19 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

They also last much much much longer.  Those of us who grew up prior to the late 1980's remember the cars that would literally be rusty not long after leaving the showroom.   Cars are also WAY more reliable so if you take care of yours, the maintenance costs are next to nothing. 

I tend to drive my cars until they are scrap. However, many people love to trade in their car every few years because the warranty expired. So then, they take on a $500/month payment to ensure against repairs. People just don't understand math.

24 minutes ago, Foraker said:

When we had kids, one of us was basically sending their salary to pay for childcare.  But the benefits made it worth it -- health insurance and retirement contributions.

That is a decision that each family needs to make via their circumstances. While in one sense, you get no benefit of the second income, you maintain a good benefit plan. Plus, you can continue your career if you choose and not create a gap in employment if that is important to you.

On the other hand, if it does not make sense to continue to work, there is nothing wrong with such a choice. 

 

25 minutes ago, Foraker said:

There seems to be a difference of opinion on the left and the right over a community's responsibilities to its citizens.  The left seems to think that it's society's job to help raise and protect children, and the right thinks that children are the sole responsibility of the parents and society has no role to play.  So the left looks at childcare and public schools as society's obligation to support society's future, and the right looks at childcare and public schools as unnecessary because those are family responsibilities, without any thought to impacts on society down the road.

This statement really mischaracterizes things and does not really encapsulate the debate and ultimately makes those on the left look elitist and further out of touch on the subject. 

Acting as if the right cares little about education and childcare is a very disingenuous argument to make and really could not be further from the truth. Based on your statement, you essentially state that those on the right do not send their kids to public schools and therefore have no use for them. Statistics would prove that to be incorrect same with Childcare. 

You could argue that one of the big difference between the right and left is personal responsibility or lack thereof. On the left, when things are hard or difficult, the left wants government to come in and remove the burden. They feel that childcare can be outsourced and education should be too. Essentially, the left is not arguing for social responsibility, but they are arguing for an "easy button". Childcare is expensive, please remove this burden from me and raise my kids. 

 

Many on the right are strong supporters of public schools and they are strong supporters of making responsible choices to raise your children. The big difference is that when you "outsource" it to the government, the parents lose some semblance of control over what they see may be best for their kids and it gets delegated to society as a whole. While those on the left feel that they should have a uniform system as to how children should be reared, many on the right feel that it is up to the individual parents to decide how they should raise their kids and what values to instill in them. Those on the right do not see it as their business how a family in DC or California want to raise their kids, just as they do not want the values of those families dictating how they need to raise their chidlren in Ohio.  

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Electronics like Tv's were such a big purchase for families, many only had 1 or 2 in the house because they cost such a big % of the persons wages that people could not easily replace them when they went bad. There was even such a thing as a TV repairman business.

 

 

You don't have to pay for classified ads to sell something. 

 

Like, for example, trying to get rid of an unused piano.  I was shocked to see how much all of those small console pianos that everyone had cost back in the 1960s - like $3,000-5,000, meaning they were $10-20,000 in today's money.  And they're all going to end up in the landfill. 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, KJP said:

Is This the Breaking Point? A New Car Now Costs More Than Many Americans Make In a Year

https://caredge.com/guides/new-car-prices-and-median-income

 

But I think this is a bit misleading. What is the cost of a car? Yes, the new car prices are much higher due to safety and tougher emission standards and a number of other regulations. Also, factor in the rise of EV's and you are going to see a significant rise in vehicle cost since they are much more expensive to make. 

However (and this does not necessarily apply to EV's since their battery life will not last 10+ years) but it is still cheaper over the course of 10 years to own and operate a car today than it was 50 years ago.  

4 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

You don't have to pay for classified ads to sell something. 

 

Like, for example, trying to get rid of an unused piano.  I was shocked to see how much all of those small console pianos that everyone had cost back in the 1960s - like $3,000-5,000, meaning they were $10-20,000 in today's money.  And they're all going to end up in the landfill. 

 

 

 

 

Stuff inside the house isn't worth anything anymore except guns and jewelry. All the money's in the garage.

I expect in the next decade we will see auto ownership plunge as autonomous rideshare vehicles become a reality in many cities if not everywhere. Elon Musk has basically said his goal is to just make as many cars as possible right now so that he can use existing vehicles for a Tesla autonomous Uber-like service.

 

I know autonomous vehicles have been promised for a long time and missed predictions, but ... I'm not sure most people realize how close we may be.

Edited September 7, 20231 yr by LlamaLawyer

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

This statement really mischaracterizes things and does not really encapsulate the debate and ultimately makes those on the left look elitist and further out of touch on the subject. 

Acting as if the right cares little about education and childcare is a very disingenuous argument to make and really could not be further from the truth. Based on your statement, you essentially state that those on the right do not send their kids to public schools and therefore have no use for them. Statistics would prove that to be incorrect same with Childcare. 

You could argue that one of the big difference between the right and left is personal responsibility or lack thereof. On the left, when things are hard or difficult, the left wants government to come in and remove the burden. They feel that childcare can be outsourced and education should be too. Essentially, the left is not arguing for social responsibility, but they are arguing for an "easy button". Childcare is expensive, please remove this burden from me and raise my kids. 

 

Many on the right are strong supporters of public schools and they are strong supporters of making responsible choices to raise your children. The big difference is that when you "outsource" it to the government, the parents lose some semblance of control over what they see may be best for their kids and it gets delegated to society as a whole. While those on the left feel that they should have a uniform system as to how children should be reared, many on the right feel that it is up to the individual parents to decide how they should raise their kids and what values to instill in them. Those on the right do not see it as their business how a family in DC or California want to raise their kids, just as they do not want the values of those families dictating how they need to raise their chidlren in Ohio.  

No one is arguing that parents shouldn't have the primary responsibility for caring for and educating their children.  It simply seems to me, from my relationships with people on the right and left, that the left asks the government to help with that work and the right sees it as solely their responsibility and any government "assistance" is an intrusion into their life.

 

It is a common canard on the right to say that the left wants government to make things easy for them because they are too weak/lazy to deal with the hard realities of life. 

 

There is a difference between making childcare affordable (with government support) and just saying "childcare is expensive, suck it."   

 

The left does NOT want government to provide an "Easy Button" -- they just want childcare (and healthcare) to be affordable.  And the left also sees a benefit to society from providing better childcare (nutrition, education, freeing the parents to be productive members of society, and helping children born into unfortunate circumstances have a better chance of making a better life for themselves) -- these things will benefit society as a whole down the road, it's an investment in the future economy.  The left also tends to see government as "us" -- we are the government, and we have a say, and we expect to have that involvement to make government work better.  Rather than government being "the other" and something to be resisted at all costs.

