Obama's Tire Gauge policy. Out of touch with not only people, but also reality.

[ishkabibble]

Nice personal insult, but it is you who is incorrect. Do two wrongs make a right?

But, OMG the Versa has an idiot light, so Wingfeather must be 100% FAIL!

Not a personal insult, just describing the situation.

Are all autos required to have precise tire pressure gauges in the cockpit? No. So, yes, you do fail. AGAIN.

[Jager]

telco lying under oath to not only the American people, but both houses of congress is an impeachable offense.

as far as the republicans, ideas on energy and obamas, sorry telco, your big oil large clout evil drilling doesn't hold up, the past 30 years has seen democrats consistently blocking oil and energy bills for alternative power citing that we would only see trickle effects in 10 years.... well 30 years later guess what ? we are paying for not expanding our infrastructure and keeping up with demand.

if Reagen was alive he'd be spitting fire and bashing heads in, how could 1 democrat screw up 15 solid years of Reagenomics, IDK how but you bet id love Clinton to explain it to me, and Obama since hes been screwing around in congress around the end there. Id rather have mccain as the liberal republican who has tried to get energy bills moved and can appeal to both sides.

bush might be low approval wise, but guess what Obama is in the lowest approval congress EVER. IE our nation thinks most of our congressman are bigger idiots then bush...

boy bet that grinds some gears.

[ishkabibble]

and Obama since hes been screwing around in congress. Id rather have mccain as the liberal republican cause bush might be low approval wise, but guess what Obama is in the lowest approval congress EVER. IE our nation thinks most of our congressman are bigger idiots then bush...

Er, guess who else is in Congress besides Obama?

[rn79870]

Er, guess who else is in Congress besides Obama?

I was just going to point that out along with the relative time each had been there.

[smockers83]

This approach seems laughable, I laugh at it, but it does have some validity and conservation does have to start somewhere. Its kinda like switching from old school halogens to the new efficient halogens and then the big whammy comes when you switch to CFs (which I guess would be electric cars or hybrids in the case--something of that nature).

But I mean, I've stored my G for 6 months during winter and the tire pressure is the same from when I put it in to when I take it out. I usually put a few extra pounds in and when I take it out I have to take a few extra pounds out. So it can't be too big of an issue. Plus, when one goes to get their oil changed, they check your air pressure anyway, and that's every 3000 miles or 3 months.

[rn79870]

Any campaign with focus and direction wouldn't waste time with a "tire pressure" comment by the opponent. A smart campaign never mentions the opponent's name, they refer to him as "the other guy" or something like that. Each time they mention the other guy's name, that guy wins a little. That's just indicative as to how unorganized and poorly McCain's team is functioning.

[mtcookson]

young, intelligent opponent with real world solutions to real world problems.

Its not a real world solution to a real world problem because not everyone drives around with under inflated tires.

Drilling off shore is not going to accomplish diddley squat.

Proof?

[AZhitman]

federal taxes should be increased

That's the only part of that post I needed to read.

[AZhitman]

Drilling off shore is not going to accomplish diddley squat.

How the hell did I miss THIS gem?

Hey guys, we have a geologist in the forum!!!

[rn79870]

Its not a real world solution to a real world problem because not everyone drives around with under inflated tires.

True, but ...NHTSA also found that 27 percent of cars and 32 percent of vans, pickups and sport utility vehicles had at least one tire that was underinflated. Eight percent of light trucks and 3 percent of cars had all four tires underinflated.

Under any light, that's a significant amount. In California alone that 27% to 32% represents over 5,400,000 vehicles.

[ishkabibble]

Hey guys, we have a geologist in the forum!!!

And quite a few archaeologists.

[skylndrftr]

That's the only part of that post I needed to read.

do you have another suggestion to pay down our 4 trillion dollar debt with the curent 690 billion dollar defecit (that was a surplus 8 years ago...)

btw 4 trillion dollars looks like this:

$4,000,000,000,000That would buy over 114,285,714 G35 sedans

[Soravia]

Believe it or not we need LESS TAX. All the businesses are suffering and laying off people or shipping jobs oversea because they can't survive the cost to operate.

BUT The real question is WHO gets less tax.

What SHOULD be is that people making low wages should get the same tax they do now, because they will be compensated in some other rebate and stuff anyway. Health insurance is a great way to go.

People making Medium income 75K to 200K should be taxed normal without ANY compensations EXCEPT IF they buy Hybrids, Solar Panels, etc. Those are the people who drive an SUV to by grocery and have flat tires on all 4 wheels to reduce ride harshness. Those are also the ones CAPABLE of buying expensive stuff like hybrids and solar panels. These people also invest their money so give them tax cuts if they buy bonds for projects such as nuke reactors, pond scum farms, sugar farms, battery plants, etc that will help the energy issue because energy is LIFE.

