Jump to content

Detroit's Stealth Subsidy (Changes in tax law)


Recommended Posts

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06010...m?ref=foolwatch

 

"The 2006 tax laws stand to greatly increase buyer interest in hybrid vehicles. If you can buy a fuel-efficient Escape hybrid for -- let's say Ford is feeling exceedingly generous and call it $2,600 over the list price for an ordinary Escape (the same amount as the credit in this case) -- you'd be crazy to buy the non-hybrid version. Same SUV. Same price. Better gas mileage. It's a no-brainer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, ask any of my passengers, I have no problem "VRRROOOOOOOMING", I just don't do it in something that will make me a hazard to me or other drivers.

 

 

That environmental crap is all politics. If I am going to spend money, give me performance. When you get the feel of the vehicle you are driving, you will know it's limits.

Edited by Trimdingman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That environmental crap is all politics. If I am going to spend money, give me performance. When you get the feel of the vehicle you are driving, you will know it's limits.

Many in the general population don't realize the handling limits of their SUVs until it's on its roof.

 

If that were not the case, the whole Explorer issue would have been a non-issue, despite the flaws in the Firestones.

 

My MIL's neighbour has a hybrid Escape. It's "fast enough", and she's happy. If it keeps people from buying from our competition because it makes them feel better because they think it's helping the environment (despite having my reservations about the economics of the purchase), more power to them, no pun intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many in the general population don't realize the handling limits of their SUVs until it's on its roof.

 

If that were not the case, the whole Explorer issue would have been a non-issue, despite the flaws in the Firestones.

 

My MIL's neighbour has a hybrid Escape. It's "fast enough", and she's happy. If it keeps people from buying from our competition because it makes them feel better because they think it's helping the environment (despite having my reservations about the economics of the purchase), more power to them, no pun intended.

 

 

I agree. Give the people what they want. I just will not be buying one.

 

I'll get off this forum, I just want to say something. In the early seventies, the environmentalists said that all the smog from car exhausts would bring on another ice age, so the car makers brought out the catalytic converter, which cut exhaust emmissions by 95%. Most of the emmissions now are harmless carbon dioxide and water. Now they are saying that all this carbon dioxide is causing a "green house effect" resulting in global WARMING. I believe these people have a political agenda which has nothing to do with science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Give the people what they want. I just will not be buying one.

 

I'll get off this forum, I just want to say something. In the early seventies, the environmentalists said that all the smog from car exhausts would bring on another ice age, so the car makers brought out the catalytic converter, which cut exhaust emmissions by 95%. Most of the emmissions now are harmless carbon dioxide and water. Now they are saying that all this carbon dioxide is causing a "green house effect" resulting in global WARMING. I believe these people have a political agenda which has nothing to do with science.

 

That's a pretty narrow-minded comment. Catalytic converters weren't brought out to prevent another ice age caused by smog, they were brought out because smog causes or worsens many respiratory diseases that could make living in a city poisonous to your health. Yes cars are cleaner running now, but there is also a lot more of them on the road, and people drive a lot more, offsetting a lot of reductions in pollution. If you have no appreciation for catalytic converters or environmental activism you've obviously got no appreciation for air cleaner than that of places like China where policies are much more lax (or non-existent), no appreciation for water free of mercury, benzene or red tide, cancer-causing pesticides on vegetables and anything else that might lead to relatively healthy life beyond age 60.

Aside from ice age claims, there's lots of other tangible reasons not to pollute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty narrow-minded comment. Catalytic converters weren't brought out to prevent another ice age caused by smog, they were brought out because smog causes or worsens many respiratory diseases that could make living in a city poisonous to your health. Yes cars are cleaner running now, but there is also a lot more of them on the road, and people drive a lot more, offsetting a lot of reductions in pollution. If you have no appreciation for catalytic converters or environmental activism you've obviously got no appreciation for air cleaner than that of places like China where policies are much more lax (or non-existent), no appreciation for water free of mercury, benzene or red tide, cancer-causing pesticides on vegetables and anything else that might lead to relatively healthy life beyond age 60.

Aside from ice age claims, there's lots of other tangible reasons not to pollute.

 

I rember the old environmentalist TV ads. They were using scare tactics, as they do to-day. They warned of an ice age beause of the smog blocking the sun. Catalytic converters are GOOD. The greater number of cars to-day does not offset a 95% reduction of emmissions. There would have to be 20 times more cars. If China is so bad, why aren't you over there protesting? I did not mention China. Life expectancy has never been higher than it is now.

