Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 21, 2005, 01:11:47 am
-
Appproximately how much have gas (or "petrol" if you're from England) prices gone up over the last few months in your area? And what area (city, county, province, country, whatever) do you live in?
I'm just interested in seeing where the prices have gone up the most and the least.
-
about 2.55 a gal. which isn't too terrible since my car gets 30mpg and needs to refuel every 2-3 weeks
-
right now I pay between 2.50 and 2.75 dollars a gallon up about .75 from a month ago
When i first started driving only five years ago it cost .95 a gallon.
-
I read in the paper a breakdown of the world's gas prices. The highest prices (in dollars) were in the Netherlands and Belgium at around $6.50 and the cheapest in Venezuela at $0.20 and Saudi Arabia at $0.90. That's taxes for you, ya dirty Scandinavian commies.
In Canada it's hovering around $1.00 CAD, and everyone is pissed off. I don't drive, so I don't care.
-
I think it was $2.65/gal here a few days ago. I don't pay much attention to it as I hardly go anywhere anyway.
-
In other news, everyone decides its the oil companies fault :doubt:
-
Milk is about $3.79 a gallon...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I read in the paper a breakdown of the world's gas prices. The highest prices (in dollars) were in the Netherlands and Belgium at around $6.50 and the cheapest in Venezuela at $0.20 and Saudi Arabia at $0.90. That's taxes for you, ya dirty Scandinavian commies.
In Canada it's hovering around $1.00 CAD, and everyone is pissed off. I don't drive, so I don't care.
Here regular unleaded costs around $2.59 per gallon. That is up about $0.30 or so compared to a few months ago.
In other news, everyone decides its the oil companies fault
Well, they are the ones making record profits as oil and gas prices are rising high.
But the ones who are to blame the most are the Americans.
And the Netherlands and Belgium are not Scandinavian countries. :p
-
$33.25 to fill a tank of a 2002 Honda Civic. WTF
Nice to know that Hybrids are now getting the horsepower to be seriously considered by the masses.
I'm looking forward to hydrogen fuel cell research proceed to practical application.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Well, they are the ones making record profits as oil and gas prices are rising high.
So, the supply is dwindling, and the demand is growing. However, I will say is that they have not been modernizing and refitting their refineries as they should. At least now they shouldn't have any real excuse as far as I can tell. Lets not forget China as well. Their energy requirements are growing quickly.
-
99p a litre for unleaded. So about £3.75 a gallon. It cost me over 30 quid to fill up my car the last time, I think.
I'm always amused when Americans think their petrol is expensive, because it's far from it. Of course, the Us has an image - I'm not sure how true it is - of being full of inefficient gas guzzling 'big' cars compared to, say, Europe or Japan. Last time I was in the states I never saw a single hatchback, but then again that was quite some time ago.
-
I don't pay for Petrol.....I take the public transport :p
-
Too frickin' much, which is up from the previous "too much".
-
I pay 2.70/gal here. Its highway robbery considering that I live in houston which has one of the largest petrochemical industries in the nation.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Nice to know that Hybrids are now getting the horsepower to be seriously considered by the masses.
I'm looking forward to hydrogen fuel cell research proceed to practical application.
This was posted when we had this topic on another forum. Pretty interesting.
BY BROCK YATES,
I'm not exactly a betting man, but I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that if you're reading this nonsense you are not a hybrid-car owner. That's probably a good wager, considering that the new miracle vehicles are stuck at about a one-half-percent market share of the roughly 17 million annual new car and light-truck domestic sales and that you are vastly more likely to tear up the asphalt in a gas-swilling, earth-choking, mega-speed road rocket like the rest of us motorized Neanderthals.
Of course, if we pay attention to the Cassandra-like fulminations of the liberal media, we might be led to believe that hybrid vehicles are our only hope to save us all from ozone asphyxiation and indentured slavery to the Arab oil barons. To ignore their PC incantations and to continue our binge buying of conventional internal-combustion engines will, according to these all-knowing scribes and electronic chatterers, doom civilization to a dark age embroiled in a heat-soaked Sahara.
