New U.S. Vehicle Standards Address Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

YAY! Only 30 years too late.

Wait to you get the bill.

Lucky for me I live in the richest nation on earth.

The cost of high mileage is inconsequential in today's car market. The difference in price between a $20K Toyota and a $60K Lexus is not because the Lexus gets 3X the mpg.

And the fact that the $20K Toyota may now cost $21K is offset by the new smaller lighter simpler Toyota that will sell for $15K - since the easiest way to increase mileage is to lighten the load.

And I'll save an average of $357 a year driving 25K miles with an mpg of 35 vs 30 (at $3/gallon).

Yes, but what about the whole story?

Sure, you should break even on the extra cost added to the car in about 35,000 miles of driving with an average price of gas costing $3.50, but that is the government's estimate.

Since when has the government's estimates been right? Statistically, they have been, shall we say, a little too rosy?

What about the rest of the bill? Right now the Congress and the President are spending our way to oblivion.

Our national debt is $11.25 Trillon dollars. We paid an interest rate on that debt of $35 million dollars per hour in April. That number is expected to hit $57 million per hour by year's end when we cross a yearly interest cost of $500 billion. That's just the payment on the interest.

The whole thing is just a ticking time bomb.

And how does raising the CAFE standards increase the government debt?

I'm completely with you on this and I too applaud this development. But I'm afraid you're wasting your fingers on this argument.

There is a segment of the population who are irreversibly convinced that absolutely every single thing the government does is utterly wrong and somehow motivated by pure evil. And doubly so whenever any election or court decision doesn't go their way.

There are some interesting (or perhaps disturbing) subsets to that segment. But that's another conversation.

Actually, it all goes on our tab.

But think about this. It isn't simply a magic wand and we will be saving money because of somebody's decree.

All of this tics and ties together. I am skeptical of the estimated added costs, but I am sure that whatever those costs are they will be passed on to the buyer and very probably the tax payer (government incentives, etc.). After all, the government bailouts, which have been paid for out of ficticious money, but backed with future taxes, still come out of our pocket and the cost to invent and retool this manadate isn't coming from the Tooth Fairy. No, we do it the New Fashion way - we borrow it.

Then there will be the costs for mergers, buyouts, and in some cases the smaller companies will be eradicated because they can not meet the CAFE standards. Those standards apply foreign and domestic cars.

Specialty cars like Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari will be forced to comply or simply not sell in the USA. In some cases mergers and buyouts can help, such as the proposed merger with VW and Porsche, which VW just turned their nose up to.

And this begs the question, what is it that the consumers want? Obviously, the government hasn't a clue or is being totally obstinate about what people want.

According to Obama's speech, citizens of the US want more fuel efficient cars. Unfortunately, that logic escapes me because 51% of all automotive sales have been for SUVs and trucks; the very vehicle Obama abhors.

While I personally abhor SUVs and trucks, too, that is about the only thing that Obama and I can agree upon. What burns my britches more is the fact that the government wants to tell me, a private citizen, what I should drive (among other things).

So, excuse the pun, but it's not a free ride after all. Of late, not only does the "government" want 60% of my gross income in a rainbow of different taxes and fees, but they want to control what I buy with the remaining 40% I have left.

People want big cars when gas prices are low. People want high mpg when gas prices are high. If Detroit had adopted higher standards 3 decades ago (during the first fuel crisis) they wouldn't have been bankrupted last year when gas prices spiked.

Gas prices will spike again this summer. That will be the death blow to Detroit.

CAFE standards don't keep anyone out of the US market. If you can't meet the standard (which is a fleet average, not a requirement on any particular vehicle) then you get hit with a gas guzzler tax. So yeah, Rools Royces, Lamborghinis and Ferraris, and my beloved Bugatti, will cost a few thousand more.

"What the consumer wants" is not the point. I'm a consumer, and what I want is to be able to burn trash in a barrel in my back yard, and pour my used motor oil along the fence line to kill the grass. I'm not allowed to do that because the air and ground water belong to everyone, and it's the job of the government to make reasonable restrictions on what individuals do in order to protect the common good.

IMHO, 35.5 mpg is an extremely reasonable requirement, given the technology available.

"If Detroit had adopted higher standards 3 decades ago (during the first fuel crisis) they wouldn't have been bankrupted last year when gas prices spiked."

Okay, so substantiate that claim with a proof.

Gas prices are very likely to spike this summer due to current international political issues running their course. I don't know if that will doom Detroit or not, but the government is likely to prevent that with even more bailouts and corporate heads rolling, so I think not.

What's to prove? Companies that built efficient cars did well last summer, while Hummer is now defunct.

You cited an argument and I asked you to back it up.

Now you cite as "proof" that Hummer going defunct proves that Detroit should have had higher CAFE standards applied to them 30 years ago.

The problem with that argument is that Hummer does not reflect the mainstream sales by any stretch of the imagination. It's a fringe or specialty market and has no correlation to your claim. It is a fallacy of composition, do you agree?

Actually, Toyota and Nissan build very efficient cars and did very badly last summer. Stick to facts, please.

Yes they lost money, but they aren't bankrupt, are they? Toyota is the biggest car maker in the world now. What good is it if we give you facts if you can't recognize them?

You need to consider using a COMPLETE set of facts. Toyota is heavily supported by the Japanese government, and gets assistance when necessary to stay successful. Japan's government has a great deal of control over the banking industry and can make sure Toyota gets capital when necessary.

I am concerned by the tone of your last comment. In a proper open forum one should debate the issues at hand and not attack ones opponent. It makes you look bad, like those people at DailyKos and Huffington Post who are so blinded by ideology that anyone who disagrees is an ignorant heretic.

Aren't you attacking me when you say things like "It makes you look bad, like those people at DailyKos and Huffington Post who are so blinded by ideology that anyone who disagrees is an ignorant heretic."?

That's how you operate. You feign offense so you can say nasty things because your argument is ridiculous.

I stayed with the technical subject until you decided to personally attack me first - I merely stated that there was more to the story that would help us in the search for the truth. I do reserve the right to defend my integrity and that of the scientific process. I am a Ph.D. scientist and feel a need to defend the proper exchange of ideas.

You already told me what you stood for when you totally and unfairly slammed one party while giving the other a complete pass, and by saying my ideas are ridiculous because they did not match yours. It is a valid rhetorical technique to use info the other debaters bring to the table. I think that when you point the fingers at others you are really pointing them at yourself. You were the one who was offending other people with denigrating comments, and then when someone answered back became the "innocent victim of a nasty attack."

Look, I don't have any tissues over here so I don't think I can help you.

There you go again - you just can't control your venom. I'm swimming to the adult end of the pool.

A question:

GM makes the Hummer, so who will make the Hummers for the US Government when GM implodes? The Hummer was a military vehicle initially. BTW, does the military have to abide by the same emission standards as the rest of us?

My understanding is that several companies are looking at the purchase. GM needs the cash.

"the fact that the government wants to tell me, a private citizen, what I should drive (among other things)."

Welcome to socialism!

Our government wants us driving around in tiny euro-shit boxes. All the more of our money they can take. And you can be sure politicians and the rich will still have their stretch limos.

Mark my words, at some point this administration will mandate that we replace our thermostats with units that don't go over 62F.