The environment to-day is cleaner than it has been in 200 years. In the 1800s, city life was a nightmare, with all the mud, horse manure, disease from drinking bad water, excrement thrown into the streets. As for climate change, scientists are divided on whether or not it is taking place, or whether, if it is, is it a good or bad thing. If it is taking place, it is caused by the sun. Destroying our economy will not stop it. If you reply to this, I would appreciate it if you would address specific points, and not go into a hysterical rant trying to twist my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rember the old environmentalist TV ads. They were using scare tactics, as they do to-day. They warned of an ice age beause of the smog blocking the sun. Catalytic converters are GOOD. The greater number of cars to-day does not offset a 95% reduction of emmissions. There would have to be 20 times more cars. If China is so bad, why aren't you over there protesting? I did not mention China. Life expectancy has never been higher than it is now.

The environment to-day is cleaner than it has been in 200 years. In the 1800s, city life was a nightmare, with all the mud, horse manure, disease from drinking bad water, excrement thrown into the streets. As for climate change, scientists are divided on whether or not it is taking place, or whether, if it is, is it a good or bad thing. If it is taking place, it is caused by the sun. Destroying our economy will not stop it. If you reply to this, I would appreciate it if you would address specific points, and not go into a hysterical rant trying to twist my words.

I had a question? What is the normal temperature for the earth?

 

10,000 years ago a large percentage of NA was covered by glaciers.

 

Then when the Vikings discovered Greenland it was warm enough to farm. That is why they called it Greenland.

 

In the late 70's and early 80's we had several very cold winters. Many of the scientists' who now predict global warming were predicting an ice age was on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a question? What is the normal temperature for the earth?

 

10,000 years ago a large percentage of NA was covered by glaciers.

 

Then when the Vikings discovered Greenland it was warm enough to farm. That is why they called it Greenland.

 

In the late 70's and early 80's we had several very cold winters. Many of the scientists' who now predict global warming were predicting an ice age was on the way.

 

So you agree with me, then. Global warming is a bogus idea.

In Iceland, there is evidence of ancient farming on land that is now covered with ice. Eric the Red came up with the name "Greenland" to try to get people to come there. Believe me, it was not green.

Real scientists rely on proven fact, not politically motivated hypothesis.

Edited by Trimdingman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rember the old environmentalist TV ads. They were using scare tactics, as they do to-day. They warned of an ice age beause of the smog blocking the sun. Catalytic converters are GOOD. The greater number of cars to-day does not offset a 95% reduction of emmissions. There would have to be 20 times more cars. If China is so bad, why aren't you over there protesting? I did not mention China. Life expectancy has never been higher than it is now.

The environment to-day is cleaner than it has been in 200 years. In the 1800s, city life was a nightmare, with all the mud, horse manure, disease from drinking bad water, excrement thrown into the streets. As for climate change, scientists are divided on whether or not it is taking place, or whether, if it is, is it a good or bad thing. If it is taking place, it is caused by the sun. Destroying our economy will not stop it. If you reply to this, I would appreciate it if you would address specific points, and not go into a hysterical rant trying to twist my words.

 

"If China is so bad why aren't you there protesting"? Who's twisting who's words? What does that have to do with anything? I need to go somewhere to have an opinion on it? I'm not an environmentalist but I do advocate being careful with the natural ressources we have. The environment is cleaner now? It is different yes, there's less bacterial pollution and more chemical pollution.

 

I'm not advocating destroying the economy (of course environmentally friendly technologies don't destroy economies, they merely provide incentive for updating equipement, which stimulates growth, investment and efficiency). No one knows for sure if there is global warming or not, scientists are divided - so isn't it better to take the prudent route and try to limit these things?

Edited by marc-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If China is so bad why aren't you there protesting"? Who's twisting who's words? What does that have to do with anything? I need to go somewhere to have an opinion on it? I'm not an environmentalist but I do advocate being careful with the natural ressources we have. The environment is cleaner now? It is different yes, there's less bacterial pollution and more chemical pollution.

 

I'm not advocating destroying the economy (of course environmentally friendly technologies don't destroy economies, they merely provide incentive for updating equipement, which stimulates growth, investment and efficiency). No one knows for sure if there is global warming or not, scientists are divided - so isn't it better to take the prudent route and try to limit these things?