Yeah, maybe. Then again, maybe not. Yes, we understand the feds are giving a one-time $2000 tax credit to hybrid owners, and 16 states are offering come-on tax breaks ($1500 in Oregon, $4173 in Colorado), inspection exemptions, and single-driver use of HOV lanes as incentives.
Moreover, the hybrids being sold by Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Ford, and, soon, Chevrolet are all reasonably priced. Example: The hot-selling Toyota Prius—with a three-month waiting list in most markets—can be purchased for under $22,000 loaded (although most experts estimate that Toyota is taking a $2000 hit on each sale). The Pious—oops—Prius costs about $5000 more to manufacture than a conventional Corolla and retails for about three-grand extra.
Now let's jump ugly about the whole situation and talk a little reality. The guys at Edmunds.com, who run hard numbers about the car business as well as anyone, estimate that a Prius owner would have to drive at least 66,500 miles annually for five straight years, or gasoline would have to soar to 10 bucks a gallon, to equal the cost of operating a cheaper, conventional Corolla.
Then we have the battery pack, that heavy lump of nickel-metal hydride juice boxes that presumably improve fuel efficiency (but not that much, according to our road tests). Although the warranties are for eight years or 100,000 miles, battery replacement will cost $5300 for the Toyota and Lexus hybrids, and the Ford Escape replacements run a whopping $7200.
Moreover, the industry types aren't talking about total battery life. Will they actually last 100,000 miles? How will this affect resale value? Will the systems stay at full efficiency, or will they slowly drain power as they age or operate under heavy use? These are questions that remain to be answered, understanding that storage batteries, be they dry cells in your flashlight or exotic Ni-MHs, all have finite lives and store less power with age.
And now comes word that the computer brain inside the gas-electric grids in some Priuses is tending to go nuts. This causes instant blackout stalling at either 35 mph or 65 mph—the latter possibly in the fast lane of an interstate where 50-ton semis running 90 mph can crush compacts like beer cans.
This brings up an undiscussed issue: At some point, all these hybrid batteries will die and have to be disposed of somewhere, somehow. These are hardly biodegradable items like spoiled vegetables. They are in fact self-contained toxic waste dumps. How and where millions of these poisonous boxes will be deposited in the new hybrid nirvana has yet to be considered, much less resolved.
And speaking of the environmental component (the glamour issue centered on the brave new world of hybrids), a number of EMT and fire crews have announced that they will refuse to rescue victims trapped in such vehicles, openly fearing electrocution or fatal acid burns.
As with the now-defunct electric-car miracle, where it was quickly realized that the national power grid could not energize millions of vehicles without massive expansion of horrors—nuclear generation—the dark side of the hybrid miracle is now beginning to surface.
Says a dealer friend whose immense franchise network includes several brands offering hybrids: "There is no advantage to owning a hybrid in terms of fuel mileage when the extra cost of the vehicle is added in. Period. Do the math. This is a feel-good purchase. Hybrids are a statement about the environment, and they simply do not square with economic reality.
"The truth is, although the Prius is selling like mad, hybrid Honda Accords and Civics are backed up on dealer lots. Why? Because they look like conventional Hondas, whereas the Prius has unique styling. It has an iconic status among the Greenies. Like it or not, that's real life."
Until hybrids become economically feasible in terms of cost, reliability, and valid fuel savings and make real sense regarding performance and disposability, we're going to be driving conventional internal-combustion-powered vehicles—either gas or diesel —until rogue asteroids clean us all out.
And gas prices around here is about $2.55 a gallon.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
99p a litre for unleaded. So about £3.75 a gallon. It cost me over 30 quid to fill up my car the last time, I think.
I'm always amused when Americans think their petrol is expensive, because it's far from it. Of course, the Us has an image - I'm not sure how true it is - of being full of inefficient gas guzzling 'big' cars compared to, say, Europe or Japan. Last time I was in the states I never saw a single hatchback, but then again that was quite some time ago.