Mark my words, at some point this administration will mandate that we replace our thermostats with units that don't go over 62F.

Sweet! It's sweltering down here in the summer.

Er, down there they wont go below 85F.

You Wrote:"Welcome to socialism!"

By that logic we shouldn't have an FDA, an EPA, speed limits, etc. Anything that imposes any sort of restrictions or limits is Socialism? I thought it was just called laws.

You can still buy an SUV if you want, it will just cost a few thousand more because it will be a hybrid. As companies try to lower costs, better batteries will be created leading to cheaper hybrids.

All this Socialism name calling seems rediculous. The US isn't seizing Honda plants or BMW plants in the US and running them, they are just applying standards.

Roger,

Actually, the original poster was probably closer to reality about the definition for socialism.

• a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
• an economic system based on state ownership of capital
  

The FDA, EPA, speed limits, or even social laws would not fall under that definition. I think that the key is who is in charge of the countries economics.

It seems clear to me that Obama has made some significant inroads in that direction.

1. He has put his foot into the door of the banking institutions
2. The current administration has stated that they wish to expand that to investment institutions and other private financial institutions
3. The administration and Treasury Secretary Geither have stated that they want to reign in Wall Street so that it has less of an effect on the total economy.
4. The administration has also stated publicly that they are looking for ways to prevent the next economic boom. I don't know if that was simply a misspoken phrase, but the implication was that they wanted to prevent another bubble breaking and to do that they would curb growth rates.
5. Obama has essentially taken partial control of two of the Big Three automakers. Obama has essentially forced Wheeler out of the company. The same was done from financial institutions.
6. Obama stated that he wanted to cap senior level salaries, which places the government in control of private enterprise payrolls.

I could go on and on and none of this is conjecture, but verifiable facts. I think there is room for debate whether this means Obama's goal is to socialize the USA. Personally, I think everything he is doing is what he believes in his heart is the right thinng for America. However, his method of implementing those changes clearly embraces some socialistic attributes.

AH,

Here's my response:

1. Actually the majority of the money the banks recieved was from the Bush administation. As for Obama stepping in about bonuses, that was genius. Now the banks are fighting to pay the money back and they'll be able to in a month or two.

2. Yes, ones with a systemic risk. Its a temporary measure, a stop gap. Like using torture to protect the american way.

3. Actually all they want to do is regulate derivatives. After the last depression laws were put in place to prevent another depression by limiting the amount of leverage a bank can have. Banks got around this by combining with brokerage houses, creating derivatives, and selling the derivatives to themselves as assets. The could do this because the derivatives were unregulated. Obama wants to close this loophole. He feels the 40 to 1 leverage that led to the insolvency of all these banks who stopped lending suddenly causing the economy to crash is unwise.

4. Are you serious. You actually believe that a politician uttered the phrase "I want to prevent the next economic boom?" He said bubble. Next economic bubble. I mean that one wasn't even plausible.

5. Yes he did, and he broke the union by forcing bankruptcy. You see, now that GM is bankrupt, the new company that comes out of bankruptcy does have to honor the old union obligations. Obama understood that the current company couldn't continue with the existing cost structure.

6. This I can't speak about because I'm unfamiliar with it. If it is true I would be opposed to it.

I'm still unsure what you mean by Socialist. Socialist governments don't temporarily seize businesses, the perminently seize them. As far as I know, other than Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the government has no intention of keeping the businesses they are currently involved with. Regulation is not socialism, I think you are confusing the two. Excessive regulation is facism, if you're looking for a phrase thats the one you should be shouting.

You are right about the initial TARP funds. That is directly related to the CRA.

#4 is true. I heard the audio myself. I really think that they believe that slowing down economic growth (perhaps in certain sectors) is a way to prevent a bust.

Again, I did not catch the whole audio from start to finish, so there may be more to this.

Back to banking. Actually, the banking mess goes back way before 2000. It started around 1977 with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), which was pumped up in the 1990s and just a few years before the whole industry blew up, I remember Pelosey and others testifying in Congress that there was no chance that this was going to happen, none!

Stunning statements when in just a few years, the very thing they said could not possibly happen, happened and sent this economy into a free fall.

What Obama is trying to do is fix it, however, I am skeptical about a party that caused the problem going in and trying to fix the problem and totally ignoring (acknowledging) the root causes. In fact, the current Democratic Party has publicly stated that it is their intent to expand the CRA. I don't know if that "threat" will fly. I hope not.

My point is that politics seems to override the execution of sound judgement with respect to economics. The last administration's handling (and let's not forget Congress) of the budget was abysmal.

This administration's handling simply defies logic with drunken spending plans and makes the previous spending look like child's play. I'll skip the details.

Our national debt is $11.5 Trillion dollars. Just the interest this year is expected to be $500 Billion alone. That's $57 million dollars per hour!

And we are told more spending on the way...

Anyway, if you would like some humor out of this, check this site out.

A couple of thoughts in response.

I agree about the current deficit, but that was created, for the most part, by the Republicans with trickle down economics. To suddenly cry foul after 30 years of deficit spending seems.......disingenuous. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about you guys suddenly finding religion. Do we need to fix the deficit? Absolutely. Do you do it when the economy is in freefall? No, of course not, it doesn't make sense. If you start cutting programs now you can bank on a depression.

And my other thought on the banks.

This assertion that somehow social programs geared toward providing housing for the poor caused this current crisis is a joke.

What caused this meltdown was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Act, which was passed in 1999 and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The bill repealed some of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, most importantly it allowed commercial banks and investment banks to function as one entity. It was this that caused the financial meltdown because it created a loophole for banks to get around the federal limitations on how much they could leverage themselves (which while reducing risk also reduced their corporate earnings).

I don't think that the going back and forth to assign blame for the current economic downturn is really helpful - the two parties pretty much worked together to spend excessively, grant favors to those that contribute to their campaign coffers, and give loans to people who cannot meet traditional loan standards in the name of diversity.

Roger Pink, I would note that Congress is the entity that creates the budget, not the president (all he has is veto power), and that it has been almost always under Democratic control since WWII, and for the last two years. One should not throw stones if one lives in a glass house...

Give me a break, that is borderline delusional. The president could have vetoed any of those budgets. You're right about the back and forth, I mean your standing on broken glass and still haven't figured out you were living in a glass house. We'll just keep winning election after election until your party figures out that protecting the rich, revoking civil rights, spending like drunken sailors, protecting big oil, starting preemptive wars, and denying science is not the American way.

What you have not noticed is that BOTH parties are protecting the rich, revoking civil rights, spending like drunken sailors, protecting big oil, starting preemptive wars, and denying science is not the American way.

Democrats protect the rich if they are democrats, Hollywood, in an academia.

Democrats want to eliminate the civil right free speech of traditional Americans on things like religion and sexuality by labeling it hate speech

Democrats under Bill Clinton had military exercises in Saudi Arabia every year to protect access to oil

Democrats started illegal wars in Kosdovo (the UN said no but they bombed civilians for 30 days anyway)

Democrats deny science by pushing global warming despite the majority of legitimate scientists saying the theory is not sound - they simply demonize and belittle those who disagree.

As I said before, both parties are part of the problem - it is intellectually bankrupt to use only the facts that support one side and ignore the facts that support the other side.

