Beware of secret dealings with untrustworthy Senators and last minute back room deals! Keep the pressure on! Don’t call once; call every week!
Call either way – for or against. Let your voices be heard.
What about states like Florida that don’t pay any income tax? Why should high tax states like CA and NY pay for their health care? I like the single payer option in theory, but I don’t see why I should subsidize states that don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
I want my tax dollars spent in my own state.
We were told that the new Government Motors would be making tough decisions based totally on business logic to become a viable company in the future. However, when they made a business decision to close a plant in Barney Frank’s district, he raised a fuss and got the new CEO of GM to change his business decision and keep the plant open.
Bottom line, you get the government involved and you get politics.
Do you really want the government involved in you health care. Are you so sure that Barney Frank or some other politician won’t get the dollars spent in his district instead of yours?
Are you sure that certain protected interest groups won’t be given special attention for health care and you and your family won’t get short shrift?
Posted by: Terry | July 13, 2009, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
Mr. Obama is not being honest in the way he tries to sell this legislation, and with each passing day more and more people realize this.
He says that a “public option” is not intended to destroy private insurance and bring about a universal single-payer system, but instead is only intended to “keep the insurance companies honest.” Really? Then why don’t we need a public option for auto insurance? For life insurance? Why don’t we need government grocery stores to keep grocers honest?
How can adding 40 million people to the system reduce costs instead of increasing them, unless everyone’s care is going to be curtailed?
Why should the 85% of the population who have already taken care to insure themselves pay higher taxes in return for reduced benefits
Posted by: Fructuoso Solano-Revieltelte | July 14, 2009, 2:58 am 2:58 am
Obama’s plan is inadequate. That said, reason to dump the private health insurance companies are numerous.
A work population without adequate access to health care is a sick work and less than effective workforce.
Money spent to support private health insurance companies for a limited population could be better spent on a national health insurance policy that covers us all. People in England and Canada leave the hospital without a bill hanging over them; in some cases, the bill would be around for the next 5 to 10 years. Wouldn’t that be nice to do here as well? I know I’d rather pay my current health insurance premium for universal health care than to the insurance company that I’m currently supporting.
Posted by: jan | July 14, 2009, 7:16 am 7:16 am
“A work population without adequate access to health care is a sick work and less than effective workforce.”
I’ve worked for almost 20 years across dozens of private and public entities (in office and manufacturing environments) and chronic illness has never been an issue of primary concern (absenteeism, yes, but not due to illness (outside of substance abuse)).
“People in England and Canada leave the hospital without a bill hanging over them”
Many instead leave with a toe tag on their trip to the mortuary as delays in receiving timely care (due to long waits and bureaucracy) lead to missed opportunities to address maladies in early stages.
I like my healthcare…and am not particularly interested in paying for yours.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Karen,
People in those states do not pay STATE income taxes. They are not expempt from paying FEDERAL income taxes.
Also, in those states, generally the property taxes are much higher to compensate for the lack of a state income tax.
It is the entire tax burden that people need to look at, not just one particular tax!
Posted by: Mike_C | July 14, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am
Jan, the “father” of Canada’s socialized health care system, Claude Castonguay, stated last year: “We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it…(Now) we are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.” So even Claude Castonguay says that their system is not working!
Don’t be fooled by the Left’s rhetoric. While they talk about overhauling our healthcare system, their actual agenda is to control every aspect of our lives. Healthcare, like global warming, is just one of the means to that end. The Left wants to be able to dictate the products that we will buy and what food and beverages we will eat and drink. All of that under the guise of preventative healthcare and “saving the planet.”
It is already happening. In Europe some smokers are being denied some medical procedures simply because they smoke. In Japan, individuals over 40 must meet the government’s weight standards or be forced to attend weight reducing clinics. Their employers are subject to heavy fines if their workforce doesn’t meet a cumulative benchmark. The Left is pushing “green” products. And when they get their new energy bill, you will be forced to replace all of your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs. And eventually you may be forced to give up your SUV for an electric car.
Posted by: James Danley | July 14, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
“The Left wants to be able to dictate the products that we will buy…
And eventually you may be forced to give up your SUV for an electric car.”
No it’s really the right who wants to dictate the products you will buy by not offering alternatives and letting markets alone drive the choices. Clear evidence of that is how the car companies killed the electric car projects so that we can buy many types of gas guzzling SUVs easily enough but we can’t really buy a true electric car yet.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Skip wrote: “No it’s really the right who wants to dictate the products you will buy by not offering alternatives and letting markets alone drive the choices.”