 

Quote

While those on the left feel that they should have a uniform system as to how children should be reared, many on the right feel that it is up to the individual parents to decide how they should raise their kids and what values to instill in them.

And yet the facts show that the Progressive/Democrats are not the ones pushing for universal testing and common standards across education, it's the Republicants on the right.

 

12 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I know autonomous vehicles have been promised for a long time and missed predictions, but ... I'm not sure most people realize how close we may be.

 

Definitely closer than fusion!  😉

59 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

They also last much much much longer.  Those of us who grew up prior to the late 1980's remember the cars that would literally be rusty not long after leaving the showroom.   Cars are also WAY more reliable so if you take care of yours, the maintenance costs are next to nothing. 

 

Edited September 7, 20231 yr by GCrites

$25k is my psychological limit for a vehicle and I’ve never paid more that. I’ve lived in the US for 20 years and am now on my third car. 
 

 

26 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I know autonomous vehicles have been promised for a long time and missed predictions, but ... I'm not sure most people realize how close we may be.

I respectfully disagree. We’re still a long way from autonomous vehicles being anywhere near mainstream. There’s a huge chasm between the existence of the technology and the practical adoption and usage. In low-volume, controlled environments, like a surface mining operation, it’s already here and will continue to grow. It won’t happen on any kind of scale in the consumer world, unless similarly controlled operating environments are created for them to operate in. i.e. they are given exclusive-use roads and highways. Thats not gonna happen anytime soon. Certainly not in the US. 

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

No one is arguing that parents shouldn't have the primary responsibility for caring for and educating their children.  It simply seems to me, from my relationships with people on the right and left, that the left asks the government to help with that work and the right sees it as solely their responsibility and any government "assistance" is an intrusion into their life.

To be fair without really engaging in left v right hyperbole, I think that the big argument on the right vs left is where to draw the line on that responsibility. You see that happening displaying itself right now on the education side often over the transgender issue, but it has surfaced in many other arenas in the past such as medicine, vaccination issues, religion, etc. The big debate, and it will always be a debate, is where the parental rights end and where the state's interest as some may describe it or more accurately, the interest of the child (because we have an individual right system through the Constitution) should usurp the parental interest. That is a challenge and tough line to draw sometimes and it is not really something that will be settled ever. 

 

20 minutes ago, Foraker said:

It is a common canard on the right to say that the left wants government to make things easy for them because they are too weak/lazy to deal with the hard realities of life. 

You are right this is a canard on the right, but it really is no different than those on the left who say Republicans want to destroy public schools and they do not believe that socieity should help those in need. That is a false argument as well. 

 

22 minutes ago, Foraker said:

The left does NOT want government to provide an "Easy Button" -- they just want childcare (and healthcare) to be affordable.  And the left also sees a benefit to society from providing better childcare (nutrition, education, freeing the parents to be productive members of society, and helping children born into unfortunate circumstances have a better chance of making a better life for themselves) -- these things will benefit society as a whole down the road, it's an investment in the future economy. 

 And you know what, these same issues confound many people on the right too. Those on the right want the same things, not just for themselves but for society as a whole. So to act like those on the right do not care about these issues is quite disingenuous. The argument is over how to get there. The left favors a heavy handed statist approach where government comes in and provides these goods and services as a shared cost to society. The right favors a market driven approach to solve many of these issues that tends to provide more options and choices. The thing that neither side actually has the solution to these issues, which really cannot be solved with one particular policy or plan. There is a certainly a limited role for government and oftentimes, the best solution (which still does not actually solve the problem), is often somewhere in the middle and does involve deep compromise by both sides, which is something neither side wants to do today. 

52 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I know autonomous vehicles have been promised for a long time and missed predictions, but ... I'm not sure most people realize how close we may be.

 

I'll believe it when I see it. And being in the 50-plus crowd, I don't trust such technology any further than I can throw it.

43 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I'll believe it when I see it. And being in the 50-plus crowd, I don't trust such technology any further than I can throw it.

When it's introduced in a widespread way it will already be at least 10x and probably 1000x safer than human drivers. I don't think anyone really knows how long it will take. Maybe it will be 50 years. But if forced to guess, I'm guessing autonomous vehicles are widespread in 2028.

 

And yes, when you see it, you will believe it. 😉

 

1 hour ago, roman totale XVII said:

I respectfully disagree. We’re still a long way from autonomous vehicles being anywhere near mainstream. There’s a huge chasm between the existence of the technology and the practical adoption and usage. In low-volume, controlled environments, like a surface mining operation, it’s already here and will continue to grow. It won’t happen on any kind of scale in the consumer world, unless similarly controlled operating environments are created for them to operate in. i.e. they are given exclusive-use roads and highways. Thats not gonna happen anytime soon. Certainly not in the US. 

 

I think there's a difference between hardware and software adoption. The hardware exists right now. The first fully self-driving cars will be a software update of cars that exist now and in the near future. The second generation will probably be even older vehicles that are retrofitted with cameras and computers. Five years after the initial introduction, it will be a standard feature.

 

And as far as volume, I think it will look different from current consumer sales practices. For rideshares, you can have one car to every ten people. So 1 million self-driving cars could support 10 million car-less individuals. I'm not saying that people are going to stop buying new cars any time soon. But I don't think you can discount the impact that self-driving is likely to have this decade.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

The left does NOT want government to provide an "Easy Button" -- they just want childcare (and healthcare) to be affordable.  .

 

 

 

It's pretty obvious that childcare is doomed to never be "affordable".   Professional-class feminists want lower-class women to watch their kids for cheap.

 

It's like, #thefightfor$15 used to be about raising wages.  Now people want wages to go back down to $15 because they want everything to be cheap. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

I'll believe it when I see it. And being in the 50-plus crowd, I don't trust such technology any further than I can throw it.

Agreed!  I'd have to imagine insurance companies are being included in these discussions.  I do believe self driving vehicle technology will be refined, however un-manned vehicles won't come to fruition.  Lots of tricky liability there.  

We don't even know what in-car touchscreen liability will ultimately be yet. All people wanted to do was turn their wipers on due to a sudden downpour but it was buried in a touchscreen menu so while they were looking down to do that they hit a kid.

38 minutes ago, Jenny said:

Agreed!  I'd have to imagine insurance companies are being included in these discussions. 

 

Also, car insurance rates have jumped because the cost to repair cars has increased dramatically. 