Eh, it's not THAT bad, at least here in the North-east. SUVs are about as popular as any place else, but more often I see regular sedans, trucks, things of that sort.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Eh, it's not THAT bad, at least here in the North-east. SUVs are about as popular as any place else, but more often I see regular sedans, trucks, things of that sort.
Ah, but what's the mpg of them? I don't mean SUVs, specifically, though.
-
Sedans qualify as inefficient gas guzzling 'big' cars BTW :D Ccompared with the European and Japanese small cars at least :)
-
They're not nearly as bad as SUV's though. A lot of people drive SUVs, but it's not like the 50's where everyone drove a gas-guzzler. However, the mileage on those things is horrendous, and at least in the 50's, they didn't drive big, ugly squares. The thing is, everyone complains about gas prices here, but they do nothing to ease the demand.
Weather, hybrid technology is in its infancy, of course there will be issues until they work all the kinks out, the first automobiles had their fair share of problems at first. It's also only an intermediate until we get fuel cells going, but the technology will be perfected by that time. Furthermore, couldn't the batteries simply be recycled?
I hardly know how much gas has gone up, since I don't go out often. I just know it's worse outside the Northeast.
-
Originally posted by brugger
right now I pay between 2.50 and 2.75 dollars a gallon up about .75 from a month ago
When i first started driving only five years ago it cost .95 a gallon.
same here
and i have to fuel up every 4 business days
-
it's around $2.50 here. give or take a couple of cents.
The percentage of trucks and SUVs in Texas is more than any other state. and they don't put many 4 banger engines in trucks and SUVs :( swear it's the reason i'm looking for a 4 cylinder car.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
$33.25 to fill a tank of a 2002 Honda Civic. WTF
Nice to know that Hybrids are now getting the horsepower to be seriously considered by the masses.
I'm looking forward to hydrogen fuel cell research proceed to practical application.
Anyone who thinks hybrids lack horsepower has never driven a 2002 Toyota Prius.
-
or sat on the 2 year waiting list to get one :P
-
Nah. Its down to 3mos in this area, Kaz. I rented one when my wife and I went to Disneyworld. When passing cars on the highway, the thing had as much punch as my Thunderbird or my old Firebird.
When I move back to Oz, I'll be buying a new Prius without a doubt. $4+/gallon is just too expensive NOT to own a hybrid.
-
I am going to be buying a hybrid as well. But I am really interested in the cars that you will be able to plug into a electrical outlet.
-
[color=66ff00]See the thing that bothers me is that hybrid technology is not in it's infancy, in fact they've been working on it since the 70's with a decent amount of success, the reason that it's apparently so expensive is that everything is built around oil, no infrastructure is in place to market any competing technology.
Oil is such a big business that america is unwilling to change. Oil has fueled their vehicle construction and shipping/drilling businesses not to mention kept them at war for a while so the 'defense' (hah!) industry has been able to crank out weapons at a decent rate.
Coupled with americans demanding low fuel prices regardless of the availability (I've never heard of any other country's public staging protests over prices) and an obscene disregard for fuel economic vehicles leads to a few people becoming very rich at literally the expense of the entire world. Kyoto's agreement was fluffed over, irrespective of arguments that it'll do any good in the long term it shows an obvious tilt towards not giving a damn about anything that would endanger the cash cow that is oil.
[/color]
-
Well even the Neo-cons are saying that America needs to get away from its dependancy on oil. So even they are starting to come around to alternative fuel concepts.
When the Neo-cons and environmentalists agree (albiet for very different reasons)...thats saying something.
I'm hoping the first car I buy is a hybrid.
-
[q]...thats saying something.[/q]
It's time to buy long life tinned foods?
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Well even the Neo-cons are saying that America needs to get away from its dependancy on oil. So even they are starting to come around to alternative fuel concepts.
When the Neo-cons and environmentalists agree (albiet for very different reasons)...thats saying something.
I'm hoping the first car I buy is a hybrid.
Well it is the dependance on foreign oil that conservatives are concerned with. This doesn't mean that some conservatives are not concerned about global warning, particularly in regaurds to recent climate change in Alaska. Some talk radio hosts like John Batchelor for instance have has had a number of authors on his program talking about this very subject. There is also the economic problems related to the gas prices rising.