For people making above $200K such as CEOs and stuff, TAX THEM with NO breaks except for investments. These people don't NEED to be compensated for solar panels and hybrids, they probably fly with jets and drive Bentleys. Their money can go anywhere including buying future trades for oil, energy and food and that MUST be stopped. So give them tax incentives for putting money into DOMESTIC PRODUCTION of ANY kind. SALES & INSURANCE BUSINESS DO NOT COUNT, those don't make real income jobs.

As for BUSINESS enities themselves, give tax cuts to ANY company's DEPARTMENT that uses domestic workers. I know that will have issues with NAFTA, but who cares about that? It's time to look after domestic economy, the rest of the world is already picking up.This includes oil companies and nuke companies for starting up new wells and plants in US. We have a lot of land. Giving them (nearly) away to businesses to help the country and people is nothing. (e.g. sell the land to develop solar/wind power with 100 year fixed rate and near zero interest)

Isn't this better than taking money out of our pockets to give everyone $1,000 to buy gas or tire pressure gauges?

Obama is nothing but a hand-out liberal (although his camp painted more conservative Hillary that way on her goverment health insurance to rival private industries) and doesn't really KNOW how to come up with actual solutions to fix the problems. THAT'S THE ISSUE TO VOTE ON.

[skylndrftr]

ummm... no

[AZhitman]

Soravia, with a little refinement, you're gonna be damn good at this.

While I only agree with about half of your post, it's pretty good stuff.

[smockers83]

The idea of having less taxes does have some theoretical merit and has actually been seen to benefit in real life at times. Lower taxes increases the propensity to pay taxes and not cheat or not pay at all. It also spurs the economy as businesses have higher profit margins, increases the propensity to invest, which drives growth, which drives salaries. Sometimes it does produce more tax revenue than if tax rates were higher.

The oil companies shouldn't really be complaining about Obama's policy. Yes he's going to take money away from them, but people are going to spend that money on gas, so it goes right back to the oil companies. With an essentially subsidized industry in this form, it'll drive up demand and therefore prices and the oil companies could even make money off of this tax.

[skylndrftr]

Smockers, I can't argue that it works because evidence says it has. HOWEVER

Shoudl we really be setting laws so that people will follow them? its the law, you follow it. I'll bet if we taxed 0 everyone would follow it but that doesn't paydown our debt.

[smockers83]

Well yeah, if we have a 0% tax rate, I think that's pretty obvious. Not only would we not be paying down our debt, we would have no government. There is debate and research going on as to what the optimal tax rate should be, one that produces maximum revenue and its been proven on occasion and by research that its lower rather than higher. It doesn't matter how high taxes are or how low they are, as long as they produce the needed revenue, and if revenue can be increased by decreasing taxes, what's wrong with that? The question of today is, are tax rates too low or too high? Its all a big guessing game/experiment as to how to develop the most revenue efficiently. It almost sounds like you are threatened by lower taxes? Why? It should be the opposite in that you are threatened with higher taxes.

[rn79870]

Speaking of taxes, one thing I will guaranty, regardless of who gets elected in November, is that taxes will go up. Seriously, taxes one way or the other, will be increasing. You heard it here on Nico first.

[96Qowner]

Are you talking about tax rates or tax revenues, Bob?

Revenues will definitely be going up. But whose rates will go up?

[rn79870]

Actually 96, I believe, regardless of what either candidate claims, tax rates (and revenues) will be going up for all of us. We simply have too great a national debt and too many grandiose ideas those tax dollars not to see an increase.

Remember the "read my lips, no new taxes" promise...

[AZhitman]

Unfortunately, I think Bob's right there.

More reason to advocate for a FLAT TAX, folks. Everyone pays 10%. You make $10,000 next year, you pay $1000. You make a million, you pay $10K.

Leave the incentives for marriage, children and other deductions at an easier-to-implement and manageable level - Hell, let the states handle it individually...

[srellim234]

How about a flat tax with no deductions at all? Once you start changing the tax rate for one special interest group, whether it be parents, homeowners, married couples, whatever, you begin pitting one class against the other and the politicians will keep convoluting the system more and more to get votes by buying them with deductions.

I'm married, have a mortgage and kids. Yes, in an exchange for a pure flat tax rate you may take away my deductions, provided NOBODY gets one.

[skylndrftr]

It almost sounds like you are threatened by lower taxes? Why? It should be the opposite in that you are threatened with higher taxes.

Well, here goes, let me try and explain my logic. ::puts on fireproof suit::

I think that tax rates are to low. Like Bob said, its just about inevitable taxes are going to go up. We need to make the short term effort to pay down/pay off the national debt through a combination of higher taxes and cut spending. Right now, that HAS to be the priority. After we have done that, I believe we should turn our tax dollars to helping one another. Every one of us has at some point needed a hand up. Now many of you disagree with me on the role of government, but that is what I believe it is, to help its people. We should have national healthcare, free college for anyone who qualifies. We should spend money improving our infrastructure and helping us find alternative modes of transportation and of powering our homes.

Why you ask?