Yes. Lack of auto techs, expensive parts and even if you have a cheap easy to fix car the liability that you might hit Buzz the Overpaid Boomer's $90k aluminum F-150 that are all over the place is still there.

11 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Yes. Lack of auto techs, expensive parts and even if you have a cheap easy to fix car the liability that you might hit Buzz the Overpaid Boomer's $90k aluminum F-150 that are all over the place is still there.

 

Also the dealerships got more stringent with their hiring awhile back.  Like, if you had a DUI or drug ticket, you were kicked out of Honda/Toyota/BMW school.  This cuts out like half of the potential talent pool, and few people risk going to independent garages anymore.   

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Yes. Lack of auto techs, expensive parts and even if you have a cheap easy to fix car the liability that you might hit Buzz the Overpaid Boomer's $90k aluminum F-150 that are all over the place is still there.

 

lol I hit a deer in my tiny Honda Fit over J4 weekend and it's still in the shop back home. Small area (<20k) but when I spoke to the one collision guy he said 6-8 weeks and if anyone says otherwise they're full of it. I'm sure it's different in the cities but still they're working with barebones staff (a lot of the shops he said were just the owner working) and they were being selective about what cars they were taking. Also posted it somewhere else, but I bought my car in 2018 (used off of lease for $12.5k) and it was appraised post crash for $12k. The car market is insane right now. Long story short, don't hit a deer.

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The argument is over how to get there. The left favors a heavy handed statist approach where government comes in and provides these goods and services as a shared cost to society. The right favors a market driven approach to solve many of these issues that tends to provide more options and choices. The thing that neither side actually has the solution to these issues, which really cannot be solved with one particular policy or plan. There is a certainly a limited role for government and oftentimes, the best solution (which still does not actually solve the problem), is often somewhere in the middle and does involve deep compromise by both sides, which is something neither side wants to do today. 

Obviously we are on opposite sides of the dividing line here and strongly disagree with each other's characterizations of the other.  (The left does not favor a heavy-handed statist approach, and providing services on a shared-cost basis is not necessarily "heavy handed statist" as I would understand it.  Conservatives often advocate for beneficiaries to share the cost!)

 

We can agree that the best solutions come from compromise and that we do not currently have a lot of willingness to compromise. 

 

The recent budget agreement did seem like a promising step, as neither party got what they wanted.  But the far-right conservatives in the House now seem to be heading toward shutting down the government because they don't like the compromise that the majority of Congress previously agreed to.  So we may have another test of bipartisanship later this month.

53 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Obviously we are on opposite sides of the dividing line here and strongly disagree with each other's characterizations of the other. 

I think it is important to recognize that each side really seeks many of the same goals and that the rhetoric around them is very heated and sometimes gets out of hand. At the end of the day, it is not the goals that people fight over but the way to achieve those goals. It is the policy battle not the end result and people need to quit acting like each side is the enemy and wants to kill granny based on policy positions when at the end of the day they do ultimately share a common goal the vast majority of the time. 

Both Republicans and Democrats want affordable health care. They just disagree on how to get there. Both Republicans and Democrats want to help the poor, but they have different policy ideas on how to get there. Many of these goals are common, but we sometimes forget about that when arguing over policy.

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think it is important to recognize that each side really seeks many of the same goals and that the rhetoric around them is very heated and sometimes gets out of hand. At the end of the day, it is not the goals that people fight over but the way to achieve those goals. It is the policy battle not the end result and people need to quit acting like each side is the enemy and wants to kill granny based on policy positions when at the end of the day they do ultimately share a common goal the vast majority of the time. 

Both Republicans and Democrats want affordable health care. They just disagree on how to get there. Both Republicans and Democrats want to help the poor, but they have different policy ideas on how to get there. Many of these goals are common, but we sometimes forget about that when arguing over policy.

Mostly true.  But part of the problem is that the left and right often don't even agree on the problem. 

 

Poverty for example -- Democrats often say that expanded welfare systems are needed to help people get back on their feet.  Republicans want the poor to help themselves, and even one person gaming the welfare system means that welfare is "wasteful spending" that needs to be cut.

 

While we can disagree with those characterizations, that doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Republicans cut welfare and gave tax cuts to businesses -- on the assumption (hope and pray) that businesses would use the tax savings to increase employment.  The evidence is that not very many new jobs were created. The pro-business policies Republicans have enacted since Reagan have led to greater wealth disparities and just as many poor people out of work or working in jobs that don't pay a living wage.  Can we agree that that didn't work?  That some change is needed?

 

And if so, what is next?  Would conservatives be willing to enact tax breaks that businesses can only take if they create new jobs at a living wage? 

This won't solve poverty on its own, but if you're going to say that welfare doesn't work, and the evidence makes it clear that current tax breaks aren't working -- what is the next conservative idea for how to help the poor? 

Republicans seem to think that the poor are just lazy and that welfare support enables people to be lazy -- the welfare queen mythos.  There has been a lot of talk about increasing work requirements for welfare benefits (no work -- no soup for you!)  Would Republicans take some increase in work requirements if paired with an increase in the amount of aid?  Where is the acceptable compromise?

 

 

 

 

Republicans try to do everything with tax breaks since they know actual poor people pay little to no tax. They are suckers for trickle-down 40 years later. Somehow people who make 500k a year will just hand it over.

12 hours ago, GCrites said:

Yes. Lack of auto techs, expensive parts and even if you have a cheap easy to fix car the liability that you might hit Buzz the Overpaid Boomer's $90k aluminum F-150 that are all over the place is still there.

 

Also, I have spent a ridiculous amount of money maintaining my bikes this year.  I spent $500 on the road bike and $400 on the mountain bike, roughly 2X what this same sort of work cost before the pandemic.  You have to send the suspension forks to the manufacturer and that's gone from $150~ to $250 for the exact same work.  It probably takes the dude no more than 15 minutes to do whatever it is that he does. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

Mostly true.  But part of the problem is that the left and right often don't even agree on the problem. 

 

Poverty for example -- Democrats often say that expanded welfare systems are needed to help people get back on their feet.  Republicans want the poor to help themselves, and even one person gaming the welfare system means that welfare is "wasteful spending" that needs to be cut.

 

While we can disagree with those characterizations, that doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Republicans cut welfare and gave tax cuts to businesses -- on the assumption (hope and pray) that businesses would use the tax savings to increase employment.  The evidence is that not very many new jobs were created. The pro-business policies Republicans have enacted since Reagan have led to greater wealth disparities and just as many poor people out of work or working in jobs that don't pay a living wage.  Can we agree that that didn't work?  That some change is needed?