As per the "evil" car makers. Let me just say this, they are digging themselves their own grave. While companies like Toyota are adapting hybrid technology to larger vehicles, companies like Ford and GM are almost a decade behind in R&D in relation to hybrid technology.
-
Yep gas prices do suck since both me and my wife drive seperate cars..
Oh and the going price for one of those hybrid cars :rolleyes: You might as well invest in a house..
Me I drive a 92 chevy cavilier, yep its a 4 banger..
My wife on the other hand drives a dodge caravan, its a V6 ..
We pay about $2.59 a gallon..
Oh and for the record, there is no need for prices to be so high, its highway robbery. :hopping:
-
The point that guy made about the life, replacement and disposing of batteries is quite interesting. Here hybrids are gaining more and more space in the market, but they're not hybrid gasoline-electric cars, they're hybrid gasoline-ethanol, or even gasoline-ethanol-natural gas cars. Ethanol will give you just as much power (even a bit more, at the expense of less Km/l) as gasoline running on the same engine. It pollutes a lot less, is cheap (cheaper than gasoline here) and is renewable.
The infrastructure for ethanol distribution has been in place here in Brazil for decades, since it's basically the same used for gasoline, and every gas station will have at least one ethanol pump (up to a few years ago you could get your car either gasoline or ethanol powered, only the new ones work on both fuels). Also, if you have a relatively new car (1999 and onwards) you can install a simple and cheap conversion kit that'll allow your car to use gasoline and/or ethanol in any proportion.
Anyway, gasoline here costs R$ 2.60 a litre, which is around US$ 1.10 or so. Ethanol is costing around R$ 1.70. You can get only about 80% of the "mileage" per litre out of it compared to gasoline (depends on the engine, though), but it's still the cheapest option.
-
Heheheheh... I just got back from filling my truck up. $2.59-9, or in other words, $2.60 a gallon. Highest I've seen it here in Minnesota was $2.80 a gallon, that was this past Monday.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Oil is such a big business that america is unwilling to change. Oil has fueled their vehicle construction and shipping/drilling businesses not to mention kept them at war for a while so the 'defense' (hah!) industry has been able to crank out weapons at a decent rate.
Coupled with americans demanding low fuel prices regardless of the availability (I've never heard of any other country's public staging protests over prices) and an obscene disregard for fuel economic vehicles leads to a few people becoming very rich at literally the expense of the entire world. Kyoto's agreement was fluffed over, irrespective of arguments that it'll do any good in the long term it shows an obvious tilt towards not giving a damn about anything that would endanger the cash cow that is oil.
[/color]
They probably wouldn't be *****ing if we didn't keep gas prices artificially low for so long. You have a link?
-
[color=66ff00]Looks like I didn't do my research properly. There have been a number of protests around europe and one in the UK.
What were you looking a link to Ether?
[/color]
-
has anyone ever tried propane, or know of anyone that has? I know a couple of people that have with pretty good success
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Last time I was in the states I never saw a single hatchback, but then again that was quite some time ago.
I read Yanks prefer "sedans" because if they're shunted from the rear there's more bodywork between the two drivers.
The real shame of the situation is LPG gained quite a following 20/30 yrears ago but died out becuse of the dominance of petrol/diesel. Imagine the situation now if LPG had been allowed to flourish and the infastructure put in place.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
So, the supply is dwindling, and the demand is growing. However, I will say is that they have not been modernizing and refitting their refineries as they should. At least now they shouldn't have any real excuse as far as I can tell. Lets not forget China as well. Their energy requirements are growing quickly.
China isn't helping the gas price increae, but main culprit is the US. 55% of the vehicles on the road in the US are SUV's. The average SUV gets between 10-15 MPG. Americans drive these dinosaurs, and now that fuel prices are going up so much they are now getting what they deserve.