With all due respect, do you even understand the Free Market? In the Free Market, it is the people who decide what products they want. If a company makes a product that doesn’t fit the needs of the consumer, sales are slow or non-existent; and if that company doesn’t change their product they will eventually go out of business. If a company produces a great product, one that meets the needs of the consumer then sales are great.
The people know what cars they need. If you have 4-6 children, you don’t want a two-seat electric car that only goes 40 mph and needs to be plugged in to recharge every 100 miles. THAT is why the SUV is so popular. You make an electric car that will hold 8 people, go 75 mph and can run 8 hours before needing to be plugged in for charging, sales will go through the roof.
Even the hybrids are not selling all that well because there are limitations. As soon as an auto manufacturer makes a hybrid that will run on the battery up to 45 mph, instead of 25 mph, before the gas engine takes over, then sales will skyrocket.
Posted by: James Danley | July 14, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Hey Skip,
The car companies did not “kill” the electric car. No one really took any of this seriously until gas went to $4-$5 per gallon. As long as gas was cheap, the extremely mobile society that we have was not going to give up their freedom to be chained down to a golf cart! Limited distance/speed in an affordable, mass producable vehicle is what killed the electric car.
If the vehicle was accepted by the masses, it would have been successful years ago. Just look at the Dodge Caravan as a simple example of a vehicle that the masses took to. It helped to spawn the whole modern “SUV” market.
Electric cars are still not something that the masses are going to run out and buy right now.
Posted by: Mike_C | July 14, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
@ Skip,
Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?
(think before you reflexively respond “renewables such as wind, solar, and biofuels” as these fuel sources each have serious limitations, especially on a large scale)
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
“If a company makes a product that doesn’t fit the needs of the consumer, sales are slow or non-existent; and if that company doesn’t change their product they will eventually go out of business.”
That’s all true except for the ‘eventually’ part. Our car companies crashed before they had time to change their products. You guys should look into electric car design more before comparing them to two seater golf carts. We could be driving real electric sedans, station wagons and minivans now that outperform gas cars in most ways except for range–but that will improve with battery design–if our auto industry had some foresight. The piston engine car is at a technological dead end, it’s only a matter of time now.
@ Skip,
Do you know what one of the primary component of batteries for electric vehicles? Lithium. Do you know what country controls 50% of lithium deposits in the world? Bolivia. Do you realize that Bolivian’s leader (Evo Morales) is a Hugo Chavez crony who has nationalized most/all significant industries within Bolivia? Aren’t we just trading one group of dictators for another?
BTW – Still waiting for an answer to prior question: Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?
I’m not trying to be a naysayer – I’m just pointing out that reality often differs significantly from your liberal utopia.
SUV’s are hardly marketable anymore. Thousands of SUV’s have been sitting unsold on car lots around the country, and have for well over a year, because people finally began to wise up that they didn’t really provide ‘freedom to go anywhere!’ – they just sucked up a whole lotta gas while you sit waiting in commuter traffic.
“Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?”
We use existing sources for now. It’s way more efficient to produce power at a plant and put that energy into the existing grid than it is to refine the fuel into gas and then use more fuel to drive millions of gallons all over the place to gas stations. Some studies have estimated that electric cars may get the equivalent of 100mpg or more because of this increased efficiency. Power companies have stated that as more electric cars come online they will be able to ramp up output to meet the demands. It’s also easier to maintain clean emissions at a large plant rather than trying to regulate the emissions of millions of individual vehicles.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
tip612: “Do you realize that Bolivian’s leader (Evo Morales) is a Hugo Chavez crony who has nationalized most/all significant industries within Bolivia? Aren’t we just trading one group of dictators for another?”
Evo Morales is not a dictator. He’s an indigenous Bolivian, and he and the indigenous of Bolivia have every right to control their own resources.
For 500 years people of European heritage think that they have the right to steal and exploit the natural resources of the Americas, including human labor.
Whenever a president in Latin America wants to help his own people he is called a “threat.” But Latin American countries where the people are brutally exploited by their governments, such as Mexico and Colombia, are called our “allies.”
Posted by: lisa | July 14, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
Mike_C
If you remember the marketing of the SUV, it was pushed as ‘freedom to go anywhere’ and usually featured mountain top vistas, clean air and ‘freedom’. Sold to the American public just like that – everybody is suddenly an ‘adventurer’ whereas in reality they’re locked in traffic, burning up their own money and polluting the environment.
How many singles and couples without children bought SUV’s Mike? For the ‘image’. Any idea?
At any rate, they’re dinosaurs now. Same with the Hummer and the other ‘self-indulgent’ image builders.
The future in automobiles is pretty obvious. Hell, even the dinosaurs know that now!