 

And if so, what is next?  Would conservatives be willing to enact tax breaks that businesses can only take if they create new jobs at a living wage? 

This won't solve poverty on its own, but if you're going to say that welfare doesn't work, and the evidence makes it clear that current tax breaks aren't working -- what is the next conservative idea for how to help the pro
Republicans seem to think that the poor are just lazy and that welfare support enables people to be lazy -- the welfare queen mythos.  There has been a lot of talk about increasing work requirements for welfare benefits (no work -- no soup for you!)  Would Republicans take some increase in work requirements if paired with an increase in the amount of aid?  Where is the acceptable compromise?

 

 

 

 

Again, you are trying to look at policy differences as not agreeing on the problem. Both sides agree there is a problem. In this case the problem is Poverty and how do you help people overcome it. That is the problem. You just disagree with some of the policy positions of Republicans but that is far different than disagreeing with the problem. 

 

Moving away from poverty, lets look at the immigration argument. Both parties have largely agreed since the Bush years that we have needed immigration reform and the immigration system was broken. There have been a number of attempts and action that has almost come to fruition that would have fixed a lot of this, but it is acknowledged that both parties agree there is a problem. The debate is over what the best policy should be for immigration. You often see the Dems pushing for some sort of amnesty and pathway to citizenship. While there are certainly an argument on that policy decision, there are also some unfairness in the model, especially for those immigrants who wait in line for years for their chance to come legally to the US. ON the far right, there is the argument to keep the borders closed for safety and not let anyone in to avoid stealing American jobs. Again there is certainly an argument there but agin there are a lot of flaws in that position too. 

 

Both of these positions (no matter how extreme each side is) are policy positions to address the problem, both sides recognize the problem but it is the policy decision that causes the disagreement. 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, you are trying to look at policy differences as not agreeing on the problem. Both sides agree there is a problem. In this case the problem is Poverty and how do you help people overcome it. That is the problem. You just disagree with some of the policy positions of Republicans but that is far different than disagreeing with the problem.

You misunderstood my point, so let me try to clarify.  My argument is not that both sides don't recognize that poverty is a problem, but that they see different causes for that poverty and that is part of the reason why they can't agree on solutions.

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Moving away from poverty, lets look at the immigration argument. Both parties have largely agreed since the Bush years that we have needed immigration reform and the immigration system was broken. There have been a number of attempts and action that has almost come to fruition that would have fixed a lot of this, but it is acknowledged that both parties agree there is a problem. The debate is over what the best policy should be for immigration. You often see the Dems pushing for some sort of amnesty and pathway to citizenship. While there are certainly an argument on that policy decision, there are also some unfairness in the model, especially for those immigrants who wait in line for years for their chance to come legally to the US. ON the far right, there is the argument to keep the borders closed for safety and not let anyone in to avoid stealing American jobs. Again there is certainly an argument there but agin there are a lot of flaws in that position too.

 

Immigration has a similar problem that is blocking compromise.  What is the "problem" with immigration that needs to be fixed?  The parties do not agree.  And I think a number of Republicans are happy to use the criminal/job-stealing-illegal-immigrant boogeyman to rile up their base.    Particularly Republicans in states nowhere near the border make a lot of noise around stopping immigrants but aren't actually serious about "solving" any immigration problems.  And it isn't a particularly important problem to a lot of Democrats either, so they're not pushing for resolution because they know they can't negotiate with the rock-throwing wing of the Republican party.  So nothing is getting done despite 20+ years of both sides "wanting" to fix immigration -- whatever "fix immigration" means (probably 435 different things).

 

We have a lot of people in this country who came here "illegally" or were brought here or born here from someone who came here "illegally."  Republicans want to punish all of them (and generally seem very reluctant to levy the harsh penalties on the employers that encouraged them to come and stay). 

 

And yet, the vast majority of "illegal immigrants" are here working, paying taxes, and are otherwise law-abiding contributors to our economy.  What is the solution?  It seems like payment of some sort of penalty and a work visa that can be converted to permanent residency after some period of good behavior (ten years without any trouble with the law and having a job and paying taxes seems reasonable).

 

"But that's not fair to the people who wait in line for years for their chance to come legally!" -- Your mom probably told you already, but life is not fair.  

Legal immigrants won't have to pay the illegal-entry penalty, they should have a quicker path to citizenship, AND we should increase the number of immigrants to make that legal path shorter and more likely. 

 

Moreover, we should dramatically increase the penalties on the employers of  illegal immigrants to reduce the enticement to not take the legal route.

 

We have these areas of the country that are mired in poverty and need investment -- why not allow immigrants who are willing to buy a property and live in one of these "opportunity zones" for five years? Or start a business in an "opportunity zone" and employ at least 5 or ten people within five years?  I think there are creative ways to encourage additional immigration in ways that benefit the economy beyond just bringing in more people.

 

There also has to be a cost-benefit analysis for the border.  We all want the border to be secure.  But we disagree on how to do that and on how secure the border can be.  Should we spend another defense budget's worth on building a wall that no one can cross?  What would that look like?  Is it even possible?  (we have seen numerous creative ways around the existing wall and other barriers to crossing the southern border -- including videos of people going over Trump's wall sections.)  Frankly, I think the border ought to be well marked and include signs to the nearest legal border crossing, and then maybe we could use drones to monitor movement. 

 

I think the idea that we are ever going to be able to perfectly seal our borders is laughable.  But that seems to be what a lot of Republicans in Congress are demanding before any other changes are made to immigration.

 

So how do we compromise and move forward even an inch on immigration reform when each side disagrees on the "problem" with immigration that must be solved?

 

 

On the plus side, shipments by rail are up last month, according to the American Association of Railroads. On the downside...

 

 

 

Big jobs report today. 336,000 new jobs for September.  Projections were 170,000. 

Yay

 

 

Boo

 

Increases over last 3 years...
CPI Medical Care: +4.6%
CPI Apparel: +11.8%
US Wages: +14.9%
CPI Shelter: +17.9%
CPI Food at home: +20.4%
CPI Food away from home: +21.0%
CPI New Cars: +22.3%
Actual Rents: +22.9%
CPI Electricity: +25.8%
CPI Used Cars: +29.1%
CPI Transportation: +29.3%
CPI Gas Utilities: +31.9%
Actual Home Prices: +40.0%
CPI Fuel Oil: +76.2%
CPI Gasoline: +76.9%

Two posts...

 

 

We'd better avoid a recession (and direct involvement in wars) because our interest payments on debt are out of control.

