think of environmental rules as rules which force companies to harm the environment. So, I did not think of the fuel efficency standards. I understood entirely what you meant by “effectively force”.
Actually yes. The story of more efficient engines is more one of capitalism than regulation. The Japanese were able to sell more cars in the 70s partially because they were more fuel efficient. The trend for gasoline to be more and more expensive has driven, IMHO, the drive for more efficient cars. Notice, for instance, that even what we call gas guzzlers today are nothing compared to cars which were very common in the 60s. Notice, also, that Kerry is able to call hybrid cars “the vehicles [consumers] want”.
The smaller government issue: spending more federal dollars on education is not per se controlling it. It is funding it. A bit of a difference. Anyway, I’d only make the case that Kerry is for less Federal control compared to Bush. If Cardinal really want a small government candidate then neither major party offers it to him.
As opposed to the fiscal conservatism of spending much more than you take in and building up record deficits? I agree with erl. Investing in education is the only way this country will continue to prosper in the world economy. That is how to grow the economy in today’s world. Not by Bush’s profilgate spending borrowed from the future.
The war issue: No, there is no quick fix to undo what Bush has wrought. It will take decades, billions of dollars, thousands of lives. But I believe that he will limit the harm compared to Bush. Yes, Kerrry made a mistake: he believed the President wouldn’t lie or have such an incompentent administration that things that were assessed as probably true by others were presented as absolute truths that needed to be urgently acted upon. Of course many of us failed to catch on so quickly that this President was quite that bad … even those of us who never liked him. (Even I believed Bush and company when they claimed to have incontrovertable evidence of WMD; I just advocated for giving the UN time to do its thing, that while the inspectors were in place the threat was minimal and the cost of acting unilaterally was high, whereas waiting for the UN to come on board for miltary action had tremendous benefits.)
As to getting international involvement in Iraq, yes I believe that Kerry will succeed better than Bush. World leaders hate Bush and his unilateralism. They want to see it punished and to see that the US has learned a lesson. A new President who decries unilateralism and believes in the US as a leading member of a community of nations, not the imperial maaster that you must either follow or oppose, will be more likely to get some support.
Energy issues are being well discussed without my input.
I agree with your distinction, but I do not understand how it applies the way you say. When I read through Kerry’s tax stuff, I think he says that he wants to fully fund Bush’s no child left behind. That is, he wants to keep the control and add the funding. I easily could have missed something.
Okay. I agree. Can you show me where you read and learned that Kerry is for appeasement? Particularly where he has called for appeasement of anyone who has attacked us?
So we shouldn’t be attempting to secure real multinational support and participation? Would you oppose any politician seeking cooperation with the UN? Would you oppose it if it were actually happening right now?
I think that, smog not withstanding, 15MPG would be an improvement over some of the new SUVs. The 2003 Lincoln Navigator averages a mere 12.8MPG/12.2MPG, and that’s when it’s new. Expert Car Reviews | Consumer Guide Auto | consumerguide.com The regulations we have are not efficient enough if a vehicle can leave the show room getting less than 13 miles to the gallon. My car is 10 years old and gets twice that for mileage- of course it’s small, and not an SUV. I wonder which puts out more smog, though…
Clean engines are great, but not really reaching their potential application when they’re being weighed down by a couple thousand extra pounds so the owner can look cool, feel safe (but only if they don’t know most rollovers accidents involve SUVs) and occasionally move a couch. Business has no conscience, and neither do presidents, so I don’t see this being solved easily.
No, that’s not true at all. Congress first required fuel-efficiency standards in 1975, and the automakers fought them every step of the way. There was nothing voluntary about it.
Okay, I realize you used the smiley, which probably means you are joking, but let’s follow this through anyway, since it was the bulk of your post. Do you believe that Democrats are for appeasement? If so, where did you read or learn this? If it was entirely a joke, does that mean that you haven’t concluded that you cannot vote for Kerry?
I’m more interested in what “appeasement” is supposed to indicate, vanilla. Neither party has a track record of lying down to die as far as history is concerned, so I’m assuming you mean something else.
pervert, I’m not sure what this sentence means. However, if the public would only buy fuel efficient cars, there would, of course, be no need for regulations. You might be indirectly argue that the market must drive this matter; I’m not sure. However, if that is the case, if you had the choice of two cars that were exactly the same in all respects, save one got 20 miles per gallon and the other got 35, which would you choose? Likewise, say cars worked, for some reason, by a process that resulted in oil spewing out a pipe in the back, so that you had to fill up on oil on a weekly basis, and the oil waste ran off into streams and such. Wouldn’t you think it in the public interest to regulate for less oil wasting and environment polluting vehicles? My point is that sometimes we have to alter the choices available in the market by forceably altering aspects for the greater good.
Maybe I’m misreading this budget data from whitehouse.gov, but it looks to me like the social programs do not “dwarf the military budget.”
(Figures in billions)
2004 Enacted budget figures:
Homeland Security (non-Defense)…28
Department of Defense…375
Other Operations of Government…384
Then we add in the supplementals:
Homeland Security…6
Defense and other War on Terror…80
Non-Defense, Non-Homeland…5
Total budget is 874 billion dollars, of which 455 billion is Defense. I’m leaving out Homeland Security, but including “Other War on Terror.” That’s 52% of the budget devoted to something other than social programs.
Brainiac4: You may be missing the subtleties of Debaser’s post. He indicates:
If I may explain, here Debaser demands massive cuts in military spending, until it corresponds only to that needed strictly for the “defense of our country.” No foreign, offensive or invasive actions by US forces are budgeted for.
It’s a brave policy of fiscal rectitude in the finest conservative tradition. Remember that words mean something. ‘Defense’ means it. I for one, applaud this return to principle by a conservative voice.
To round up: Debaser is correct. The cost of social programs does currently dwarf the defense requirements of the United States. It is an error of reasoning to equate current military expenditure with that expediture necessary for defense of the US:
Deduct non-defensive expenditure as Debaser suggests, before comparing the costs of the two: Social Programs vs Defense Spending.
But he didn’t say social programs dwarf the defense budget, or that they would dwarf his preferred military budget, he said they “currently dwarf the military budget”. I think the logical leap you’re taking is unwarranted.