Curious how the right chooses to label democratically-elected leaders ‘dictators’ whenever it suits their self-centered agenda.
Evo Morales is the democratically elected leader of a democratic country, not a dictator. Manipulative use of incorrect language, again – and as usual – in an attempt to smear the target.
Danita wrote: “Curious how the right chooses to label democratically-elected leaders ‘dictators’ whenever it suits their self-centered agenda.”
Did you condemn the Left when they called President George W. Bush a dictator?
Posted by: James Danley | July 14, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
“Danita wrote: “Curious how the right chooses to label democratically-elected leaders ‘dictators’ whenever it suits their self-centered agenda.”
Did you condemn the Left when they called President George W. Bush a dictator?
_____________________________________
Of course I did, but now that the Cheney revelations are coming out, I may have been wrong.
“Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?”
Response from Skip: We use existing sources for now.
You do realize there is not enough capacity/excess electricity to handle this demand, correct? So your response will be to build more capacity. Coal-fired plants? Libs won’t allow it. Nuclear? Ditto. Natural gas? Doubtful (but with GE’s Jeff Immelt acting at Obama’s lap-boy, it is a possibility). What’s left?
“Evo Morales is not a dictator. He’s an indigenous Bolivian, and he and the indigenous of Bolivia have every right to control their own resources.”
Sorry, he’s a dictator in the mold of Castro, Chavez, and Ortega.
“Sorry, he’s a dictator in the mold of Castro, Chavez, and Ortega.”
Castro was not popularly elected.
If the world could put up with the US electing a complete idiot like George Bush, we can respect other countries decisions in regards to their leaders.
Posted by: Ryan C | July 14, 2009, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
“You do realize there is not enough capacity/excess electricity to handle this demand, correct?”
Not exactly. Of course we will need to use more fuel to generate more electricity for the cars. We may not need to build many more power plants however. Even though we use more lights at night our peak usage of electric power is during the day. Since there is no such thing as storage at this level most of the power plants cut back during the night, but that’s when most people will be charging their electric cars, so the plants will just have to run at a higher output at night than they do now.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
With all due respect, do you even understand the Free Market?
And James I’d like to make one last comment about the ‘free market’.
When GM closed it’s electric car plant and bought Hummer instead they demanded the return of all the electric cars they had leased. The customers pleaded with them to let them buy the cars but were forced at lawyers pen-point in some cases to return them so GM could crush them all. They destroyed perfectly good working electric cars -and why? So nobody would find out how good they were. They didn’t want people to find out about them because everybody would want one, and that’s not what they wanted to sell us. They wanted us to buy big gas guzzling pieces of junk. What on Earth is free market about that? And BTW: the best patents for batteries are owned by the oil companies and they’re sitting on them and challenging anyone in court that makes anything close. Don’t tell me that if we just want to buy something that the ‘free market’ will make it available. They are fighting against the electric car.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
Skip, one question for you. Do you believe it was a coincidence that GM filed for bankruptcy? I’d say the people–the Free Market– spoke.
Posted by: James Danley | July 15, 2009, 1:09 am 1:09 am
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Beware of secret dealings with untrustworthy Senators and last minute back room deals! Keep the pressure on! Don’t call once; call every week!
Call either way – for or against. Let your voices be heard.
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | July 13, 2009, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm
What about states like Florida that don’t pay any income tax? Why should high tax states like CA and NY pay for their health care? I like the single payer option in theory, but I don’t see why I should subsidize states that don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
I want my tax dollars spent in my own state.
Posted by: Karen | July 13, 2009, 11:19 pm 11:19 pm
We were told that the new Government Motors would be making tough decisions based totally on business logic to become a viable company in the future. However, when they made a business decision to close a plant in Barney Frank’s district, he raised a fuss and got the new CEO of GM to change his business decision and keep the plant open.
Bottom line, you get the government involved and you get politics.
Do you really want the government involved in you health care. Are you so sure that Barney Frank or some other politician won’t get the dollars spent in his district instead of yours?
Are you sure that certain protected interest groups won’t be given special attention for health care and you and your family won’t get short shrift?
Posted by: Terry | July 13, 2009, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
Mr. Obama is not being honest in the way he tries to sell this legislation, and with each passing day more and more people realize this.
He says that a “public option” is not intended to destroy private insurance and bring about a universal single-payer system, but instead is only intended to “keep the insurance companies honest.” Really? Then why don’t we need a public option for auto insurance? For life insurance? Why don’t we need government grocery stores to keep grocers honest?
How can adding 40 million people to the system reduce costs instead of increasing them, unless everyone’s care is going to be curtailed?