 

 

@KJPneither party wants to talk about controlling spending and it's flat out dangerous...

 

Dems can't possibly ever consider rolling back entitlements and the GOP doesn't know what it can or can't advocate for until Trump decides what they're allowed to say

 

$55 billion in uncollected taxes last year doesn't help either

On 10/12/2023 at 3:06 PM, KJP said:

Yay

 

 

Boo

 

Increases over last 3 years...
CPI Medical Care: +4.6%
CPI Apparel: +11.8%
US Wages: +14.9%
CPI Shelter: +17.9%
CPI Food at home: +20.4%
CPI Food away from home: +21.0%
CPI New Cars: +22.3%
Actual Rents: +22.9%
CPI Electricity: +25.8%
CPI Used Cars: +29.1%
CPI Transportation: +29.3%
CPI Gas Utilities: +31.9%
Actual Home Prices: +40.0%
CPI Fuel Oil: +76.2%
CPI Gasoline: +76.9%

One way to get these under control which we have full control over is less regulation and more supply. Drill for more oil will bring down the price, refine more gasoline will bring down prices, build more power plants, natural gas plants, etc. 

Build more non-electric cars will keep cars affordable, 

Build more housing with less restrictions from NIMBY's

 

These will all bring prices down 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

One way to get these under control which we have full control over is less regulation and more supply. Drill for more oil will bring down the price, refine more gasoline will bring down prices, build more power plants, natural gas plants, etc. 

Build more non-electric cars will keep cars affordable, 

Build more housing with less restrictions from NIMBY's

 

These will all bring prices down 

Strongly disagree on most of these as I don't see inflation as a bigger risk than climate change. (if you disagree, I strongly encourage you to invest in property insurers in Florida -- they need investors!) 

We need to dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, not increase them.  We already heavily subsidize the fossil fuel industry -- and Exxon has seen record profits in the past few years -- it's not regulation that is preventing drilling/refining/building power plants (except nuclear, where I would argue that strong, clear regulations are key). 

 

Build better transit systems so fewer people have to invest in a personal car (almost always a depreciating asset) to be productive members of society (fewer cars should also mean less maintenance expense). 

 

We should be regularly reviewing and updating regulations for simplicity and clarity, yes, but capitalism requires regulation.  Without regulation you get Too Big to Fail and other disasters.

2008 made birthrates go in the crapper. So if you want First-World society to end, just lift regulations.

6 hours ago, Foraker said:

trongly disagree on most of these as I don't see inflation as a bigger risk than climate change. (if you disagree, I strongly encourage you to invest in property insurers in Florida -- they need investors!) 

We need to dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, not increase them.  We already heavily subsidize the fossil fuel industry -- and Exxon has seen record profits in the past few years -- it's not regulation that is preventing drilling/refining/building power plants (except nuclear, where I would argue that strong, clear regulations are key). 

is there a bigger risk than climate change?? Really?? I remember AL Gore saying that by 2012 1/2 of New York would be underwater, SOmeone else said by 2018, and then 2022. 

Now, I am not denying Climate Change, of course the climate is changing, but to call is the most extreme existential threat to humanity is a load of crap. 

And no, this does not mean that maybe, someday, some time from now, the sea levels may rise and flood Tampa or Miami or somewhere else. BUt you know what, life will go on. We will adapt and people will figure out how to make it work. This is not going to be some biblical moment that people could not prepare for. Buildings will not suddenly collapse in the sea, people will not die en-masse. The wrath of God will not come down suddenly on people over fossil fuels. We all need to take a deep breath, we will be ok.

The climate alarmism is driving up prices in many cases when it does not need to happen. A gradual shift toward renewables that work is what people should do. Bring back nuclear energy. It is clean and does not pollute the environment, it can increase generation capacity without the issues and problems that come from solar and wind, and it is also clean too. This will bring down prices that people feel everyday. 

 

Keep using oil, but continue to work on better alternative fuels. Battery cars may not be the best as they have limitations, why push them so hard, there are better solutions out there that may be better and do not pollute the environment by mining the rare metals or even through the generation of power to charge the battery. Oil is not the long term answer, but it is still better than the alternatives we have now, so why create such pain for the average citizens. It is the poor that feel the most pain by these arbitrary regulations. The people complaining the most about the high cost of electric, cars, heat, food, etc. are the ones who can least afford it, and the regulatory state, especially the myopic bureaucrats who chase the dreams of a perfect society are not the ones who actually struggle under the day to day labors of their decisions.

^thank god our acclaimed and accredited expert on all world topics weighed in and shared their view (which is different than 98% of those who study the topics). But go on

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

is there a bigger risk than climate change?? Really??

OMG -- talk about alarmism.  That is a reading comprehension fail -- I didn't say THE END IS NIGH; I said I didn't think that our current level of inflation is a bigger risk than climate change.

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

A gradual shift toward renewables that work is what people should do. Bring back nuclear energy. It is clean and does not pollute the environment, it can increase generation capacity without the issues and problems that come from solar and wind, and it is also clean too. This will bring down prices that people feel everyday.

Other experts in climate science disagree with you and are saying that the current "gradual shift" is far too slow and needs to happen a lot faster.  Climate change means more weather chaos -- not just a few degrees warmer, but more frequent and severe weather events -- high rainfalls, tornadoes in places that don't normally see them, higher storm surges, more frequent and faster-intensifying hurricanes, longer droughts -- and even deeper cold snaps like we had last Christmas when the jet stream went well south of northern Ohio.  "Natural disasters" are becoming more and more expensive.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/01/10/major-natural-disasters-cost-us-165-billion-last-year-here-are-the-5-priciest-weather-events/  and this is why "ordinary" Floridians are finding it harder and harder to insure their homes, not inflation.

 

Nuclear may be helpful in helping us transition to a cleaner future, but it's not clean. Ask the miners.  Ask the workers at nuclear processors.  Ask the (former) residents of Fukushima.  Multiple countries, and even industrial Germany, have made wind power a significant portion of their energy supply in just a few decades -- in other words they are showing us that solar and wind can work while we whine about how fast we are falling behind as we dither over the transition from oil. 

 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Keep using oil, but continue to work on better alternative fuels. Battery cars may not be the best as they have limitations, why push them so hard, there are better solutions out there that may be better and do not pollute the environment by mining the rare metals or even through the generation of power to charge the battery. Oil is not the long term answer, but it is still better than the alternatives we have now, so why create such pain for the average citizens. It is the poor that feel the most pain by these arbitrary regulations. The people complaining the most about the high cost of electric, cars, heat, food, etc. are the ones who can least afford it, and the regulatory state, especially the myopic bureaucrats who chase the dreams of a perfect society are not the ones who actually struggle under the day to day labors of their decisions.