"Do you do it when the economy is in freefall? No, of course not, it doesn't make sense."

So, you can't be saying that it makes sense to spend money we don't have?

It may be one thing to actually pour money into the economy as a mechanism to jump start an economy, but virtually nothing in the "Stimulus" bill was stimulus related, nor to be spent this year.

Of course, what's 1 trillion dollars when the Fed can not or will not account for a missing 9 trillion dollars.

You Wrote: "It may be one thing to actually pour money into the economy as a mechanism to jump start an economy, but virtually nothing in the "Stimulus" bill was stimulus related, nor to be spent this year."

That is completely and utterly wrong. You can't drive 2 miles without seeing a construction crew on the highway. Scientists are killing themselves writing grants. If I bought a house this year I get an $8000 dollar tax break. I could stop withholding taxes for the rest of this year. A huge part of the stimulus was a tax break, that is already in our hands (through reduced tax witholding). I don't know what you're talking about. I think you're confusing the stimulus and tarp.

And half of that 9 trillion dollars in debt was built during the Bush administration. The horrible increase in debt you are so appalled at is a 100% increase in the national debt in 8 years. Exactly the same percent increase as Bush had in his two terms.

Go ahead and check my figures:

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Stop. I am not disputing figures. However, you are going over the top trying to point fingers at a party, but both parties are a party to the spending!!! Of late it hjas been the Democrats proving that they can outspend the Republicans.

Who cares? It is all a waste of our money.

The last bill signed by Obama for $900 billion is the one I am refering to (the one that came from Bob Evan's Farm).

No, I'm sorry but I won't won't let you say "hey, both parties suck", when one party has held the presidency 2/3's of the time the last 30 years, which was when this deficit was created. This revisionist history where you say that it's congress that's responsible just isn't true. Those republican presidents could have vetoed any of these budgets. The whole idea of trickle down economics is you cut taxes, deficit spend and the economy grows into the debt. Now it's the other parties fault?

What is the metric we use to measure the capabilities of a party? Is it all just sophistry now? Can you really con yourself into believing that the Democrats are responsible for this debt?

The current deficit was not created, for the most part, by republicans. It was created by Congress (which for the past two years has been controlled by the democrats) with some responsibility lying on the president's shoulders. Congress appropriates money. The president can only veto it if he so chooses. By not choosing to veto he is accepting what is presented to him (or if support in Congress is high enough, what the president believes is mute as Congress can over ride his veto). And since the president doesn't have line-item veto power, it becomes a compromise. He has to accept things he doesn't want in order to get things he does want.

No law is passed unless the President signs it or the congress gets a 2/3 majority and overrule the President's veto. No matter how you want to spin it, it was Republican Presidents signing those budgets.

The simple truth is that the Republicans bought votes by cutting taxes. They sold the public a lie that you can cut taxes now and cut spending later, but they never cut spending (And don't forget at the beginning of this decade they had the house, senate and presidency). They aren't the moral champions of fiscal responsibility, they are politicians that bought votes and built a deficit doing it.

Roger,

I was not implying that the president (Bush or otherwise) did not have some hand it things. And I think I actually made an effort to point out just the opposite. But to lay the deficit solely at the president's feet is disengenuous. As I mentioned things are not so simple due to compromises. I am not saying that Bush shouldn't have vetoed the spending bills. And I agree with you that the Republicans were not fiscally disciplined during their dominance in Congress while holding the presidency.

You complain about how irresponsible they are. But in a few months time, look at what has happened under the current administration. If you are going to blame Bush and the GOP, what about Obama's budget and project deficits?

Do you want to give Clinton the credit for the deficits (or lack of) during the late 90s? Because he signed the appropriation bills? But not the Republican Congress who created them? Seems like a one sided way of looking at things.

You Wrote "Seems like a one sided way of looking at things."

Yes, and yet you're so even handed.

Roger,

Please re-read my post. You are laying all the blame on the Republicans and while I would like to be able to lay it all on the Democrats, I did not and held Republicans partially responsible. Which is more even handed?

John

That is some ridiculous logic. Essentially your saying that blaming both parties equally is more "even handed". That's only true if each party is equally responsible. However if one party is mostly responsible, and you say each party is partially responsible, then that's a biased opinion, not even handed.

Seriously, we aren't going to agree on this, ever.

While my logic may not be completely sound (personally biased), it seems more sound than you blaming it entirely on a single party. I do not believe the both parties to be equally responsible and the party I believe mostly responsible is different you. However, I am at least willing to admit both parties are responsible in many ways. And the problem stems not just from current (obama) administration and his predecessor's administration, but goes back a long way (pre-Reagan). Which is why I believe is fair to say the problem is equally shared.

At least we do agree, we will not agree on this matter.

OK, so let's accept for the moment Anonymous Hero's figure that 51% of automobile buyers want SUVs. Dandy.

But I'll bet 99% of that 51% would prefer to have an equivalent SUV that gets 40 mpg rather than 16 mpg (I'm assuming 1% are idiots). Especially if they stand a fair chance of recouping an additional purchase cost over the life of the vehicle.

And Bricktop welcomes us to "Socialism" with this development, presumably owing to the Obama administration dictating what vehicles we can drive.

This comes as a disappointment, since I had been planning to pick up one of those nuclear-powered two-lane-wide metal-treaded assault vehicles you see all the time on the roads. I was even going to spring for the "Deluxe Package" with heated seats and poison-tipped protrusions sticking out at all angles to deter thieves and bike riders who hog the streets.

Sorry. That's just my (barely) sarcastic way of saying that there have always been restrictions on what we can drive. Simply requiring a fairly modest increase in fleet fuel efficiency and emissions doesn't somehow herald the 2nd coming of Stalin.

It's not my figure. It comes from national sales figures for 2008, which you can look up yourself. You can also look up buying trends during the gas spike and the news is sobering.

It remains to be seen what the actual cost that will be passed onto the consumer to get a fleet average of 35.5 mpg.

However, the quote was $1300 per vehicle, which if you bump the fleet average from 26.5, where it is today to 35.5 mpg, you could realize that savings in a little over 2 years if you are paying $3.50 per gallon of gas and driving 15,000 miles annually. At $2.00 per gallon, where it is today, that savings drops to $342 per year and the payback comes in 3.8 years.

The only guide I know of to use as a yardstick for how this would be received, if the public had the choice, is hybrids. Most hybrid cars see an effective payback in about 4 to 5 years with average driving. Hybrid sales have been pretty slow, even during last Fall's gas spike. Again, that data is available on the internet.

I would agree with you if you had two identical cars sitting on the lot, side by side, at the same price, but one gets 10 mpg better fuel consumption, only a fool would drive the gas guzzler off the lot.

However, all things are not equal and it remains to be seen how the cost difference would be received, if they had a choice. If hybrid sales were any indicator, the trend would probably be toward lower sticker cost. I think as a general rule people buy as much car as they can afford (and maybe more) and opt to buy more creature comforts and options because purchasing a car is more of an emotional decision than a fact-based one. That is, if they can overrule their wives.

You may personally feel different, but remember we are engineers and it's in our blood to analyze everything. Nevertheless, the cars I have traditionally bought serve more of an emotional need to me than pure economy.