Why should the 85% of the population who have already taken care to insure themselves pay higher taxes in return for reduced benefits
Posted by: Fructuoso Solano-Revieltelte | July 14, 2009, 2:58 am 2:58 am
Obama’s plan is inadequate. That said, reason to dump the private health insurance companies are numerous.
A work population without adequate access to health care is a sick work and less than effective workforce.
Money spent to support private health insurance companies for a limited population could be better spent on a national health insurance policy that covers us all. People in England and Canada leave the hospital without a bill hanging over them; in some cases, the bill would be around for the next 5 to 10 years. Wouldn’t that be nice to do here as well? I know I’d rather pay my current health insurance premium for universal health care than to the insurance company that I’m currently supporting.
Posted by: jan | July 14, 2009, 7:16 am 7:16 am
“A work population without adequate access to health care is a sick work and less than effective workforce.”
I’ve worked for almost 20 years across dozens of private and public entities (in office and manufacturing environments) and chronic illness has never been an issue of primary concern (absenteeism, yes, but not due to illness (outside of substance abuse)).
“People in England and Canada leave the hospital without a bill hanging over them”
Many instead leave with a toe tag on their trip to the mortuary as delays in receiving timely care (due to long waits and bureaucracy) lead to missed opportunities to address maladies in early stages.
I like my healthcare…and am not particularly interested in paying for yours.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Karen,
People in those states do not pay STATE income taxes. They are not expempt from paying FEDERAL income taxes.
Also, in those states, generally the property taxes are much higher to compensate for the lack of a state income tax.
It is the entire tax burden that people need to look at, not just one particular tax!
Posted by: Mike_C | July 14, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am
Jan, the “father” of Canada’s socialized health care system, Claude Castonguay, stated last year: “We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it…(Now) we are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.” So even Claude Castonguay says that their system is not working!
Don’t be fooled by the Left’s rhetoric. While they talk about overhauling our healthcare system, their actual agenda is to control every aspect of our lives. Healthcare, like global warming, is just one of the means to that end. The Left wants to be able to dictate the products that we will buy and what food and beverages we will eat and drink. All of that under the guise of preventative healthcare and “saving the planet.”
It is already happening. In Europe some smokers are being denied some medical procedures simply because they smoke. In Japan, individuals over 40 must meet the government’s weight standards or be forced to attend weight reducing clinics. Their employers are subject to heavy fines if their workforce doesn’t meet a cumulative benchmark. The Left is pushing “green” products. And when they get their new energy bill, you will be forced to replace all of your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs. And eventually you may be forced to give up your SUV for an electric car.
Posted by: James Danley | July 14, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
“The Left wants to be able to dictate the products that we will buy…
And eventually you may be forced to give up your SUV for an electric car.”
No it’s really the right who wants to dictate the products you will buy by not offering alternatives and letting markets alone drive the choices. Clear evidence of that is how the car companies killed the electric car projects so that we can buy many types of gas guzzling SUVs easily enough but we can’t really buy a true electric car yet.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Skip wrote: “No it’s really the right who wants to dictate the products you will buy by not offering alternatives and letting markets alone drive the choices.”
With all due respect, do you even understand the Free Market? In the Free Market, it is the people who decide what products they want. If a company makes a product that doesn’t fit the needs of the consumer, sales are slow or non-existent; and if that company doesn’t change their product they will eventually go out of business. If a company produces a great product, one that meets the needs of the consumer then sales are great.
The people know what cars they need. If you have 4-6 children, you don’t want a two-seat electric car that only goes 40 mph and needs to be plugged in to recharge every 100 miles. THAT is why the SUV is so popular. You make an electric car that will hold 8 people, go 75 mph and can run 8 hours before needing to be plugged in for charging, sales will go through the roof.
Even the hybrids are not selling all that well because there are limitations. As soon as an auto manufacturer makes a hybrid that will run on the battery up to 45 mph, instead of 25 mph, before the gas engine takes over, then sales will skyrocket.
Posted by: James Danley | July 14, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Hey Skip,
The car companies did not “kill” the electric car. No one really took any of this seriously until gas went to $4-$5 per gallon. As long as gas was cheap, the extremely mobile society that we have was not going to give up their freedom to be chained down to a golf cart! Limited distance/speed in an affordable, mass producable vehicle is what killed the electric car.
If the vehicle was accepted by the masses, it would have been successful years ago. Just look at the Dodge Caravan as a simple example of a vehicle that the masses took to. It helped to spawn the whole modern “SUV” market.
Electric cars are still not something that the masses are going to run out and buy right now.
Posted by: Mike_C | July 14, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
@ Skip,
Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?