I agree that we will continue using oil for a long time - but we need to be using a lot less of it quickly, not continuing to burn the same or more oil while we wait for batteries to be perfected.  The current battery technology is not very clean -- but there is a lot of money being spent on developing alternatives, and there are a lot of different types of batteries in use and under development around the world.  I predict that lithium-ion batteries will become rarer in a decade.

 

If you are really concerned with the pain of ordinary citizens, you could advocate for subsidizing electric or hybrid cars or investing in alternative transportation options.  Republicans are not voting to help ordinary citizens -- but rather tax cuts for the wealthy and against subsidies for electric or hybrid cars or investments in intercity trains or intracity transit. 

8 hours ago, Foraker said:

Other experts in climate science disagree with you and are saying that the current "gradual shift" is far too slow and needs to happen a lot faster.  Climate change means more weather chaos -- not just a few degrees warmer, but more frequent and severe weather events -- high rainfalls, tornadoes in places that don't normally see them, higher storm surges, more frequent and faster-intensifying hurricanes, longer droughts -- and even deeper cold snaps like we had last Christmas when the jet stream went well south of northern Ohio.  "Natural disasters" are becoming more and more expensive. 

I dont dispute this, but again, 1) We can accommodate some of this in our forecasts and 2) this race to net zero IMO is not going to change anything because whatever is going to happen is pretty much baked in in one sense so we really have no choice but to learn to live with things. Too many times over the last 100 years we were told the end is coming in 2-3 years if we do not act now, these charlatans were treated as experts on the issue only to be shown to be nothing more than headline chasing frauds. I do not doubt that there is some merit to what they are saying, but unfortunately, those in power do not want to allow reasonable debate and discourse on the issue to forge a more realistic path, instead, we get pushed the narrative that we need to act now and faster or we will all die. 

 

I am all for clean energy, but we cannot cut off our nose to spite our face in our attempts to get there.  What Europe has done by closing down nuclear and coal plants and relying on Russia to try and provide them gas for heating as they raced toward net zero was extremely foolish.  

 

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

Nuclear may be helpful in helping us transition to a cleaner future, but it's not clean. Ask the miners.  Ask the workers at nuclear processors.  Ask the (former) residents of Fukushima.  Multiple countries, and even industrial Germany, have made wind power a significant portion of their energy supply in just a few decades -- in other words they are showing us that solar and wind can work while we whine about how fast we are falling behind as we dither over the transition from oil. 

Nuclear clearly has risks. However, it has proven safe over the years if you have a plant that operates according to the safety standards established and it burns cleanly.  Yes, you are right, the miners of uranium certainly carry risks, but the same can be said for the miners of the Lithium for EV batteries. To me, this is not any better. 

 

Wind and solar are nice, but they are not stable enough. You need a lot of solar panels and a lot of windmills to generate the electricity you need to significantly power industrial plants and major cities. With wind you are reliant on the weather and in the event of a lull in the wind, you are screwed as the windmill does not turn enough. WIth solar, you need to be in a part of the country where you get enough sunlight. Ohio is not the best place for that given the current limits on solar technology. 

So I go back to nuclear, it is a way to generate sufficient power at the right price point, that will not actively pollute the air. It can bridge the gap for 30-50 years until we develop better efficiencies in more sustainable products. 

9 hours ago, Foraker said:

f you are really concerned with the pain of ordinary citizens, you could advocate for subsidizing electric or hybrid cars or investing in alternative transportation options.  Republicans are not voting to help ordinary citizens -- but rather tax cuts for the wealthy and against subsidies for electric or hybrid cars or investments in intercity trains or intracity transit.

The answer is not subsidies for electric cars for ordinary citizens. That may seem like an easy solution from afar, but it is not at all practical.  The problem with EV's is not the cost of the vehicle, they may be expensive, but the biggest limitations are the delivery.  Younger, less upwardly mobile individuals tend to live in more urban areas or areas that do not have access to a garage. Go down to University Circle, or whatever college is near where you live and you see hundreds of cars parked at night along the street. In any big city this is an issue, where you have thousands of cars fighting for spots in the overnight hours. You do not have a charger next to each parking spot, and you are never going to build that amount of chargers (it would be expensive and also unsightly). If we have a long term EV future, where are these cars going to charge? It often takes hours to charge a car not minutes like gas cars. People who live in cities generally cant have an EV for this reason.  EV's have battery limitations making it difficult to drive cross country and efficiently charge your vehicle. A trip in a gas car from Cincinnati to Chicago takes 5 hours in a regular car but 8 hours in a Tesla. That is not ideal for many travelers. This limits the practicality of an EV to a suburban family who just uses the vehicle to drive around town during the day and has a garage or driveway where they can plug in at night.  This is one reason why the urban working class or much of the working class cannot afford an EV even with subsidies, it is just not practical where they live or rent from. 

 

So then the answer is better public transportation. In New York or DC or Boston, they have a robust public transportation system in place. you can live there without a car. Many medium sized metros, that is not the case. Even places like Cleveland with rail systems would need so much significant capital to expand the lines. To do that in every city really is not economically feasible in the short term. 

 

So subsidies may seem like an easy solution from an upper class or upper middle class viewpoint, but they really would not help ordinary working people. THis is why the working class has turned against the Democrats over the last 10 years. It is because they choose not to understand what they actually need to help their lives and all these great "benefits" that are supposed to make things better actually end up pushing down on the working poor and average middle class individual because it makes their day to day life experience more difficult. 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So then the answer is better public transportation. In New York or DC or Boston, they have a robust public transportation system in place. you can live there without a car. Many medium sized metros, that is not the case. Even places like Cleveland with rail systems would need so much significant capital to expand the lines. To do that in every city really is not economically feasible in the short term. 

 

So subsidies may seem like an easy solution from an upper class or upper middle class viewpoint, but they really would not help ordinary working people. THis is why the working class has turned against the Democrats over the last 10 years. It is because they choose not to understand what they actually need to help their lives and all these great "benefits" that are supposed to make things better actually end up pushing down on the working poor and average middle class individual because it makes their day to day life experience more difficult.

I disagree with your suggested approach -- "Oh, that won't work.  We should just keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere because it's cheaper."