The biggest problem with the US is the total lack of leadership coming from Washington. There isn't a single politician on either side of the political spectrum who is making a stand of some sort and encouraging people to make these dinosaurs extinct. Instead they try and use China as a scapegoat for the SUV.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Looks like I didn't do my research properly. There have been a number of protests around europe and one in the UK.
What were you looking a link to Ether?
[/color]
Wow, really?
I was just wondering if you have a link to pictures or articles about the gas price protests, but I found some, so don't worry about it.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
China isn't helping the gas price increae, but main culprit is the US. 55% of the vehicles on the road in the US are SUV's. The average SUV gets between 10-15 MPG. Americans drive these dinosaurs, and now that fuel prices are going up so much they are now getting what they deserve.
Well, yes it is there own fault for that and not developing a more extensive public transportation system in such places as DC Metro area. However, they do have a right to purchase these gas guzzlers. and to consume this much gasoline. Smart, no. Economical, no. Enviromentally Sound, not really.
The biggest problem with the US is the total lack of leadership coming from Washington. There isn't a single politician on either side of the political spectrum who is making a stand of some sort and encouraging people to make these dinosaurs extinct. Instead they try and use China as a scapegoat for the SUV.
I don't think I have ever seen them use China as a reason to have or excuse the SUV. I have seen them mention China as a potential issue in the coming years with their economic expansion. And of course lets not forget the Kyoto Treaty. The same concern is there as well. Of course China views the Kyoto Treaty, is they were to join as an assualt on their growth rate. This is also matched the fact that, THEY CANNOT STEAL THIS TECHNOLOGY FROM SOMEONE ELSE. Other wise I am sure they would sign it as well.
-
They are using it as an excuse to ignore the real reason for the price increases, the SUV's. It is just scapegoating. Has anyone in Washington done any SUV bashing lately? No.
Of course China views the Kyoto Treaty, is they were to join as an assualt on their growth rate
China IS a part of the Kyoto Protocal. They recognize that the environmental degredation is a problem and appear to be trying to do something about it.
EDIT: Don't believe me that China has cut its emissions? Then check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png
-
Originally posted by Kosh
They are using it as an excuse to ignore the real reason for the price increases, the SUV's. It is just scapegoating. Has anyone in Washington done any SUV bashing lately? No.
Umm I, and every one else outthere don't need a politician to tell us this. We already know that, China energy requirements is a rather new issue and concern.
-
I just got back home from LA where the cheapest gas I saw was at $2.80 for regular and $2.99 for super. The more usual price I saw was $2.99 for regular and $3.25 for super.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Umm I, and every one else outthere don't need a politician to tell us this. We already know that, China energy requirements is a rather new issue and concern.
But they need politicians to actually show some leadership. Instead they give us nothing at best.
The point is that the core issue and concern, the monstrous SUV's, is being totally ignored by most people.
-
What are the emission regulations for cars in the US? I remember reading the catalytic convertor was relatively new to the US - is that true?
-
I believe it was introduced in the 70's, so it's been around quite some time.
-
It was up to 120.9 per liter in Halifax last Thursday.
-
$120.9 or $1.209
-
up to CAD$1.20 a litre here.
-
It's up to almost $2.70 here in southeast Pennsylvania, which is absolutely ridiculous. There was a span of a month or two a few years ago when prices temporarily fell to under $1. Even last year, we were well under $2. I don't care what's done, but something has to, and fast. This keeps up, and we can kiss economic recovery bye-bye.
The only consolation is that my *****in' '97 Ford Escort gets almost 30 mpg in suburban driving. :p
-
Umm I wouldn't exactly call the economic situation a recovery. It is honestly more like a boom, to the disdain of democrats. That said, I honestly don't think this will hamper the economy that much. Especially considering gas is such a small part of of the economy. The only people that will be impacted are lower income individuals that get by pay check by pay check.
-
Strange, most of the business news I hear is about US economic trouble, not boom or recovery. Mostly around the weak dollar and rising unemployment, IIRC.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What are the emission regulations for cars in the US? I remember reading the catalytic convertor was relatively new to the US - is that true?