Even if same model, similar performance, same price were next to each other on the show room floor and the hybrid gets 10-20 mpg fuel efficiency, it may still not be a better choice. One needs to look at life cycle cost. How long before the owner needs to replace the battery? What is that cost to replace them? Can the owner do it themselves? What damage is done to the environment due to the batteries when a majority of vehicles owned are hybrids?

Yes, clearly Obama is in bed with big oil because he is creating MPG requirements for cars.

How does that make sense?

Roger - you obviously get your info someplace besides Rush Limbaugh or you would be aware of all these "facts". Don't ask questions, just drink the koolaid and feel the rush.

mmm - mind numbing goodness!

I figured the last paragraph would pull out some of the die hard DemocratsIt was just a sideline comment on how nobody is talking about the gas prices going up in a financially stressed time (and a jab at Obama and the Commie News Network).

I'm for new MPG standards, but they should be standards not set by the government. We as consumers should be setting the standards by not buying gas guzzlers we don't need. But then again, if somebody makes enough money to drive a gas guzzler, obeys the traffic laws and pays their taxes, why should they not have the freedom to buy/drive what they want without being penalized?

Oh well, I guess I'm a dying breed...spend into oblivion, and tax me to death, gotta go somehow may as well be like that.

One problem here is that our minds are caught in a trap, i.e. are you for or against CAFE standards rising. That implies that there are only two choices possible to save fuel. Other ways could include just giving everyone the same percentage of fuel, that they could use, save, or sell. Another choice would be to have a lowest permissible gas mileage, with no car being allowed to be lower.

These approaches would be more egalitarian, as no one would be able to own a gas guzzler or use more than a certain amount of gas, no matter how rich or powerful they are. Politicians and their "friends" would exclude themselves, of course, just like in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, etc. as they have "important" things to do, unlike us common people.

CAFE regulations allow some people to drive very comfortable, safe, stylish, and inefficient cars as long as enough other people are forced into tiny econoboxes. Since most of the vocal advocates of fuel efficiency also are into class warfare, the CAFE approach seems inconsistent with their thinking.

If the goal of the exercise is really to save fuel, restrictions will also have to be made for flying places, as this is far less efficient than even the largest SUV - the Presidents armored limousine. Fuel used to drive half empty trains will also need to be considered. The energy used to construct fuel efficient devices will also need to be measured - it often is more than the savings of the device itself.

The point is that CAFE standards is just a small part of saving energy, and probably a poorly thought out one that only makes sense because we grew up with it, making it seem normal.

"What I don't get is why did CNN always talk about GWB being in bed with big oil, but gas has went up almost a dollar a gallon since the "Great One" has gotten in office and you don't hear a peep about it!"

Well - and mind you I'm only speculating wildly here - but it just maybe could have something to do with the fact that young GWB had actually been involved in the oil business (Arbusto, Spectrum 7, Harken) and while doing so there were some rather convenient financial favors floated his way. And he continutes to have a great many domestic and international friends & associates in the oil / energy fields. So it should come as no surprise there was a little whiff of something unpleasant floating in the air when oil prices rose.

And on a related note there's Dick Cheney being the former Chairman and CEO of oil/gas tech company Halliburton up until the 2000 campaign. His deferred stock options and other compensations reek strongly.

With Obama however...any unpleasant smells probably aren't from oil.

But then, of course you knew all that.

Let's all applaud the sacrifices our politicians have made through their continuous expansion of the govt control and regulations over every aspect of our lives (please note the sarcasm).

Fine by me, I won't spend a penny on new cars, I will just continue to rebuild the ones I have. Until the law is passed that I am required to buy a new car every 3 years to do my part to help "the economy".

If you want to see a great interview watch this almost 30 year old interview of Milton Friedman by Phil Donahue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE1nJJBoxvk&feature=related

Could be worse, you could be wiretapped without a warrant and then arrested for being a terrorist, held without trial indefinitely and tortured. Oh, but that would never happen, right? The government can't get regulation right, yet it has perfect judgement when it comes to national security? In that case we shouldn't worry about rights or due process, we should just trust the government to do the right thing?

Everytime you guys talk about how "cynical" you are and crack jokes about how "incompentant the government is", I just remind myself that you're the party that decided to "trust" the government implictly and wave your personal rights in the name of a neverending nebulous war on terror. What a joke.

I am interested to know what section of my comment gave you the impression that I am for any of those things you ranted about, like suspending due process and torture? I am neither Democrat or Republican, I am simply an American.

For your information I am not for any of those things. The GW Bush administration did exactly what Clinton Administration did, as well as the Daddy Bush Administration did prior to that. They have worked to substantially increase the powers of the govt over the population. Whether it is through becoming a nanny state, propping up failing companies, enacting unconstitutional legislation or imprisoning persons without due process/trial but technically keeping them off American soil. The bottom line is because of the desire for over reaching powers, self interests, increased regulations and a misinformed disinterested populace the United States has been going downhill for the last 100 years.

Just because I occasionally laugh about how incompetent our govt is does not mean I find it funny at all, I am simply doing that as an alternative to crying or screaming. The fact is that no matter how hard the govt tries and/or how good their intentions are they will still be incompetent, that is why the govt was given so little to deal with when our nation was founded compared with what they claim they are doing today. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the power of our govt to impose mpg standards, therefore they shouldn't be doing it, plain and simple.

Myself, I do not choose which forms of oppression I am for or against, I am against them all, whether it be torture, or regulations inhibiting the true free market system. I hope you are an open minded person and will listen to the Milton Friedman interview, especially how he explains his thought process and philosophy.

No, Roger. I am a registered independent.

Both parties are full of creeps and supported by their share of creeps (and in the case of ACORN, nuts).

I really don't care what party affiliation anyone may be. I am more concerned with their principles. If they have any.

I'm a registered independent too, always have been. It's how you vote that determines what party your with, not who you're registered to.

The idea that you have to be with a party is what makes your points so myopic.

You would be much better off if you stopped supporting a political party and started demanding your representatives follow the Constitution. The answers to how to make our nation gain back the freedoms it has lost and regain the prosperity that make this nation great are right there.

They are following the constitution.......oh, you mean your interpretation of the constitution......you mean I should believe as you do. I see. Reasonable.

The idea of varying interpretations of the Constitution is invalid. It was concise and written in plain English for that very reason. We can't say the same for things like the PATRIOT ACT or the TARP bills. Wordsmiths like Clinton, Pelosi, and Cheney can question what the interpreted definition of "is" is all day long and foolish people can do the same about the Constitution.

Have you ever read the constitution?

Here's the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would argue that by setting standards on MPG on vehicles that the president was promoting the general welfare of the U.S.

Or how about this section from Article II Section 2 on Presidential Powers:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient

Which is exactly what Obama did in order to get the stimulus passed.

Perhaps your interested in the Twelfth Amendment which reads as follows:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So when congress decides to tax something and you complain, you shouldn't because they have the right in the constitution.

So you see, its your confused interpretation of what you think the Constitution is that's leading to your unfounded and misplaced righteous anger.

Read it?, I carry the pocket edition with me at all times.

If the Preamble was the entirety of the Constitution, maybe you would have half a leg to stand on.

I don't know what your twisted definition of the word "promote" is; but in the real world "promote" means to encourage, what it does not mean is to impose standards punishable by law and/or force. If the framers of the Constitution meant that they would have used a different word, for instance "regulate". That means the President could say in a speech that he wants the automotive manufacturers to design more fuel efficient cars but can't force them to.

