Thoughts,
ok supply and demand right, if America raised the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles we would all save money. if there was some incentive for car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, or if there was an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars, the price of gas would go down and everyone would save money. do you think that this is a good use for government?
We need to demand that car companies make more fuel efficient cars. The fuel efficiency standards haven't been raised since the 1970s, raise them 2-6 mpg and we'll be saving a lot of oil and paying a shit load less for gas as a nation. We will be using less gas because we have switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Thoughts from you guys?
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
04/30/2006 19:49 #21727
More on Gas and oilCategory: politics
04/29/2006 02:07 #21726
Gas PricesCategory: politics
I'm tired of the short term political 'solutions' to the increase in gas prices. Artificially lowering the price of gas by giving a gas tax holiday, or rebate checks, and all the other bs will just screw up supply and demand, and ignore the real issue of declining fossil fuel supplies. I'm also pissed that we are giving tax breaks to the richest company in the world Exxon-Mobil, which has made record profits the past 6 years straight, but they still get breaks from the government.
La Times sums it up well
Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006
NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.
Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.
Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.
Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."
Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.
As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."
La Times sums it up well
Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006
NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.
Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.
Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.
Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."
Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.
As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."
jason - 04/29/06 19:20
Oh, the second largest thing that stuck out for me in the article was the assertion by the author (somehow, an energy policy expert) that we should focus our policy on consuming less. DUH NO SHIT. I'm surprised, no, actually I'm not surprised that people don't think of this.
If demand goes down, prices go down with it. Although we still won't be able to do one single damn thing about the exploding parts of the world (in terms of oil usage heh) which also increases global demand. I don't think there is anything we can do to bring us back to the good ole days of $1.25 gasoline, but we can help ourselves.
Oh, the second largest thing that stuck out for me in the article was the assertion by the author (somehow, an energy policy expert) that we should focus our policy on consuming less. DUH NO SHIT. I'm surprised, no, actually I'm not surprised that people don't think of this.
If demand goes down, prices go down with it. Although we still won't be able to do one single damn thing about the exploding parts of the world (in terms of oil usage heh) which also increases global demand. I don't think there is anything we can do to bring us back to the good ole days of $1.25 gasoline, but we can help ourselves.
jason - 04/29/06 19:05
I'd hate to burst your bubble, gentlemen, but people who can afford an SUV aren't pissing and moaning about how much it costs to fuel it. Seems to be the econobox drivers who do more than enough of it for everyone (including me). =D
And, sorry, I can't sign on with a mentality that forces someone else to live the way I want them to live. I'm sure in utopialand we would all drive scooters powered by peanut oil. If someone wants to drive an SUV, a Vespa, a bicycle, whatever. The only real way it could change without an all-out riot from the majority of America is to have this change be market driven. High gas prices will force change, but until it makes financial sense for companies to do it, and for consumers to consume it, Americans won't sign on.
We shouldn't pay a cent of tax on fuel anyway. Sixty plus cents per gallon of tax in our state? I thought consumption taxes hurt the poor the most, and that's the rationale for not increasing the sales tax by one percent? This is something permanent, that we all should be able to agree on.
I do agree in principle that we need change, but the answer isn't to Gestapo the rest of America into living the way we want them to live. I also agree that these band aid solutions we are being offered aren't good enough. I think the only real political solution is to get real about how many dollars we invest in new technology. We have to make a significant investment, not a paltry few million.
I had a disagreement with my brother about the subsidization. I didn't like it, he said it was the only way these companies would invest in new tech. No business will act in a way that would damage the bottom line. Those that do end up out of business (unless they are the government). If it ain't profitable, they won't do it, so although if I were an energy exec I would be forward-thinking, and start investing my own profits into something new, I'm not an energy exec. It is horrible that we have to do it, but otherwise they won't do the things they should be doing anyway, if they wanted to have a leg up on the competition in the future.
I'd hate to burst your bubble, gentlemen, but people who can afford an SUV aren't pissing and moaning about how much it costs to fuel it. Seems to be the econobox drivers who do more than enough of it for everyone (including me). =D
And, sorry, I can't sign on with a mentality that forces someone else to live the way I want them to live. I'm sure in utopialand we would all drive scooters powered by peanut oil. If someone wants to drive an SUV, a Vespa, a bicycle, whatever. The only real way it could change without an all-out riot from the majority of America is to have this change be market driven. High gas prices will force change, but until it makes financial sense for companies to do it, and for consumers to consume it, Americans won't sign on.