They first appeared in the late sixties/early seventies with the introduction of tough emission laws IIRC. They pretty much killed off the big muscle cars as the manufacturers strapped on "smog gear" to existing engines, rather than create new designs. Alot of the imported cars, such as a lot of the British Leyland imports (MGBs, Triunphs etc) also went thtough a similar transition.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Strange, most of the business news I hear is about US economic trouble, not boom or recovery. Mostly around the weak dollar and rising unemployment, IIRC.
It depends on what indicators you are looking at. A look at Corporate reciepts show rising profits etc. and more revenue. The only real drag on the economy is infact congress and its desire to spend spend spend. ****ing congress, ****ing entitlement programs, ****ing pork barrel legislation, ****ing bush,
-
Well petrol here is fairly dear I think at $1.16 a litre for reg unleaded, lucky my car runs on gas and only cost me $22 instead of $80. ;)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It depends on what indicators you are looking at. A look at Corporate reciepts show rising profits etc. and more revenue.
Oh absolutely, there's a good figure to look at, since it completely ignores the state of the country in favor of the state of corporate profits. How exactly are those corporations nailing down those wide (and widening) profit margins? But consolidating, laying off huge numbers of workers, switching to ever cheaper labor (at the cost of quality) and, of course, offshoring the jobs to countries where they can get away with paying people US$.03/hr for a job that would require at least US$5.25/hr in the US. Did I forget the offshoring of corporate headquarters so that the vast majority of those profits go untaxed, thus widening the profit margin even more, to the detriment of everyone else?
Yeah, its a boom, as in BOOMTOWN: a corporation sucks down the cash, and their investors flourish, but no one else can or does.
-
The only thing thats booming (and oddly enough the only thing that is holding the US economy up) is the Real Estate sector.
The US economy isn't nearly as good as you say it is, and it will most likely get worse. The US Dollar has a perfect storm brewing on the horizon, and that is likely to hurt the US a lot.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The only thing thats booming (and oddly enough the only thing that is holding the US economy up) is the Real Estate sector.
Which is funny because no one can afford houses anymore.
-
They can only if they go even deeper into debt then they already are.
-
It's funny. My parent's house cost them about $300,000 when they got it. When I was a graduated from high school, the price of houses on that street was pushing $950,000. It's probably still going up.
It sucked, though, because I was the only middle-class kid of my age group in the neighborhood.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The US economy isn't nearly as good as you say it is, and it will most likely get worse. The US Dollar has a perfect storm brewing on the horizon, and that is likely to hurt the US a lot.
Yes I know, that is why I said congress is the only thing hurting the economy. Unfortunatly, the battle lines are set and most in congress don't want to have their individual pet projects threatened. I cannot stand it anymore. Personally, this is the legacy of the 14 Admendment and the New Deal and over two centurys of strengthening the Federal Gov't.
-
[q]Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [/q]
?
-
Bleh, to early to be posting. :p
I certainly am not going to sit here are criticize equal protection. What I meant was the 16th admendment.
-
Let's see... most Expensive I've seen is about 1.37 euro/liter, which comes down to about $1.67/liter (US dollars)
Oh, and the Netherlands/Belgium are indeed NOT part of scandinavia, let alone Commies, was that a joke or something?
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Bleh, to early to be posting. :p
I certainly am not going to sit here are criticize equal protection. What I meant was the 16th admendment.
What, income tax?
-
Yes, from my point of view it was one of the most expansive admendments. Can you think of a greater breach of privacy? Much assault on states rights. Originally the income tax was used against the insanely wealthy. Although I have problems with that, it has only gotten worse. This admendment is followed by the new deal and the great society as absolutly critical to understanding the situation that we are in now. Let not forget the Interstate Highway Act either. No I know, someone is going to say but they bring us a great deal of good. In response to that, they usher is as much if not more evil.
-
Well, one thing the Interstate did was take away funding from other roads, and some have become downright deadly, usually in the middle of nowhere. Plus the Interstate's true purpose is for the military. We have a whole infrastructure that is being neglected and needs to be updated. The problem is, it's so damn huge.