The amendment you cited is not the 12th amendment, it is the 16th amendment. Which does not state in the amendment or anywhere else that the power granted to Congress "To Coin Money" (not print or create on a computer screen) is to be transferred to the Federal Reserve.

(I will admit I am speculating here) People like you probably also believe that the form of govt outlined by the Constitution is a Democracy, when in truth it is to be a Constitutional Republic.

I could go on like this for quite a while but have had my fill of playing with ignorant people for the week.

You Wrote:"I don't know what your twisted definition of the word "promote" is; but in the real world "promote" means to encourage, what it does not mean is to impose standards punishable by law and/or force."

The Websters dictionary definition is " to contribute to the growth or prosperity of b: to help bring (as an enterprise) into being"

The preamble of the constitution states "to promote the general welfare", so substituting in the Websters dictionary definition it reads "to contribute to the growth of the general welfare" which I believe is exactly what laws such as those generated by the FDA and EPA do.

You Wrote: "(I will admit I am speculating here) People like you probably also believe that the form of govt outlined by the Constitution is a Democracy, when in truth it is to be a Constitutional Republic."

http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/elcerrito/history/jeff&ham.htm

What I love about people like you is that you read a book or two and think you know what your talking about. If you actually knew your history and didn't just pontificate and regurgitate the few facts you've picked up over the years you'd know that there was an epic battle fought between the Federalists and the Republicans during the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, the Republican, along with James Madison and others fought to have a weak government accountable to the people while Alexander Hamilton believed "the people" were inherently stupid (I can understand his sentiment) and easily lead astray and so should vote and shut up. This well exemplified during the John Adams Presidency when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. The idea being that once people have elected a government, they don't have the right to criticize it.

The point is that even immediately after the constitution was passed wildly varying interpretations existed. The founding fathers you so ignorantly site were literally at each other's throats. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton hated each other. Adams didn't speak to Jefferson for decades. Madison ripped apart Hamilton in the press. etc.

The problem with you is you carry around a constitution and don't learn the history, so you have no context. Then when I disagree with you you assume I don't know what I'm talking about. But I do know. I know the Republicans reason for wanting an Republic in the first place was because of fears that the population dense north would dictate to policies to the sparsely populated south. The Republicans for those who don't know back then were not the GOP but actually what would become the Democratic Party.

"The idea being that once people have elected a government, they don't have the right to criticize it. "

I believe there are few things wrong with that statement. One is that we do have the right....it's guaranteed in the constitution. A second is that when "the people" vote in a government it's not unanimous. I did not vote in the current government. I abide by their laws. I do not have to like them and I can do everything in my power to get them thrown out.

Perhaps those who don't have the justification to criticize the government are the ones who actually cast a vote for those in office.

But even those who voted for them can not like what they got. Most all politicians promise more than they can deliver so they can get elected. Many even do just the opposite of what they promised when it's convenient. Obama promised transparency in his administration and to post legislation on the internet for 5 days to give the people a chance to see it before he signed it. He pushed Congresss hard for the stimulus plan...claiming that to wait or debate and review it would have dire consequences for our economy. Congress got him the legislation and he did not post it, but he didn't sign it immediately either....he waited for days. If Congress had those days to even look at it they very likely would have trimmed it down (I may be giving this Congress too much credit). I suspect there are many who voted for this administration that have buyer's remorse. And the same goes for Bush or any elected official.

Just read the link on Federalists and Democratic-Republicans I put in my last post.

I'm getting out of this thread. I don't want to talk politics on CR4, I wan't to talk science and I've gone astray.

Political science.

Regardless of how much our founding fathers were at each other throats they would not have wanted laws & regulations such as these because they lead to a government that rules by force and dictates to the people as opposed to serving the people. Bottom line is the policies that are being imposed are leading this country towards tyranny and any interpretation of the Constitution that says it allows for totalitarianism is incorrect.

I concur. The process is similar to that used in Bible Studies, legal analyses, and such: if you make a deduction based on one or two sentences and said deduction is inconsistent with the overall theme of the document, then you are probably making an incorrect deduction.

The same is true for scientific studies, bringing us full circle back to the technical question.

You Wrote:"Regardless of how much our founding fathers were at each other throats they would not have wanted laws & regulations such as these because they lead to a government that rules by force and dictates to the people as opposed to serving the people."

The only problem with the statement above is that it is completely wrong. Take John Adams, a founding father by any definition and second president of the US. John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act of 1798 (I strongly recommend you read it, especially Section 2). Since I know you won't, here is the synopsis:

"made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials."

The beauty of this act is it was upon the accused to prove their innocence, not the other way around. Here's what happened after the act passed:

Twenty-five people, primarily prominent newspaper editors such as Benjamin Franklin's grandson Benjamin Franklin Bache but also Congressman Mathew Lyon, were arrested. Of them, eleven were tried, Bache died awaiting trial, and ten were convicted of sedition, often in trials before openly partisan Federalist judges. Federalists at all levels, however, were turned out of power, and, over the following years, Congress repeatedly apologized for, or voted recompense to victims of, the enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson, who won the 1800 election, pardoned all of those that were convicted for crimes under the Alien Enemies Act and the Sedition Act.

So you see, your romanticized view of the founding fathers has nothing to do with reality. Here's some choice quotes from Alexander Hamilton:

"Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things."

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

and one I think is particularly apropos for this conversation:

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."

As to your other statement:

You Wrote:"Bottom line is the policies that are being imposed are leading this country towards tyranny and any interpretation of the Constitution that says it allows for totalitarianism is incorrect."

You never had it so good. Totalitarianism? Do you even know what that is? Here is the wikipedia article on Totalitarianism, give it a read. Your hyperbole is beyond insulting, it's just plain foolish.

Now if you said something like "I may be being Jeffersonian here but I believe that limiting a federal government's power results in an increase in the freedom it's citizens enjoy, ultimately leading to a healthier nation as people are most productive when unencumbered", I'd actually have to debate you as that would be an intelligent argument. Luckily for me I don't have to worry about that happening.

In the end, you are simply the easily manipulated rabble of a radio personality. You have no knowledge of history and your political theory is limited to regurgitating nonsense catch phrases.

You Wrote: "I'm getting out of this thread. I don't want to talk politics on CR4, I wan't to talk science and I've gone astray."

I suggest you check out this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to bore you with facts and history.

Sure thing Bill O'Reilly, if you really want to learn some history I suggest you check out that link, the youtube clip is very informative.

I remember when that was funny 2 years ago.

I am just trying to lighten things up a little.

It is funny today just as it was 2 years ago, just like the Chuck Norris jokes.

hopefully in your later years you mellow out, you are going to give yourself a heart attack if you don't.

Seriously though, I would suggest you look back at your rationale and re-evaluate it. Following the letter of the law while blatantly disregarding its intent can become a slippery slope.

Who said anything about disregarding its intent? This all started because I pointed out that there are different interpretations to the intent of the constitution. The problem here is that some are mistaking their opinion as the only way to interpret the constitution. Such inflexibility will only result in hostility. I'm not saying there aren't merits to your arguments, there are very strong merits to your objections, the problem is how those objections are presented. Rather than offer philosophical objections to the policies you utter catch phrases and hyperbole. It's all very theatrical and meaningless.