We shouldn't pay a cent of tax on fuel anyway. Sixty plus cents per gallon of tax in our state? I thought consumption taxes hurt the poor the most, and that's the rationale for not increasing the sales tax by one percent? This is something permanent, that we all should be able to agree on.
I do agree in principle that we need change, but the answer isn't to Gestapo the rest of America into living the way we want them to live. I also agree that these band aid solutions we are being offered aren't good enough. I think the only real political solution is to get real about how many dollars we invest in new technology. We have to make a significant investment, not a paltry few million.
I had a disagreement with my brother about the subsidization. I didn't like it, he said it was the only way these companies would invest in new tech. No business will act in a way that would damage the bottom line. Those that do end up out of business (unless they are the government). If it ain't profitable, they won't do it, so although if I were an energy exec I would be forward-thinking, and start investing my own profits into something new, I'm not an energy exec. It is horrible that we have to do it, but otherwise they won't do the things they should be doing anyway, if they wanted to have a leg up on the competition in the future.
libertad - 04/29/06 13:25
I didn't know what a Scion XB was so i looked it up. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about the boxy look yet, but sounds great for earthyy type soccer moms that want better MPG than an Expedition. Sometimes I think they look like a modern herse or something DR. Claw from Inspector Gadget would drive.
I didn't know what a Scion XB was so i looked it up. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about the boxy look yet, but sounds great for earthyy type soccer moms that want better MPG than an Expedition. Sometimes I think they look like a modern herse or something DR. Claw from Inspector Gadget would drive.
dcoffee - 04/29/06 12:34
I agree, I'm happy that gas prices are going up, it makes people realize that this lifestyle of huge SUVs and Fosil fuel based energy is unsustainable. I drive a Carola and it costs me $50 to fill my tank, but I don't care, I'll deal with the inconvenience if it mekes people realize how foolish we have been. and as soon as the come out with a hybrid Scion Xb it's mine!
I agree, I'm happy that gas prices are going up, it makes people realize that this lifestyle of huge SUVs and Fosil fuel based energy is unsustainable. I drive a Carola and it costs me $50 to fill my tank, but I don't care, I'll deal with the inconvenience if it mekes people realize how foolish we have been. and as soon as the come out with a hybrid Scion Xb it's mine!
libertad - 04/29/06 10:18
Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. At least we can sit back and gloat as people start crying when they don't have enough money to fill up there Hummers! It's kind of sad that money is the only thing that seems to drive policy around here. If anyone here does have sympathy for the Hummer drivers, they should get their hair cut at EnVus on Elmwood, cause I'm sure the woman who owns it really could use some help filling up her Hummer.
Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. At least we can sit back and gloat as people start crying when they don't have enough money to fill up there Hummers! It's kind of sad that money is the only thing that seems to drive policy around here. If anyone here does have sympathy for the Hummer drivers, they should get their hair cut at EnVus on Elmwood, cause I'm sure the woman who owns it really could use some help filling up her Hummer.
mrdt - 04/29/06 02:17
just a thought
- in Brazil gasoline is $6 a gallon and I hear in Europe it's not much less
just a thought
- in Brazil gasoline is $6 a gallon and I hear in Europe it's not much less
paul - 04/29/06 02:10
I agree it is outrageous but at the same time mabye the highest gas prices will make people switch to something better, like legs.
I agree it is outrageous but at the same time mabye the highest gas prices will make people switch to something better, like legs.
04/22/2006 00:01 #21725
The devine bombCategory: war
You think I'm kidding don't you? 
On June 2 the the pentagon will test a 700 ton bomb at their Nevada testing site. This is the largest open air explosion ever at the site, no others come close. This test just happens to be called called "Devine Strake" seriously. what the hell is wrong with the people in our government? apparently they are all about the holy war metaphors.
From Washington Post
"This is the largest single explosive we could imagine doing," said James A. Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is conducting the test.