 

I agree that a better public transportation system would be a more cost-effective way to help the working poor travel around town -- to work and the grocery etc.  And while a completely NYC-like rail/subway network would be awesome, we won't ever get there if we don't start somewhere and make investments in expanding the rail network (have I mentioned how much I want a downtown loop in Cleveland?)

 

In the meantime, we could improve our bus network.  15-minute headways and comprehensive coverage of the city core does not require an investment in rail -- an expensive proposition but cheaper than rail.  Natural-gas buses are far more efficient and less polluting than cars and are quite common.  Electric buses with capacitor recharging at bus stops may be an option as well in the near future -- you don't have to carry as much battery around if you can recharge at stops. 

 

Electric bikes and bike lanes make cycling a far cheaper transportation option for many -- and you can stash a bike in your apartment or remove the battery to charge.  You can get a good electric-assist bike for around $1,000 -- which is a lot, but really cheap compared to any used car, particularly right now.

 

Saying that Democrats lost the working class because they didn't understand their needs is funny.  Republican tax cuts and cuts to social programs made their lives better?!?  Who pushes for programs that actually would make a difference in the lives of the working poor -- universal health insurance, higher minimum wage, subsidized childcare and after-school care, free school lunches, tuition subsidies, expanded food aid programs, expanded housing subsidies -- it's not Republicans. 

 

In my opinion, Democrats' problem is one of (1) marketing, and (2) lack of success in implementing their programs that actually would help the working poor, not in "not understanding" the working poor's needs as well as Republicans.

IMO the Democrats are leaving out a part of the argument for these measures that could potentially be winnable with Republicans--the long term strategic effects of climate change and resources.   
 

One needs to look no further than Nazi Germany to see what the effects of lack of resouces do in the time of world conflict.  The longer we leave our oil and gas in the ground and focus on other forms of energy, the better off we will be down the road should the world erupt into another conflict.   These are not inexhaustible supplies so from a long term strategic planning perspective, it would be best to save as much as we can.  

25 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Saying that Democrats lost the working class because they didn't understand their needs is funny.  Republican tax cuts and cuts to social programs made their lives better?!?  Who pushes for programs that actually would make a difference in the lives of the working poor -- universal health insurance, higher minimum wage, subsidized childcare and after-school care, free school lunches, tuition subsidies, expanded food aid programs, expanded housing subsidies -- it's not Republicans. 

That is the problem, many of the programs are subsidies and do not actually address the problem in a sustainable way. A subsidy can be a short way to spur demand, but a permanent subsidy (one that could go on a number of years or longer) is not great policy because ultimately, it is just the government (taxpayer) offsetting the cost of a product that would not be able to economically stand on its own otherwise.  It is economically inefficient. 

Now there are times where a subsidy is a good idea but how it is used by many in the democratic spectrum, they are not efficient. 

 

What people want is they want independence. They want to be able to have the means to make it on their own if they have to do so. They do not want to be stuck under heavy regulation and rely on subsidies they may not want. Wouldn't it be better if policies could be in place to allow people to solve their own problems in the ways they see may be best for them?  Now, this does not mean we get rid of free lunch programs or tuition grants or housing vouchers completely, but we need to be more discerning how they are used.  

Housing vouchers are a perfect example. So many people are stuck in their situation and do not want to take the steps to improve upon it because they do not want to lose their voucher. They work under the table jobs to scrape for extra cash because they do not want to risk their income rising to a level that would cost them their voucher. THis is an example of inefficiency and it keeps people poor. This is a solution that the Dems promote but in the long run leads to more poverty and not less. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

The answer is not subsidies for electric cars for ordinary citizens. That may seem like an easy solution from afar, but it is not at all practical.  The problem with EV's is not the cost of the vehicle, they may be expensive, but the biggest limitations are the delivery.  Younger, less upwardly mobile individuals tend to live in more urban areas or areas that do not have access to a garage. Go down to University Circle, or whatever college is near where you live and you see hundreds of cars parked at night along the street. In any big city this is an issue, where you have thousands of cars fighting for spots in the overnight hours. You do not have a charger next to each parking spot, and you are never going to build that amount of chargers (it would be expensive and also unsightly). If we have a long term EV future, where are these cars going to charge? It often takes hours to charge a car not minutes like gas cars. People who live in cities generally cant have an EV for this reason.  EV's have battery limitations making it difficult to drive cross country and efficiently charge your vehicle. A trip in a gas car from Cincinnati to Chicago takes 5 hours in a regular car but 8 hours in a Tesla. That is not ideal for many travelers. This limits the practicality of an EV to a suburban family who just uses the vehicle to drive around town during the day and has a garage or driveway where they can plug in at night.  This is one reason why the urban working class or much of the working class cannot afford an EV even with subsidies, it is just not practical where they live or rent from. 

 

I urge you to learn about about EV’s and charging from actual unbiased sources.  It’s about 300 miles from Cincinnati to Chicago, so a long-range Tesla could theoretically make the trip with zero stops.  One stop is more likely, and a supercharger would probably take on the order of 30 minutes, so maybe 5.5 hours.  Even 2 stops (maybe it’s extremely cold and a short range Tesla) would take under 6 hours.

 

Obviously, charging in the city is a known problem.  The upside for such people is they likely don’t drive as much, and thus only need to charge weekly or so.  DC fast chargers are often co-located with amenities such that they could recharge while doing their grocery shopping for the week for example.

 

There are many other solutions involving increasing charging infrastructure, but it will never be necessary for every street-parked car to charge every night.

1 minute ago, acd said:

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Expand  

I urge you to learn about about EV’s and charging from actual unbiased sources.  It’s about 300 miles from Cincinnati to Chicago, so a long-range Tesla could theoretically make the trip with zero stops.  One stop is more likely, and a supercharger would probably take on the order of 30 minutes, so maybe 5.5 hours.  Even 2 stops (maybe it’s extremely cold and a short range Tesla) would take under 6 hours.

as a matter of fact, i have spoken to a number of unbiased people on the matter. I have people who love their EV but still lament how it takes longer to make a drive to a place like Chicago because of the charging situation and the lack of infrastructure. Yes, in an ideal world you could make it on one charge, but that does not take into account potential cold weather shortening battery life, lack of available charging stations on the ride, and time to charge. If you hit traffic and you are at 20% do you want to risk a long back up and having your battery die or is it best to be on a full battery? THese are all issues and concerns that are often overlooked by many EV enthusiasts. It will take longer to drive with the EV.

 

Charging is another issue. THe SUperchargers are nice, but if you use them too much they will harm your battery life. I learned this from the people that actually make these charging stations because we were looking at installing them at some commercial properties and realize that these charges (on top of the costs) may not be the ideal solution either. So those are not great for those who travel a lot since they will hurt the long term battery life. 