You know who I liked? George H.W. Bush. I disagreed with him politically, but when people on the left made fun of him, or called him stupid, I was turned off (I was an independent at the time). The reason was because he was obviously an intelligent, moral man. Sure, he was out of touch, which is why he lost in 1992, but I respected him. That's the Republican party I respected, a party of intellectuals who held in check the irrational passions of the Democrats. Those days are gone. Now its the Democratic party that has to keep in check the wide eyed fervor of a rabid Republican party, a party that would destroy our civil liberties and our morality in the name of a never ending war on terror. I'm a thinking man, and the thinking man's party is the Democratic Party now. Maybe not forever, but for now.

As for being upset, I'm not. You can't hear me chuckling when I'm typing so I can understand how you could think otherwise. I'm just blunt. You all mistake bluntness for anger. When I say these things, I'm not trying to insult you, it's how I really see you. It doesn't mean I don't like you guys, I do, but I do see you as a bunch of cronies.

'but I do see you as a bunch of cronies" So.... would you consider that bluntness... or rudeness?

Look, I listen to Rush every so often, just so I know what to listen for. If you basically regurgitate his catch phrases as your argument against this or that policy, than don't be offended at being called a crony. The definition of a crony is a close friend or cohort and when I use it I mean to say that you're just in his camp and agree with anything he(Rush) says. If that's wrong then correct me.

I was mearly kidding with you guys... but seriously... I dont wan't to be "cronies" with a couple politicaly arguing guys/gals. I think we should all just frolic in some clover fields, and pick some daisies! Then we can all crony it up over a pint!

regurgitate catch phrases

Thats what I noticed you doing last week with left wing material, commented on it, then you stated that I was judging you with really knowing much about you, and that it was wrong. Now I should have realized that you were just being a crony, based on your own logic. Like a witness in court we just get you to talk until you contradict yourself, too easy.

Nice job, what did you win?

"I mean to say that you're just in his camp and agree with anything he(Rush) says."

I think you may be making a bit of a generalization. I can not speak for others, but I, for one, do not "agree with anything he (Rush) says". I may agree with many things he says and may find myself more in favor of his views than those of Speaker Pelosi or President Obama. But that does not mean that I blindly follow Rush or any other personality.

Wait... you guys are talking about Rush... I liked Tom Sawyer, the one about the trees is good as well, what am I saying... Rush Rocks! Talk about a good drummer!

-exits stage left-

We can at least agree on that. Moving Pictures a great album and so was Fly By Night.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA damn that was good...

Yes Neal Pert is an awesome drummer, Geddy Lee was a killer musician as well, Alex Lifeson? He was along for the ride...

Ferris

Hey you guys...while debating about what is right or what is left, why don't you look into what it is that neither party wants us to see. That they are all being controlled by the Corpoater agenda. Corporations giving the congress critters $$$$ for all of their pet projects.

Madoff and his buddies, how about Soros? You know he is back behind the scenes as well...the parties are the pets of the rich and powerful.

Anyhow, you guys keep on with your back and forth...neither side is going to "win." Entertaining though...so thanks

Cheers Ferris

Don't forget Red Barchetta and Witch Hunt, Moving Pictures really is a great album.

I really liked Signals too, although I may be fairly lonely with this pick.

Signals wasn't bad. I liked a fairwell to kings, if only for Closer to the heart. Moving pictures was probably the best album though. I also liked 2112.

How about Colin Powell, do you like Rush more than him? Or John McCain?

I can not say which of the three I like more as I do not know them. I would say that my views are to the right of McCain and to the left of Rush.

I think Powell is an honorable man as is McCain. I believe both stand for what they think is right for America. Whether Rush is honorable or not is debatable and I won't even stand up to say that he is, but it's irrelevant as I do not agree or disagree with Rush or anyone else based on that criteria, but on what they say. There are many people (politicians and others) who I do not care for personally, but agree with their political position on many issues. There are many people (politicians and others) I like very much, but disagree with their political position on many issues.

I was surprised by Powell's support of Obama based on Obama's position on so many issues versus what I thought Powell's position was. However, Powell has every right to support whoever he chooses.

I always respected Powell until he endorsed Obama because right after the endorsement he said race was a primary reason he chose Obama over McCain. But a few weeks later he said that race had no factor in his selection.

Because of that I now realize he is just another politician who thinks he can re-write his past because he is so important. Fortunately, the media likes him so they will not focus on his dishonesty.

Because of his race and background I never thought that he of all people would use his race as a cheap political bargaining chip. It is very disillusioning.

Powell endorsed O so he'd get invited to party's for at least the next 4 years.

Well......if we are going to engage in honest conversation rather than throw rhetoric at each other.......

As we all know here, I'm a liberal, but I don't like Pelosi, she strikes me as.....dishonest. Bill Maher makes my skin crawl. He's just a jerk. I agree with him on many things but I hate how he says it, and I don't like his constant assault on religon. I think South Park said it best with their atheist episode, the problem is we (humans) like to fight, if it wasn't over religon, it would be over something else.

Love Obama. Not the feigning worship Rush likes to say we have for a "chosen one". More like a "here's a guy who understands where I'm coming from and will try his best to address the things that bother me". Social inequalities, Corporations gone wild, and a declining commitment to science, healthcare, it's just nice to have someone trying to fix those issues. Will he succeed? Probably not on everything, but at least I feel like he's trying to fix the things that are important to me.

Big Al Gore fan. The guy has worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to champion scientific issues like the internet and global warming. The visceral hate from the right for this guy really makes me mad because it's just based on lies. For the record, I'm not one of these people who believe the election was robbed in 2000 by GWB. We are a Republic, and who wins the popular vote is irrelevant, GWB won enough electoral votes, that's that. We had a chance to ditch him in 2004 and we blew it. John Kerry was smart and honest, but he was stiff and distant. We didn't have a chance.

I think Hilary Clinton is intellegent (probably the smartest of all these people we're talking about), honest, but lacks that political slyness of her husband, as if she has a hard time being fake, not exactly the worst attribute. I think she'll be a powerful secretary of state, really a perfect pick.

Bill Clinton. Another guy who I felt got where I was coming from, and an intellegent and saavy politician, but my god, his screwups constantly undermined everything he tried to do and he always seemed too quick to compromise.

There you go, that's how I feel about the mainstream Democrats.

Obama: addressing corporations gone wild.....so you are okay with him replacing that with 'government gone wild'? A few years ago I was in Istanbul and was bombarded (in a friendly way as these were local Turks I have known and worked with since the late '90s) with the topic of capitalism vs. socialism. Their argument was that capitalism was a handful of giant corporations controlling everything. One guy even said, "they make us by things we don't need'. I believe that in true capitalism and a true free market economy, those corporations would not have so much power. And regarding the guy's comment on being made to buy things he doesn't need, I say turn off the TV, take responsibility for your decisions. If you see an add for a double handled wopple-cracker, but don't really need one.....then don't call that 1-800 number.

While I agree that it's not good having a handful of big corporations in control, I think it's better than having a single bigger corporation in control (the government).