The June test will detonate 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate-fuel oil emulsion -- creating a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT -- in a 36-foot-deep hole near a tunnel in the center of the Nevada Test Site, according to official reports. It aims to allow scientists to model the type of ground shock that will be created, and to weigh the effectiveness of such a weapon against its collateral impact.
On June 2 the the pentagon will test a 700 ton bomb at their Nevada testing site. This is the largest open air explosion ever at the site, no others come close. This test just happens to be called called "Devine Strake" seriously. what the hell is wrong with the people in our government? apparently they are all about the holy war metaphors.
From Washington Post
"This is the largest single explosive we could imagine doing," said James A. Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is conducting the test.
The June test will detonate 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate-fuel oil emulsion -- creating a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT -- in a 36-foot-deep hole near a tunnel in the center of the Nevada Test Site, according to official reports. It aims to allow scientists to model the type of ground shock that will be created, and to weigh the effectiveness of such a weapon against its collateral impact.
ajay - 04/22/06 10:54
I wonder if this is actually one of those mini-nukes.
The problem with detonating such large munitions is that you can't hide the fact that you did it (seismic stations all over the world will detect it; heck, the Russians regularly detect the explosions used in strip mining). What better way to cover up your nuke testing than to claim it's a large conventional bomb? ;-)
I wonder if this is actually one of those mini-nukes.
The problem with detonating such large munitions is that you can't hide the fact that you did it (seismic stations all over the world will detect it; heck, the Russians regularly detect the explosions used in strip mining). What better way to cover up your nuke testing than to claim it's a large conventional bomb? ;-)
zobar - 04/22/06 09:18
Our technological military superiority is fertilizer? No no, sorry ... it's lots of fertilizer.
- Z
Our technological military superiority is fertilizer? No no, sorry ... it's lots of fertilizer.
- Z
paul - 04/22/06 00:08
Sorry, I accidentally deleted this journal when testing something, so I republished it but the timestamp moved up.
Sorry, I accidentally deleted this journal when testing something, so I republished it but the timestamp moved up.
libertad - 04/21/06 22:05
Of course the real test will be in Iran.
Of course the real test will be in Iran.
jenks - 04/21/06 21:46
36 feet? that doesn't seem like enough to diffuse a SEVEN HUNDRED TON bomb.
36 feet? that doesn't seem like enough to diffuse a SEVEN HUNDRED TON bomb.
04/22/2006 16:41 #21724
ex-CIA We knew that there were no WMDCategory: politics
Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's number one agent in europe during the lead up to the war has recently retired, and has just come forward to talk about how the Bush administration ignored evidence that Saddam had no WMD.
For example he says that in the lead up to the Iraq War, the CIA got Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, to cooperate with them by making a deal. George Tenet went to the whitehouse to deliver the good news to the president VP and other top officials and they were very excited about the success. until the report came back from this new spy that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and then the administration decided it wasn't worth their time, they didn't want any additional data from Sabri.
"The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
I'll just post the full story here it's short:
A Spy Speaks Out
April 21, 2006
Source
(CBS) A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.
The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence - which the administration chose to ignore.
Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.
When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited - but not for long.
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.
Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources - when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.
"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he says. The "yellowcake story" refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.
Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president's speeches.
In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn't stop it from making it into the president's State of the Union address a short time later.
"As a British report," says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. ... This was a policy failure. ... I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time," Drumheller tells Bradley.
For example he says that in the lead up to the Iraq War, the CIA got Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, to cooperate with them by making a deal. George Tenet went to the whitehouse to deliver the good news to the president VP and other top officials and they were very excited about the success. until the report came back from this new spy that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and then the administration decided it wasn't worth their time, they didn't want any additional data from Sabri.
"The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
I'll just post the full story here it's short:
A Spy Speaks Out
April 21, 2006
Source
(CBS) A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.
The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence - which the administration chose to ignore.
Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.
When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited - but not for long.
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.
Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources - when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.
"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he says. The "yellowcake story" refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.
Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president's speeches.
In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn't stop it from making it into the president's State of the Union address a short time later.
"As a British report," says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. ... This was a policy failure. ... I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time," Drumheller tells Bradley.
