How has the Atlas changed your political views?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:28:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  How has the Atlas changed your political views?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: How has the Atlas changed your political views?  (Read 4845 times)
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 05, 2008, 09:57:57 PM »

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).

Uh, for that to be true somehow, oil has to be created as fast as we pump it out of the ground; and bear in mind that the oil we're currently using to near exhaustion was created over the past tens of millions of years or more. ie, we've used almost all the oil created over the past 50 million years in the past 200 years.

If we continue to remain fixated on oil as the main resource that drives our economy, we better be prepared for many more wars in the Middle East, Venezuela, the South China Sea, and elsewhere over what oil is left, because the simple fact is demand is outstripping production and sometime soon (10-50 years) demand will outstrip availible resources. That will be extremely bad. Unless resource wars and $500 barrels of oil are good things.
Of course.  In the mean time it will become to expensive to use in many of the ways it's used today.  Things will change, they always have.  You can laugh and/or be pescimistic when people the say "the market will take care of it" if you want to, but the market will take care of it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well then it's a damn good thing smokers have been paying all them taxes on their smokes then isn't it?

I agree the medical industry in this country is broken, I just don't think more government is the fix.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 05, 2008, 10:10:07 PM »

Answer the fucking point instead of acting dumb.

How do you propose we cut obese, unhealthy people off from receiving emergency room care when their arteries explode or they get diabetes? That cost is not paid in taxes; it's paid by hospitals charging everyone else double to cover the people who aren't paying.

And how does the market take care of their not being any oil left?

And yeah, I do believe things will change. I'd just rather have things change so that America can come out in the lead instead of following other countries. Think about it. If say, Europe reduces their dependancy on oil, they don't have to fight the resource wars in the Middle East. ie, they won't have to sacrifice their blood and treasure across the world like we'll have to.

The quicker we replace oil as it's used in energy and automobiles, the quicker the Middle East becomes irrelevant in our foreign policy.
Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,532
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2008, 12:43:09 AM »

I've always been liberal, and around as liberal as I am now since I was a devout 5th grader in a catholic school, when I was a hard-line republican [although I did not know it then]. The only thing I've really changed is my view on drugs. I would have told you that you were out of your mind if you told me I'd be for drug decriminalization this time last year.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2008, 12:57:02 AM »
« Edited: January 06, 2008, 01:23:01 AM by dead0man »

I don't know how to cut the obese and unhealthy off from receive emergency care, I thought that was against the rules.  I know raising taxes enough to solve that problem can't be done by just taxing the rich.  I don't know how to fix it, and nobody else seems to either.  Sorry if that's to dumb for you.

(and where has the all the tax dollars smokers have been paying gone?  I always assumed that was to pay for the medical problem future smokers will incur...even if by dying at 65 they save us millions by not living to 90.  Has the money gone the same place the Social Security (another thing the govt took over and farked up) money has gone?)

As for oil.  It will continue to get more and more expensive.  Nothing you can legislate in the US will stop the Chinese and everybody else from using more and more.  People will HAVE to use less. Industries will HAVE to change what they use for energy.  It might very well hurt for a bit, change often does.  I just don't think govt should be farking with the free market by favoring some new industries (ethanol, hydrogen, etc) with subsidies.  Letting the market find out what is the cheapest new energy makes much more sense than the govt using trickery to make some of them seem cheap in the hopes that in the future they will be cheap.

What do you think governments should be doing to save us from the future oil crunch?
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2008, 02:05:34 PM »

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).
This statement is almost comical.  You assume that the best interest of those who dominate the market to be the same as the best interest of America.  A transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy will take many years of reserach, infrastructural preperation, and a change of consumer culture.  It is not something that can happen overnight once fossil fuels become infeasible.  Furthermore, why wait to hit that crunch period where fossil fuels become unbearably expensive?  It will not occur in a matter a months but will be a prolonged period of several years of recession and likely stagflation.  Wouldn't it be better to avoid this entirely (as well as combat the problems it already causes to our national economy) through a proactive national effort right now?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2008, 03:05:12 PM »

Ok, so what is your answer?
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2008, 06:47:58 PM »

What do you think governments should be doing to save us from the future oil crunch?

In the long term, I like the idea I heard from someone recently. Give a billion dollar bonus to the first team that can come up with a feasible way to power automobiles that doesn't use oil and doesn't cost tons more energy to produce than what you get. Then subsidize the crap out of getting the technology into operation. We have to recognize that that may be 20 years or more from now. Until then, do this.

Immediately raise MPG standards from where they are now. There's no reason why every small car can't get 50 MPG.

Outlaw SUVs and pickups for those who don't have a business necessity for driving one.

Turn all urban highways into HOV only roads. Drivers who wish to drive solo can buy a permit to offset their fuel use. Encourage car pooling and ride shares.

Subsidize mass transit for cities that don't have it. Expand current lines and subsidize it so it's cheaper than driving (that's coming quickly with gas prices).