Because if you look at the long term gains, everyone will benefit. It is widely shown that wages go up to match tax rates so the only people who are being ‘hurt’ (I use the term loosely) are corporations. If we have a stable and incredibly valuable economy then they will have no where else to sell their wares. If we nationalize healthcare, not only will families not be destroyed by denying medical care to someone, the health of this country will almost without a doubt improve because we can focus doctors and nurses on improving peoples health, we can create a system that is proactive as opposed to reactive, and that will create a system that COSTS LESS FOR EVERYONE. Free college? I don’t mean for everyone, but I do mean that we can find and help out the people who are really GOOD at things. Do you want the best doctor or do you want a doctor who is the best that could afford to become one? Do you want the best person solving our energy crisis or the best person who could afford to get a an engineering degree? Our roads and bridges and infrastructure are falling apart. It ends the cycle of poverty and in the end would reduce the people on welfare who currently just cost the system money with no return. Return to programs like the new deal and the WPA, put people who have nothing better to do to work building roads, being nurses, The country with the highest tax rate in the world is Sweeden (90%). They still have a very robust economy, and yet they have all these things that we don’t. I could go on about this, but it’s a place for another thread… [/rant]

[Jager]

to the comment that mccain is also in the senate yeah, its that he has voted for responsible alternative energy and building US infrastructure generally, he understands better how we need both less consumption and better infrastructure to survive.

As far as government health care, sky you haven't been on government health care have you? If you haven't I suggest you do some research on exactly how it all works. I require it to survive, and the amount of time required to get the feds on board alone was 2 years and required a lawyer. and I still paid for many things that are impossible to afford on federal health care alone. Having state as well means I pay very little, but the feds and the state argued for another 2 years before i was approved. which meant i was living on around 200 bucks a month total...

The less my "federal government" gets involved with my health care in any current form, the better I will be. they tend to forget that people have to live and not just survive. and simply force rules that make very little sense. leave health care to the states if anything and make it local if at all possible. the closer to the community the people who help me are, the easier it is to get what i really need with the least amount of red tape.

as far as college im strictly a MAYBE, as there are great public institutions and great private schools, but if our public schools are a barometer alot of this nation needs saving there, and not more money, and the rules that go along with them, at colleges who are already profitable or at least solvent with decent teachers. give kids a chance to succeed in school and many can pay for college through current tuition assistance fasfa aid and scholarships, whats happening is you cant keep kids in highschool so they have no shot of a college education, or even a chance to try.

changing how the grant money is distributed or how fasfa's are figured may be the better way to make college more affordable.

[Soravia]

Hillary = Goverment Health Care is a LIE told by Mr. Obama himself. He would always say at his primary speeches that Hillary would bring nationalized health care and scare the wits out of people. His campaign was built on those scare and low blow tactics. Hillary is nationalized health care, Hillary is a lier.

Well, guess what? Obama lied with a straight face. Hillary didn't say nationalized healthcare. She said 'Open the healthcare plan for the congressmen to the people and no one will pay more than a certain fixed percentage of their income. If anyone is NOT INTERESTED in the government health insurance, they can buy from private insurance companies'.

Hillary was making it so that hospitals are not over ran with people going to ER because they can't afford a simple shot or two and keeping the sickeness till it gets worse. (WHY do you think ER wait times are at least an hour long?)Hillary also promoted the plan so that private insurance companies will finally have a real competition and stop squeezing the money out of everyone. (How much are you paying right now?)

Hillary's plan was so good it could even make Medical Care un-necessary. But of course, DNC didn't want her, insurance companies didn't want her, so they killed her off right from the beginning with Michigan and Florida votes. If it was Florida instead of Ethnol Farmers in Iowa to vote first in the nation, Hillary would have won the primary. But no, even her wins were called for 'a tear'.

Now with Obama, we have him turning his own policies over and over as well as playing partisian on things that would benefit the entire nation. Nuke plants power Japan and France, Obama may have been there, but he didn't learn enough about them. Solar plants power Germany, but Obama didn't learn enough about them.All Obama says is Subsidies for Ethnol Farmers. So much for his 'I'm not running on special interest' message.

[AZhitman]

All Obama says is Subsidies for Ethnol Farmers.

Can we get confirmation on this?

If this is true, I got some HUGE to do.

Ethanol... I can tee off on that topic like NO other.

[Soravia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06....html

I don't think Iowa farmers voted him because they all love the black man.

[ishkabibble]

Hillary's plan mandated that everyone purchase their own health insurance from private companies.

Hence, it SUCKED.

[Soravia]

Oh, you don't like having mandatory car insurance?

I bet you like paying tax out of your pocket to pay for all those ER bills though. What? You thought money for ER came out of no where?

You know how much health insurance I pay every month? $130. By the way, that's 20% of the cost after my job pays 80%. And you wonder why there are illegal immigrants and jobs getting shipped over seas.

I'd love to pay a fixed percentage of the income as cap for my insurance. I don't think Hillary would have people put in jail because they don't buy insurance. She would just take them of their pay checks like we pay tax now. Only that it would actually come back as health insurance instead of paying for someone's $1,000 'energy check' or tire gauges.