 

 

I was thinking about Kyoto, which the Canadian government has signed on to. I believe the billions we are putting into that could be better spent finding real solutions. Environmentalists never think of an idea that saves us money. Off the top of my head, I can come up with a few. How about less packaging? How about getting rid of phone books. They could program the directory into the telephone. How about getting rid of newspapers? You could have a memory card, put it into a slot in the news box, and get your favorite newspaper's contents. To read it, you would use a small device which would project it onto a flat surface. All they can come up with is blue box recycling, which costs a fortune, and is very inefficient. It is in the left's interest to perpetuate our discontent, and if we become contented, they need to create some more discontent. All they want to do is weaken our economy. Prosperity strengthens the right. As poor people become well off, they stop worrying about social assistance programs, and start looking for tax cuts. The left needs poverty, and will do whatever it takes to create it. That is just my way of looking at it. We both want a better world. :)

Edited by Trimdingman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about Kyoto, which the Canadian government has signed on to. I believe the billions we are putting into that could be better spent finding real solutions. Environmentalists never think of an idea that saves us money. Off the top of my head, I can come up with a few. How about less packaging? How about getting rid of phone books. They could program the directory into the telephone. How about getting rid of newspapers? You could have a memory card, put it into a slot in the news box, and get your favorite newspaper's contents. To read it, you would use a small device which would project it onto a flat surface. All they can come up with is blue box recycling, which costs a fortune, and is very inefficient. It is in the left's interest to perpetuate our discontent, and if we become contented, they need to create some more discontent. All they want to do is weaken our economy. Prosperity strengthens the right. As poor people become well off, they stop worrying about social assistance programs, and start looking for tax cuts. The left needs poverty, and will do whatever it takes to create it. That is just my way of looking at it. We both want a better world. :)

 

Well I agree with you on that... there's a difference between coming up with ideas and coming up with GOOD ideas. The problem is a lot of time when someone comes up with a good idea, there's a million things that happen afterwards that end up making it innefficient and generally inneffective. I think there's a lot that could be done to reduce harm to the environment that is just common sense like what you are implying... problem is when the government gets a hold of it, or when you run into a few people that oppose it and put up a fuss, then not much good comes out of it.

 

For example, I lived in Europe about 15 years ago...no blue boxes there - when you had empty cans or bottles or paper, you took them to this neighbourhood bin (you'd have a couple in any given square mile, so they were never really far away, always on the way SOMEwhere). Well they don't have that in Canada, they have blueboxes. I agree that's pretty innefficient and expensive (running two trucks around town instead of one), and pollutes in itself. I don't know why they do it that way... do they think people won't bother? Would people bother? (I'm sure some wouldn't)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I agree with you on that... there's a difference between coming up with ideas and coming up with GOOD ideas. The problem is a lot of time when someone comes up with a good idea, there's a million things that happen afterwards that end up making it innefficient and generally inneffective. I think there's a lot that could be done to reduce harm to the environment that is just common sense like what you are implying... problem is when the government gets a hold of it, or when you run into a few people that oppose it and put up a fuss, then not much good comes out of it.

 

For example, I lived in Europe about 15 years ago...no blue boxes there - when you had empty cans or bottles or paper, you took them to this neighbourhood bin (you'd have a couple in any given square mile, so they were never really far away, always on the way SOMEwhere). Well they don't have that in Canada, they have blueboxes. I agree that's pretty innefficient and expensive (running two trucks around town instead of one), and pollutes in itself. I don't know why they do it that way... do they think people won't bother? Would people bother? (I'm sure some wouldn't)

 

 

For me the bottom line is that there are problems in this world that are of far greater urgency than the environment, such as the energy shortage, the war on terror , fixing the obsolete power grid, and fixing the highways. Unnessecarily frightening people in order to steal their money is despicable. The programs now in place have, and are continuing to make the world a cleaner place. The environmental industry has to drum up support for phantom impending disasters in order to stay in business. They should find something else to do.

Edited by Trimdingman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree with me, then. Global warming is a bogus idea.

In Iceland, there is evidence of ancient farming on land that is now covered with ice. Eric the Red came up with the name "Greenland" to try to get people to come there. Believe me, it was not green.

Real scientists rely on proven fact, not politically motivated hypothesis.

That is what they taught you in the Canadian public school system. At the time it was 'Greenland' during a warming period. The Vikings could farm Greenland.

 

Global warming at present is a fact. The earth has been warming for an extended period of time. The question is what is the cause of global warming? Is it manmade or natural? Can man control the temperature of the earth?