These four steps can be implemented tomorrow, will cost the government only in subsidizing mass transit construction and expansion (which I admit will be expensive), and will immediately start reducing the US consumption of oil.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2008, 09:08:54 PM »

Your ideas would probably work (although I don't think it's the most efficient way to go about it), but it would never ever be implemented.  The idea of giant prizes paid for the govt (or rich people/companies) is a good idea (like the X-prize).  I'd like to see more of it and I think we'll see more in the future.  CAFE standards will probably be raised again.  It's a hamfisted approach and I don't normally like the govt putting it's hand in the market, but if it gets selfish pricks out of giant SUVs, it can't be all bad.  I think it would be easier (and make more sense Constitutionally) to just require vehicles over a certain weight to require a separate, more expensive and much harder to get license.

There is a reason all small cars don't get 50mpg, Americans don't want them.  GM/Chevy/Geo/Suzuki sold a 50mpg car from 1985-2001 (the Sprint/Metro) and few bought them.  One of the main reasons hybrids have sold so well is that a lot of people just want to say they own a hybrid (well that and the car manufacturers losing 10s of thousands of dollars on every one they sell).  Making gas cost more is going to be a huge push in the right direction, which is why I think the market will take care of it.  We certainly have the ability to make a car that gets 50 (or 80) mpg, they just don't accelerate very quickly, don't handle very well and they ride hard.  (although they accelerate quicker and handle better than regular cars did just 30 years ago)  American's atittudes on small cars are going to have to change.  Me personally, I LOVE small cars and always have.  The Mazda3 I currently drive is the biggest car I've ever purchased (and I've purchased a lot of cars).

As for Mass Transit: I think we will see a rise of it in the next quarter of a century.  It's going to be hard to convince people in new cities that they'll get a BART (San Fran's Mass Transit, it's well liked, but WAY under budget) and not a MARTA (Atlanta's, it's hated and WAY under budget).
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2008, 01:55:10 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you make it so the choice is drive a small car that gets 50 MPG or better, prove that you need a larger car for business, or don't drive. Easy as that. I drive a Corolla. I f'ing hate how small it is, but it feels a lot better putting gas in it once every ten days instead of once every five like I did with the Altima. People will have to get over it because I simply don't believe the "market" will respond quick enough to this problem to make it so it doesn't absolutely ruin us. We're already going to get hurt someway, let's just try to make it hurt the least possible.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2008, 11:13:52 AM »

Your ideas would probably work (although I don't think it's the most efficient way to go about it), but it would never ever be implemented.  The idea of giant prizes paid for the govt (or rich people/companies) is a good idea (like the X-prize).  I'd like to see more of it and I think we'll see more in the future.  CAFE standards will probably be raised again.  It's a hamfisted approach and I don't normally like the govt putting it's hand in the market, but if it gets selfish pricks out of giant SUVs, it can't be all bad.  I think it would be easier (and make more sense Constitutionally) to just require vehicles over a certain weight to require a separate, more expensive and much harder to get license.

There is a reason all small cars don't get 50mpg, Americans don't want them.  GM/Chevy/Geo/Suzuki sold a 50mpg car from 1985-2001 (the Sprint/Metro) and few bought them.  One of the main reasons hybrids have sold so well is that a lot of people just want to say they own a hybrid (well that and the car manufacturers losing 10s of thousands of dollars on every one they sell).  Making gas cost more is going to be a huge push in the right direction, which is why I think the market will take care of it.  We certainly have the ability to make a car that gets 50 (or 80) mpg, they just don't accelerate very quickly, don't handle very well and they ride hard.  (although they accelerate quicker and handle better than regular cars did just 30 years ago)  American's atittudes on small cars are going to have to change.  Me personally, I LOVE small cars and always have.  The Mazda3 I currently drive is the biggest car I've ever purchased (and I've purchased a lot of cars).

As for Mass Transit: I think we will see a rise of it in the next quarter of a century.  It's going to be hard to convince people in new cities that they'll get a BART (San Fran's Mass Transit, it's well liked, but WAY under budget) and not a MARTA (Atlanta's, it's hated and WAY under budget).

Hmmm... I just hope with new technology, mid-sized cars will have better millage. I think the goal of the auto industry should be to have a 45mpg 200 horsepower midsized car for under 30000 by 2020.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2008, 01:06:17 PM »

That's not my bubble your bursting.  I agree with you.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2008, 01:20:46 PM »

Hmmm... I just hope with new technology, mid-sized cars will have better millage. I think the goal of the auto industry should be to have a 45mpg 200 horsepower midsized car for under 30000 by 2020.
And what if they can't?  Don't you think if they could, they would anyway?  They will make anything if they know it will sell.  A car that could do that would sell like ice cubes in hell.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2008, 07:36:48 PM »

My views haven't really changed.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 07, 2008, 08:47:56 PM »

Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2008, 06:36:02 PM »


I know, it's amazing. Tongue
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 11, 2008, 01:05:02 PM »

It hasn't
Logged
Willy Woz
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,901
Yemen


Political Matrix
E: -8.71, S: -5.13

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 11, 2008, 07:41:00 PM »

Turned me from a moderate capitalist to a communitarian.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.