Al Gore: I do not hate him, but don't care for him. I find him to be too much a politician. You say he champions scientific issues, but when he isn't willing to debate global warming because he says the consensus of all scientist is that it's real when in fact there are literally thousands (even those in the IPCC) who say otherwise, I find it difficult to take what comes out of his mouth too seriously.

So does it also make you mad about the visceral hate from the left for GWB?

Hillary: I agree, she is intelligent. I don't think I see her as honest, but I don't see many politicians as honest. I think the issue regarding N. Korea will allow her to display her capability as S of S.

Bill: As you say, a very savy politician. Not only good at communicating, but also pretty good as recognizing when he had to abandon his goal and give in to get some things accomplished.

Obama:

You wrote: "So you are okay with him replacing that with 'government gone wild'?.....While I agree that it's not good having a handful of big corporations in control, I think it's better than having a single bigger corporation in control (the government)."

If we are truly having an honest conversation here I would appreciate it if you read the following wikipedia article on capitalism. Please note what it has to say about limited regulation and Laissez-faire economics.

Next let's discuss your implicit premise that somehow capitalism is more free under Republicans than under Democrats. That of course is completely untrue. You see, unions are a natural aspect of capitalism, so when the government "busts a union" citing national interests as Reagan did with the Air Traffic Controllers in 1980. This government interference in capitalism leads to an imbalance in the natural give and take between labor and management. Corporate abuse of labor has escalated ever since, usually with the assistance of Republican Presidents interfering with capitalism on managements behalf.

Such interference would have been bad enough, but unfortunately the Republican Party had no true love for capitalism because they ignored anti-trust obligations. This prevented fair competition which of course does force us to buy from a single source, regardless of the quality. By not enforcing fair trade and constantly interfering with unions the Republicans destroyed capitalism in this country.

What Obama is doing is restoring the balance by reregulating corporations and easing the restrictions placed on unions by three decades of Republican interference.

Now, with regards to TARP, it was contrived and implemented under a Republican President to prevent a depression and it's policies have been continued by Obama to again prevent depression. For all the complaints about government interference in the auto industry, Chrystler has gone bankrupt and GM is about to, so all the government is doing is breaking the fall. The suggestions that the government should somehow just allow the auto industry to instantly fail and fall into disarray because the banking industry screwed them over (the auto industry was surviving until this crisis) is a joke. Tough talk by people who would be the first to whine if the President actually did what they requested and let the s#$@ hit the fan at full speed, instead of 1/4 speed like he is now.

So to answer your question, you're damn right I'm ok with Obama undoing decades of Republican interference and nonenforcement of regulations to restore balance. What kills me is that you, just like me, are getting screwed over by the Republican pro corporation policies, but you're so damned Rah Rah and brainwashed you happily defend the party that's screwing you.

Al Gore:

There is a consensus on Global Warming, there is no debate, just like there is no Santa Claus. The very fact that you believe there is a debate illustrates how screwed up this country has become with regards to science.

GWB:

I don't hate the guy, I just think he was in over his head. I feel bad for him actually, he seems like a nice guy, but he really screwed things up. Dick Cheney on the other hand is a jerk.

Hillary and Bill:

Us liberals learned a very important lesson under Bill Clinton. You see, the old school Republicans you could talk to and compromise with. The new school that started in 1994 are obnoxious and uncompromising. Clinton treated the new school Reps like the old school Reps and it was a mistake. So we learned. You don't compromise....fine...we don't compromise. You name call.....fine....we name call. You're on the offensive.........no, we're on the offensive now and we are going to take back everything you took from us, unions, regulations, health care, environment, all those battles you've won over the last 30 years. Think you have a chance? Here's the demographics of the Democrats:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/gallup-age-demographics-show-strong-democratic-advantages.php

The sad thing is the two smartest voices in your party are Colin Powell and McCain's daughter, and you're eating them alive, which is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

JBTardis,

You Wrote:"why would you think our conversation is anything but honest?"

Well, mainly because the right has a way of distorting the truth and misremebering history. Do I think there are bold face lies? No, just an astonishing level of denial.

You Wrote:"I've read it and noted it. Perhaps it is impractical to expect a country to exist with a perfect implementation of a truly free market. However, I think it is a worthy goal in contrast to a socialized or fascist economy."

Terrific, now if you would just read the wiki articles on Facism and Socialism you'll realize that we are no where near either of those government types. I agree that being either of those types of government types would be bad, luckily we are so far removed from them that they only exist in the US political discussion as hyperbole.

You Wrote:"I do believe they are more in favor of free markets and support them more than the democrats do. Just look at the programs the democrats have been proposing since FDR, especially in the past 2 years and more so in the past 4 months. While I do subscribe to non-government interference in the market, I am practical enough (I hope) to recognize that a 100% hands off is not possible nor may it be desirable."

Again, as I stated the first time, from a regulation of management standpoint you're correct. The Republicans do stand for less regulation of management. However they stand for more regulation of labor. It's not that they interfere less, it's that they interfere with management less. They are just as intrusive with labor as the dems are with management.

You Wrote:"The intent of TARP, if you recall, was for the government to alleviate the toxic assets banks had accumulated (as a result of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, affordable housing and other government encouraged policies and ideas)."

Really, you don't believe that the 40 to 1 leverage the banks accumulated using unregulated derivatives that turned debt magically into asset was the cause? I can't even respond to the rest because you're understanding of the current fiscal crisis is so distorted it would be pointless.

Here's a link describing the current fiscal crisis, I especially encourage you to read the section called "causes".

Also, while you talk tough about businesses being allowed to fail, how do you think losing a banking industry and millions of automotive jobs at the same time will effect the economy? Don't you think that would cause a cataclysmic depression? Is that wise?

You Wrote:"During Bush era, I was very unhappy with their spending. But look at congress since 2006"

So what your saying is that as soon as the Republicans had the power they immediately dropped their opposition party rhetoric and started spending.

You Wrote:"blah blah blah global warming"

Seriously, there is no debate in science about this issue. I'm sorry you've been misled but that's the truth.

You Wrote: "Well, mainly because the right has a way of distorting the truth and misremebering history. Do I think there are bold face lies? No, just an astonishing level of denial." And you don't think that the left does the same thing?

You Wrote: "you'll realize that we are no where near either of those government types." I did not mean to imply that we were either Fascist or Socialist (at this point), but merely moving in that direction which I think is not a good thing.

You Wrote: "However they stand for more regulation of labor." How so? By not being in favor of unions? People have the right to form unions. But I don't see why an organization or company (who is the owner of the capital and therefore the jobs) has to pay a worker (or workers) if the worker(s) is(are) not willing to work and the employer is able to find individuals who are willing to work for the wages (and other compensation) of the employer. Are you saying that the Republicans interfere with labor on a regular basis or as a matter of policy? Or because of Reagan interfering with the air traffic controller's strike?

You Wrote: "Here's a link describing the current fiscal crisis, I especially encourage you to read the section called "causes"." I notice all your sources seem to be from Wikipedia. While I find Wikipedia to be very convenient, and a good source of information on many topics, I do not rely on it as a source for everything, especially things so politically charged. There are many sources referenced in the article you point to, but for every economist or politician Wikipedia quotes or references, there is an opposing one yet they fail to site those.