I agree the government has too much control. (Ha!) It's exactly what our forefathers feared. That's why the States held the majority of powers, but slowly, we've been giving those up, and you damn well know the government isn't just going to hand them back.
Originally posted by ngtm1r
It's funny. My parent's house cost them about $300,000 when they got it. When I was a graduated from high school, the price of houses on that street was pushing $950,000. It's probably still going up.
I live where some of the most valuable real estate is in the country, and wherever they build, the houses are huge. More rich people are moving into my town and property taxes just keep going up and up and up. Soon we won't be able to afford to live here. I'll bet this is happening in other towns too, not just mine. It's not fair to the little guy. :hopping:
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Yes, from my point of view it was one of the most expansive admendments. Can you think of a greater breach of privacy? Much assault on states rights. Originally the income tax was used against the insanely wealthy. Although I have problems with that, it has only gotten worse. This admendment is followed by the new deal and the great society as absolutly critical to understanding the situation that we are in now. Let not forget the Interstate Highway Act either. No I know, someone is going to say but they bring us a great deal of good. In response to that, they usher is as much if not more evil.
How else would you raise money for public spending?
Y'know, accounting for the modern day rich-poor divide.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Yes I know, that is why I said congress is the only thing hurting the economy. Unfortunatly, the battle lines are set and most in congress don't want to have their individual pet projects threatened. I cannot stand it anymore. Personally, this is the legacy of the 14 Admendment and the New Deal and over two centurys of strengthening the Federal Gov't.
Part of it is the legacy of the New Deal. A lot of it is the bloated defence budget, the pork barrel spending on both sides (yes, they both do it about the same), and also a total lack of the leadership from either Congress or Bush to actually do something about it.
What will hurt is the massive amounts of consumer debt in this country. Congress really had nothing to do with that, but they aren't willing to show any leadership to get them out of debt either.
Interstate freeways have done much good. They did have unfortunate side effects, but the US is better off with them. Besides, the americans just copied them from the Nazis after WW2. :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How else would you raise money for public spending?
Y'know, accounting for the modern day rich-poor divide.
Well originally tarrifs were used to fund public spending. But of course I think that Gov't responcibility is only to provide a postal system, Common defense and "general welfare"(which I am not even sure my self means.) Now individual states can infact raise money for public spending throught income taxes. But the individual states cannot spend more revenue than they recieve.
As per the Interstate Highway Act, yes it established roadways across the US ushering in greater interstate commerce. But of the same time, strengthened the Federal Gov't.
You are also forgetting the Great Society programs of LBJ and Jimmy Carter. Those have also promoted the bloated budgets we are now seeing.
And in regaurds to pork barrel legislation, being a person that lives in Northern Virginia, I fully aknowledge the need for more transportation spending. However, this money should come exclusivly from the states and not by George Allen and Tom Davis pencil it in to the budget.
-
How can you support "general welfare" when you don't even know what it means? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Kosh
How can you support "general welfare" when you don't even know what it means? :wtf:
I meant that there is a great deal of confusion and debate on what that clause actually means. Some say it mean that the Federal Gov't has the right and power to hand out specific welfare to individuals and other things of that nature. Then there are others that say other wise. I support it because is specifically enumerated in the preamble of the constitution. I should also mention that the original authors mean the the preamble was supposed to be a general comment and the following articles narrowed down what general welfare is considered to be.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
It's funny. My parent's house cost them about $300,000 when they got it. When I was a graduated from high school, the price of houses on that street was pushing $950,000. It's probably still going up.
It sucked, though, because I was the only middle-class kid of my age group in the neighborhood.
The housing bubble bursted in Colorodo, I think.
-
Got any links to that?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]Section 1. ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[/q]
The Equal Protection Clause. Nice in theory, but in practice it's been used to justify Congress wielding increasingly greater power over the several States.
-
So I take it that it would be perfectly ok with you if some certain southern states went back to Jim Crow?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How else would you raise money for public spending?