04/19/2006 21:13 #21723
Casino effectsCategory: casino
The biggest issue with the casino is economics. When I go to Latina foods and buy some vegetables and a carton of half and half my money does not stop there, it goes to the workers and owners who also buy things throughout the community. My money also goes toward buying more products for the store, many of which come from local farmers and manufacturers who in turn have employees to pay. and it goes toward infrastructure improvements, parking lots, gardens and etc that make my neighborhood better to live in.
In a casino, especially one owned by a separate sovereign nation, my dollars will not travel as far, and very little will return to my community. It doesn't matter how much Smirnoff or slot machines the casino buys, my community gets nothing. The only thing that comes back is what they pay their workers, $30-$50 million per year, and building contracts for construction, a one time expense of $125 million.
The Casino expects to make $150 Million per year. Add it up, and 10 years down the road our community will lose $850 million. Most of that would have gone to places like Chippewa, Elmwood, Hertel, and the restaurants and bars throughout the city. Small businesses around buffalo can not afford to lose that much money. they will close, and when they do Elmwood, and city living in general, will seem a lot less inviting. We need our businesses, that's why I live here, because I can walk to the store, I can walk to restaurants, cafes, events, grocery stores, and everything else. Destroy our local businesses and you destroy the vitality of Buffalo.
The poor people argument tends to divide people and start conflicts. It is true that poor people gamble in greater numbers, despite the fact that they can't afford to lose. And they inevitably lose more than they gain, they come home from the casino and have to deal with the reality that they can't pay all of their bills. I'm worried that they will decide to rob my car, instead of letting their gas be shut off in the winter. pretty simple. It is in my self interest to keep crime down, so it is beneficial for me to keep some money in the pockets of poor people, because they don't steal for fun, they steal for money. But I don't want to have a "nanny state" any more than ((e:joshua)) and I refuse to allow the state to legislate morality. However when it comes down to preserving property and property values within the jurisdiction of the city, it seems reasonable that the city and it's citizens protect their interests.
this deal is terrible for so many reasons, it amazes me that took 4 years for people to start really speaking out on it.
In a casino, especially one owned by a separate sovereign nation, my dollars will not travel as far, and very little will return to my community. It doesn't matter how much Smirnoff or slot machines the casino buys, my community gets nothing. The only thing that comes back is what they pay their workers, $30-$50 million per year, and building contracts for construction, a one time expense of $125 million.
The Casino expects to make $150 Million per year. Add it up, and 10 years down the road our community will lose $850 million. Most of that would have gone to places like Chippewa, Elmwood, Hertel, and the restaurants and bars throughout the city. Small businesses around buffalo can not afford to lose that much money. they will close, and when they do Elmwood, and city living in general, will seem a lot less inviting. We need our businesses, that's why I live here, because I can walk to the store, I can walk to restaurants, cafes, events, grocery stores, and everything else. Destroy our local businesses and you destroy the vitality of Buffalo.
The poor people argument tends to divide people and start conflicts. It is true that poor people gamble in greater numbers, despite the fact that they can't afford to lose. And they inevitably lose more than they gain, they come home from the casino and have to deal with the reality that they can't pay all of their bills. I'm worried that they will decide to rob my car, instead of letting their gas be shut off in the winter. pretty simple. It is in my self interest to keep crime down, so it is beneficial for me to keep some money in the pockets of poor people, because they don't steal for fun, they steal for money. But I don't want to have a "nanny state" any more than ((e:joshua)) and I refuse to allow the state to legislate morality. However when it comes down to preserving property and property values within the jurisdiction of the city, it seems reasonable that the city and it's citizens protect their interests.
this deal is terrible for so many reasons, it amazes me that took 4 years for people to start really speaking out on it.
- Geez, I never could spell, just changed it to steAl, yea....*
I must say that is the one thing I'm unhappy about with my car (a mini). I'm SUPPOSED to get this fantastic 30+mpg, but I'm LUCKY if I break 20. 20!! That's pathetic!
Yeah, I got thoughts:
The best economic incentive for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars is kind of self-evident. Many people don't understand or don't care that inefficient cars are more expensive: fuck 'em.
The best economic incentive for manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient cars is no less obvious: people would buy them. Many automobile manufacturers don't understand why nobody is buying a 26mpg subcompact :::link::: : fuck them, too. :::link:::
- Z