7 minutes ago, acd said:

bviously, charging in the city is a known problem.  The upside for such people is they likely don’t drive as much, and thus only need to charge weekly or so.  DC fast chargers are often co-located with amenities such that they could recharge while doing their grocery shopping for the week for example.

 

Yes, but you look at weekly charging is something that people can build into their busy schedules and it will be no issue. how many of these people rent? How many landlords are going to want to invest in the equipment. DC fast chargers as mentioned above, are bad for battery life, so you do not want to make a habit of using them. Also, DC fast chargers cost over $100k per station to install. Many property owners, especially owners of working class properties will not pay for this amenity. High end apartment owners will, but that again does not help the poorer working class individual.

 

Your flippant response about bias, shows you really know little about the infrastructure problem and are willing to just gloss over the significant problems to lower income individuals because their problems do not really effect you, and you like the idea of EV's despite their issues. 

11 minutes ago, acd said:

I urge you to learn about about EV’s and charging from actual unbiased sources.  It’s about 300 miles from Cincinnati to Chicago, so a long-range Tesla could theoretically make the trip with zero stops.  One stop is more likely, and a supercharger would probably take on the order of 30 minutes, so maybe 5.5 hours.  Even 2 stops (maybe it’s extremely cold and a short range Tesla) would take under 6 hours.

 

Obviously, charging in the city is a known problem.  The upside for such people is they likely don’t drive as much, and thus only need to charge weekly or so.  DC fast chargers are often co-located with amenities such that they could recharge while doing their grocery shopping for the week for example.

 

There are many other solutions involving increasing charging infrastructure, but it will never be necessary for every street-parked car to charge every night.

As someone who has done the road trip between Ohio and Florida in a Tesla, 💯 this.

 

In fact, it was the most pleasant of the many times I have done that slog

 

Here's an interesting article in Cleveland Business Journal about the "advantages" of multi-story warehouses in dense, urban locations.  Considering we spent the last 70 years or so moving away from multi-story toward one-floor next-to-a-freeway warehouses, it's a complete about-face.

 

Aside:  The Cleveland Business Journal is carrying lots more hard business news than it used to.  

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cleveland/news/2023/10/16/multistory-warehouses-united-states-five-years.html

 

 

6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you hit traffic and you are at 20% do you want to risk a long back up and having your battery die or is it best to be on a full battery? THese are all issues and concerns that are often overlooked by many EV enthusiasts. It will take longer to drive with the EV.

These are only issues to those unfamiliar or new to driving EV cars. You quickly get a handle as to what 20% range in your vehicle means, and how long you can go before you will need to find a charge point. No different than when you see 20% gas remaining in your ICE car. We are so used to it in ICE cars, but we are always making a risk calculation as to how far we need to go before we need to pull over to refuel, whether with petroleum or electricity. I’ve run out of “gas” multiple times in an ICE car, and never in an electric car. So, for me, I know which one is more likely to leave me stranded. 
 

There is battery degradation from DC, fast charging, but you overplay the significance of it. The fact is batteries are a wear item (although over a very long lifecycle) and they will degrade over time no matter how you charge them. As do alternators, head gaskets, transmissions, etc on ICE cars.  But you’re not leaving your Taurus just because you may need a new engine at 300k miles (and most battery warranties are 8-10 years, or 70% of charge). And the degradation from DC fast charging is highly monitored and mitigated by the controls of the onboard charging complementary, metering charging when needed to reduce additional wear. 
 

That first road trip between Ohio and Florida, by the way, was in 2017. Never ran out of electricity, or had to hunt for a Supercharger. The ensuing six years has made the situation only exponentially better. 

 

I am a gearhead, and I’ve had a wide variety of ICE cars, both classic and modern, gas, diesel, and electric— and I fell in love with “supercharging” long before Tesla had anything to do with the term.  All I can say is, if you haven’t tried out an EV, do yourself a favor and give it a chance. If you can put aside any associated baggage for the moment, you might just be surprised. Electric cars are not perfect and have drawbacks, but so does every other vehicle on four wheels. 

You guys are braver than I. No way I'd be comfortable driving an EV 300 miles. Just feels like there are too many costly challenges. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is the problem, many of the programs are subsidies and do not actually address the problem in a sustainable way.

Then the programs need to be adjusted, not eliminated.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

What people want is they want independence. They want to be able to have the means to make it on their own if they have to do so. They do not want to be stuck under heavy regulation and rely on subsidies they may not want. Wouldn't it be better if policies could be in place to allow people to solve their own problems in the ways they see may be best for them?  Now, this does not mean we get rid of free lunch programs or tuition grants or housing vouchers completely, but we need to be more discerning how they are used.  

Housing vouchers are a perfect example. So many people are stuck in their situation and do not want to take the steps to improve upon it because they do not want to lose their voucher. They work under the table jobs to scrape for extra cash because they do not want to risk their income rising to a level that would cost them their voucher. THis is an example of inefficiency and it keeps people poor. This is a solution that the Dems promote but in the long run leads to more poverty and not less. 

Again, this is in the design of the programs not the programs themselves.  Maybe what is needed is "here is your housing voucher for three years.  After two years, make an appointment with a counselor and we will review how we can help you find better housing" or something -- rather than "if your income exceeds X we are going to take away your support."  Maybe if we actually let people exceed the income threshold for a short period of time they can build up a nest egg, get a better car, get some bills paid off, whatever -- so that then they can stand on their own, rather than pulling the support the minute they get slightly ahead in life. 

 

Another alternative -- just give poor people the cash that all of these government programs cost to run.  IF people truly want independence, then they won't want to stay on the dole. 

31 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Then the programs need to be adjusted, not eliminated.

 

Again, this is in the design of the programs not the programs themselves.  Maybe what is needed is "here is your housing voucher for three years.  After two years, make an appointment with a counselor and we will review how we can help you find better housing" or something -- rather than "if your income exceeds X we are going to take away your support."  Maybe if we actually let people exceed the income threshold for a short period of time they can build up a nest egg, get a better car, get some bills paid off, whatever -- so that then they can stand on their own, rather than pulling the support the minute they get slightly ahead in life. 

 

Another alternative -- just give poor people the cash that all of these government programs cost to run.  IF people truly want independence, then they won't want to stay on the dole. 

Remember when Congress in the 90s passed welfare reform and it actually worked. THis is what you are describing.

It only took a generation for the progressive class to tear it down though.