Y'know, accounting for the modern day rich-poor divide.
tax cuts ? :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Kosh
So I take it that it would be perfectly ok with you if some certain southern states went back to Jim Crow?
Of course not. :rolleyes: That, as Kazan is so fond of saying, is a straw man argument.
The Equal Protection Clause vastly increases the power of the federal government by giving it jurisdiction over the laws that the states pass. The federal constitution should concern itself only with the federal government, leaving the state constitutions to concern themselves with the state governments. That's as it should be, and that's as the Constitution was originally written.
-
Those states would most likely still have laws like Jim Crow if it wasn't for the intervention of the federal government. It sounds to me like you are saying the Equal Protections Clause is a bad thing. It did destroy Jim Crow after all.
-
It also set up a dangerous precedent that the federal government now has extensive authority to meddle in state affairs. The Jim Crow reforms should have been made under the Southern state constitutions, not the federal constitution.
-
gas is afule sorce fit for history books. in about 40 years it will be long gone, and prices are gonna get higher and higher as it slowly drains.
It wouldn't surprise me if it at least doubles by 2020...
and then we're ****ed:(
-
But they never would have been. Racism was deeply entrenched in the south. That's the point. The federal government did a very good thing by knocking off Jim Crow. But the question is, where do you draw the line?
EDIT: But that's really OT.
It wouldn't surprise me if it at least doubles by 2020...
and then we're ****ed
We'll be ****ed long before that. Like I said earlier, we need some real leadership to come from Washington, or else we are ****ed for sure.
-
Isn't the converse that it provides protection for the people against unfair / unconstitutional laws being enacted by states? Like the slavery issue it was - AFAIK - created to address?
Speaking from the laymans perspective of a Scot, of course.
Oh, and on the subject of taxes & spending. My position is that the state has a responsibility to provide things which an individual cannot themselves be expected to provide, but which are needed to live to an ecceptable civillized standard (note this definition is kind of the key thing that'd differ between people); to me that means policing, healthcare (including, for example, protective food and hygience regulations), defense, protection (i.e. licensing of drivers, firearms, control of airpaths, etc - stuff to minimise the danger from people doing 'dangerous' things they aren't competent to), fire protection, environmental protection (i.e. because keeping a clean environment also impacts public health and thus the workers forming an economy) and support for working (that includes support systems for the unemployed or unemployable - i.e. disabled - as well as basic public transportation and legal protections).
-
Well, it's the Supreme Court's job to strike down anything unconstitutional, but they only get involved if it gets that far and only if they choose to.
-
And even then it depends on what their definition of what "unconstitutional" is.
And gas prices have gone up $.03 again.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
gas is afule sorce fit for history books. in about 40 years it will be long gone, and prices are gonna get higher and higher as it slowly drains.
It wouldn't surprise me if it at least doubles by 2020...
and then we're ****ed:(
Actually most oil wells only release IIRC 20% of the actual oil present. So the oil will still be there, we just won't be able to get at it.
-
Correction, it will not be viable. As technology advances, so does the resources we are able to get to.
-
Nope, there will be no oil left.
It takes millions of years, heat and pressure for nature to create oil from various organic remains - you realyl think there's much left?
And if it were nearely all gone, you really think the goverment would tell us? That would induce mass histeria and even greater prices.
-
Crude oil prices are up yet again. Now it is at $67.90 per barrel.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
Actually most oil wells only release IIRC 20% of the actual oil present. So the oil will still be there, we just won't be able to get at it.
[color=66ff00]Isn't that where pumping seawater comes into play? They force seawater into the fissure to force more oil out. Or is this including the seawater thing?
[/color]
-
Probably including it.
-
now would probly be a good timeto bring up Thermal depolymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization).
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/21/BUG93EANVS1.DTL
According to oil companies, currently accessible reserves will last about 42 years - at current rates of use.
I mean, if we continue to rely on a finite resource being consumed at ever greater rates, we will be ****ed over. It may not be in our lifetimes, but it's going to happen eventually. And the problem will come when manufacturing alternative sources requires that resource.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
$120.9 or $1.209
They still show the price in cents, so the latter.