You Wrote: "Also, while you talk tough about businesses being allowed to fail, how do you think losing a banking industry and millions of automotive jobs at the same time will effect the economy? Don't you think that would cause a cataclysmic depression? Is that wise?" I do not doubt the result on the economy would be undesirable, but I believe a depression (if that were to happen) would be shorter and the resulting economy stronger. The Great Depression was so great and so long more because of FDR's New Deal and the Federal Reserve according to Milton Freidman in "Capitalism and Freedom". If banks are allowed to fail, many of the practices you claim need regulating will stop occurring. But government intervention actually encourages behavior we don't want. For example….I surmise the majority of Americans would like people to invest in industry (a car company perhaps). But why would I want to invest money in a company as a secured investor when if the company were to have financial problems and want to file for bankruptcy, the government may come along and move unsecured investors to the front of the line? Those who are willing to pay more for a secured investment should get a benefit. Those willing to make riskier investments should take responsibility for such a choice. If not, you encourage such behavior.

You Wrote: "So what your saying is that as soon as the Republicans had the power they immediately dropped their opposition party rhetoric and started spending." I would not say they immediately started spending. But it didn't take them long. Guess what, many of them are out of jobs. But that also is what the left has done. Going into 2006 elections, the Democrats were talking about reducing spending, by eliminating pork, being more open and guess what…as soon as they got into power, they forgot about those things. The same goes for 2008 elections.

You Wrote: "You Wrote:"blah blah blah global warming"

Seriously, there is no debate in science about this issue. I'm sorry you've been misled but that's the truth." I'm sorry, I thought we were having an adult conversation. I suppose I could get my 7 year old daughter to respond, but even she doesn't use "blah blah blah" anymore. And if you are going to quote me then please be accurate, but don't make stuff up. I did not say 'blah blah blah'. You may not be willing to debate the issue which is okay. At least I am willing to admit that everything I read on the topic that supports my position may not be factual and I am willing to entertain that I may be incorrect. I have seen enough of both sides that make me skeptical of the entire issue. Furthermore some high level officials who have a stake in the issue saying there is a "consensus" does not make it so and since when did science require a consensus?

You Wrote:"And you don't think that the left does the same thing?"

No, not as much, but then we don't have amoral radio announcers on a disinformation campaign.

You Wrote:"I did not mean to imply that we were either Fascist or Socialist (at this point), but merely moving in that direction which I think is not a good thing."

If you're standing at the North Pole and you take a step, you're heading towards the South Pole, it doesn't mean you're seeing Penguins anytime soon (if you knew how much I hate penguins that statement makes a lot more sense).

You Wrote:"Are you saying that the Republicans interfere with labor on a regular basis or as a matter of policy? Or because of Reagan interfering with the air traffic controller's strike?"

I'm saying that the Republicans pass laws that restrict and regulate unions, the same way the Democrats pass laws that restrict and regulate management. Check out this Washington Post article from 2007 below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301926.html

I understand your reluctance to accept this Republican interference as fact. Think about it though, aren't unions constantly vilified by Republicans? Is it really so surprising that they pass laws that limit Unions power? That's exactly what they do, which is fine, to the winner goes the spoils, but to suggest they have a hands-off approach to the economy is.......just not true. They are just as interventionist as the Dems, just with labor instead of management.

You Wrote:"While I find Wikipedia to be very convenient, and a good source of information on many topics, I do not rely on it as a source for everything, especially things so politically charged."

So you're suggesting that Wikipedia has a liberal bias? That seems like a lightweight argument, but I'll play along. Here are some more links.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-overview.asp
http://www.stock-market-investors.com/stock-investment-risk/the-subprime-mortgage-crisis-explained.html

You ever notice that when I post something that complete debunks you're theory you play the bias card? Even when you've accepted the source in many previous posts?

"...but I believe a depression (if that were to happen) would be shorter and the resulting economy stronger. The Great Depression was so great and so long more because of FDR's New Deal and the Federal Reserve according to Milton Freidman in "Capitalism and Freedom"."

I'm going to ignore the FDR statement because as you might have guessed, I pin the great depression on banks getting overleveraged in the 20's leading to a cataclysmic seizure of the lending markets which in turn, with the addition of overfarming in the midwest resulting in the dust bowl, leading to high unemployment and greatly reduced consumption.

However I think you're confused with regards to your dates, the great depression occured under Hoover, not FDR. FDR actually had growing GDP and an increasing stock market soon after he took over (FDR came into office March 1933). See below:

How can you reconcile growing GDP above with bad fiscal policy? He had only one year of negative GDP. The actual depression occurred under Hoover's administration. Despite popular myth, it was not WWII that pulled us out of the depression, it was FDR.

I don't blame you. You've been fed lies regarding the Great Depression by the Right. I do however blame you for not bothering to check those lies by simply researching GDP numbers. Stop just believing whatever they tell you and research these things.

You Wrote:"I would not say they immediately started spending. But it didn't take them long. Guess what, many of them are out of jobs. But that also is what the left has done. Going into 2006 elections, the Democrats were talking about reducing spending, by eliminating pork, being more open and guess what…as soon as they got into power, they forgot about those things. The same goes for 2008 elections."

I totally agree, the Dems and the Republicans did the same thing. Totally agree and I'm not going to try and defend the Dems on this one.

You Wrote:'I have seen enough of both sides that make me skeptical of the entire issue."

No, you haven't. Here's how I know. Every major scientific organization has an official statement stating that a. global warming is real and b. and man is responsible

Now I know you don't believe me and I know you felt some righteous anger about my response, but you know what, on this issue, and this issue alone in this discussion, you deserve it (unless you don't believe in evolution, then you deserve it on that too). There is a very big difference between debate and denial. Everything else we are discussing is debate. I believe you are wrong, sure, and I laugh sometimes when you guys reaffirm each other as centrist when you are very clearly Right, however it's debate.

But your stance on Global Warming, and let me be absolutely clear about this, is wanton ignorance and denial of the worst kind. It undermines science and undermines you as well. Don't expect me to treat you like an adult on this subject if you choose to believe in fairy tales. I have no patience for those who don't believe in science.

I'm sure this makes you angry, I don't care, you can save your rhetoric, all of your other responses are debateable positions, but this one, global warming, is not. I know you don't see that, and that's the tragedy. From where I'm standing, you're asking me to debate Pixies or the Easter Bunny, there is no point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I recommend that if we are to continue to debate that we leave Global Warming out of it, otherwise I cannot continue. I think it would be a shame to let a debate end like that, but it would be like me saying "Bush blew up the WTC so he could start the Iraq war". You can't debate nonsense statements like that and the debate devolves.

Instead....

I'd much rather debate Milton Friedman and his economic policies with you.

I would agree that we are approaching fascist and socialistic tenancies, but a better definition may be corporatism.

"made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials."

Regarding the Sedition Act of 1798:

I'm not sure I disagree with that point of view. As a matter of fact, I would be inclined to not limit it to being just against government or it's officials. I see much in the media that is later shown to be false and evidence that it was known to be false when it was reported. Later it's retracted (in small print buried in the middle of the paper), but the damage is done. This applies to not just left leaning publications or to just publications....it's done on the radio, TV and in blogs. Nor is it limited to politics. It happens in advertising all the time and it disgusts me.

The main issue I have against such a law is how one (or those in charge) determines what is false, scandalous or malicious.