 

If the earth is 4 billion years old if you look only at the last 1,000 years the temperature has not been constant. (Note: this is pre SUV) There has been hot spells and even mini ice ages. There is no normal temperature for the earth. When Krakatoa went off North Bay had snow all summer long that year due to the dust and particles floating around the from the eruption. I don't think that the activities of man can control the temperature of the earth. Remember when acid rain was going to destroy the world? That quietly dissappeared as an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what they taught you in the Canadian public school system. At the time it was 'Greenland' during a warming period. The Vikings could farm Greenland.

 

Global warming at present is a fact. The earth has been warming for an extended period of time. The question is what is the cause of global warming? Is it manmade or natural? Can man control the temperature of the earth?

 

If the earth is 4 billion years old if you look only at the last 1,000 years the temperature has not been constant. (Note: this is pre SUV) There has been hot spells and even mini ice ages. There is no normal temperature for the earth. When Krakatoa went off North Bay had snow all summer long that year due to the dust and particles floating around the from the eruption. I don't think that the activities of man can control the temperature of the earth. Remember when acid rain was going to destroy the world? That quietly dissappeared as an issue.

 

Well you have to be careful and differentiate between what disappears as an issue and what is no longer an issue. The media doesn't talk about a lot of things that are still problems, and exagerates lots of things that barely are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what they taught you in the Canadian public school system. At the time it was 'Greenland' during a warming period. The Vikings could farm Greenland.

 

Global warming at present is a fact. The earth has been warming for an extended period of time. The question is what is the cause of global warming? Is it manmade or natural? Can man control the temperature of the earth?

 

If the earth is 4 billion years old if you look only at the last 1,000 years the temperature has not been constant. (Note: this is pre SUV) There has been hot spells and even mini ice ages. There is no normal temperature for the earth. When Krakatoa went off North Bay had snow all summer long that year due to the dust and particles floating around the from the eruption. I don't think that the activities of man can control the temperature of the earth. Remember when acid rain was going to destroy the world? That quietly dissappeared as an issue.

 

 

You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. Yes, what ever happened to acid rain? To-day, I do not think the technology exists to calculate the average global temperature. How do they know what it was a hundred years ago? The oceans are probably largely responsible for global climate. The only thing greater than the oceans is the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. Yes, what ever happened to acid rain? To-day, I do not think the technology exists to calculate the average global temperature. How do they know what it was a hundred years ago? The oceans are probably largely responsible for global climate. The only thing greater than the oceans is the sun.

There is quite a lot of info on temp for the last 100 years. How you interpret it is the question.

 

Mount St. Helens was a little baby volcano compared to Krakatoa. However you could well be right about the amount of pollution. Around Windsor we have a large greenhouse industry. CO2 is trucked in to these operations to help the plants grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together.

 

You got somekind of source for that info?

 

The thing with the environment is its about balance. Obviously the world has existed with volcanoes going off periodically - but the fact is NO ONE really understands the impact (even if it is nil) of human activity over time. The notion that human activity somehow needs to ressemble the extent of natural activity in order to be comparable is wrong: it doesn't take much salt to ruin a recipe, we don't know to what extent human activity interferes with natural patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Also, the eruption of Mount St. Helens caused more pollution than all the cars ever built put together. Yes, what ever happened to acid rain? To-day, I do not think the technology exists to calculate the average global temperature. How do they know what it was a hundred years ago? The oceans are probably largely responsible for global climate. The only thing greater than the oceans is the sun.

 

 

May I suggest this book, Taking Sides - Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. ISBN 0073514411

 

It's worth a few hours effort and it would give you both sides of the issue and more importantly, a greater understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got somekind of source for that info?

 

The thing with the environment is its about balance. Obviously the world has existed with volcanoes going off periodically - but the fact is NO ONE really understands the impact (even if it is nil) of human activity over time. The notion that human activity somehow needs to ressemble the extent of natural activity in order to be comparable is wrong: it doesn't take much salt to ruin a recipe, we don't know to what extent human activity interferes with natural patterns.

 

 

The evidence to prove that human activity is not destroying the earth is that we are still here. Mother Nature is robust enough to withstand anything we can do to her. If we were to really piss her off, she would expell us from the planet. Every pollutant comes from the earth. We do not import them from another universe. To believe that we as a species are greater than Mother Nature is supreme arrogance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is not a fact. Records show hat the earth is 2 degrees warmer than 100 years ago. I do not trust that measurement was that accurate in 1906, nor the extrapolation to world wide temperatures.

 

Here is a fact - the U. S. Federal Imperial Government has mortgaged this country to the hilt and our grandchildren will be working 6 months of every year just to pay for the stupid entitlement and vote buying schemes we let politicians get by with. That is much more worrysome than global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...