(think before you reflexively respond “renewables such as wind, solar, and biofuels” as these fuel sources each have serious limitations, especially on a large scale)
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
“If a company makes a product that doesn’t fit the needs of the consumer, sales are slow or non-existent; and if that company doesn’t change their product they will eventually go out of business.”
That’s all true except for the ‘eventually’ part. Our car companies crashed before they had time to change their products. You guys should look into electric car design more before comparing them to two seater golf carts. We could be driving real electric sedans, station wagons and minivans now that outperform gas cars in most ways except for range–but that will improve with battery design–if our auto industry had some foresight. The piston engine car is at a technological dead end, it’s only a matter of time now.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
@ Skip,
Do you know what one of the primary component of batteries for electric vehicles? Lithium. Do you know what country controls 50% of lithium deposits in the world? Bolivia. Do you realize that Bolivian’s leader (Evo Morales) is a Hugo Chavez crony who has nationalized most/all significant industries within Bolivia? Aren’t we just trading one group of dictators for another?
BTW – Still waiting for an answer to prior question: Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?
I’m not trying to be a naysayer – I’m just pointing out that reality often differs significantly from your liberal utopia.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
“Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?”
Magical rainbows and unicorns. Duh!
Posted by: RainbowBright | July 14, 2009, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
SUV’s are hardly marketable anymore. Thousands of SUV’s have been sitting unsold on car lots around the country, and have for well over a year, because people finally began to wise up that they didn’t really provide ‘freedom to go anywhere!’ – they just sucked up a whole lotta gas while you sit waiting in commuter traffic.
Posted by: danita | July 14, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
“Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?”
We use existing sources for now. It’s way more efficient to produce power at a plant and put that energy into the existing grid than it is to refine the fuel into gas and then use more fuel to drive millions of gallons all over the place to gas stations. Some studies have estimated that electric cars may get the equivalent of 100mpg or more because of this increased efficiency. Power companies have stated that as more electric cars come online they will be able to ramp up output to meet the demands. It’s also easier to maintain clean emissions at a large plant rather than trying to regulate the emissions of millions of individual vehicles.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
tip612: “Do you realize that Bolivian’s leader (Evo Morales) is a Hugo Chavez crony who has nationalized most/all significant industries within Bolivia? Aren’t we just trading one group of dictators for another?”
Evo Morales is not a dictator. He’s an indigenous Bolivian, and he and the indigenous of Bolivia have every right to control their own resources.
For 500 years people of European heritage think that they have the right to steal and exploit the natural resources of the Americas, including human labor.
Whenever a president in Latin America wants to help his own people he is called a “threat.” But Latin American countries where the people are brutally exploited by their governments, such as Mexico and Colombia, are called our “allies.”
Posted by: lisa | July 14, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
Mike_C
If you remember the marketing of the SUV, it was pushed as ‘freedom to go anywhere’ and usually featured mountain top vistas, clean air and ‘freedom’. Sold to the American public just like that – everybody is suddenly an ‘adventurer’ whereas in reality they’re locked in traffic, burning up their own money and polluting the environment.
How many singles and couples without children bought SUV’s Mike? For the ‘image’. Any idea?
At any rate, they’re dinosaurs now. Same with the Hummer and the other ‘self-indulgent’ image builders.
The future in automobiles is pretty obvious. Hell, even the dinosaurs know that now!
Posted by: danita | July 14, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
Curious how the right chooses to label democratically-elected leaders ‘dictators’ whenever it suits their self-centered agenda.
Evo Morales is the democratically elected leader of a democratic country, not a dictator. Manipulative use of incorrect language, again – and as usual – in an attempt to smear the target.
Posted by: danita | July 14, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Danita wrote: “Curious how the right chooses to label democratically-elected leaders ‘dictators’ whenever it suits their self-centered agenda.”
Did you condemn the Left when they called President George W. Bush a dictator?
Posted by: James Danley | July 14, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
“Danita wrote: “Curious how the right chooses to label democratically-elected leaders ‘dictators’ whenever it suits their self-centered agenda.”
Did you condemn the Left when they called President George W. Bush a dictator?
_____________________________________
Of course I did, but now that the Cheney revelations are coming out, I may have been wrong.
Posted by: danita | July 14, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
“Where is the electricity going to come from to power your electric car utopia?”
Response from Skip: We use existing sources for now.
You do realize there is not enough capacity/excess electricity to handle this demand, correct? So your response will be to build more capacity. Coal-fired plants? Libs won’t allow it. Nuclear? Ditto. Natural gas? Doubtful (but with GE’s Jeff Immelt acting at Obama’s lap-boy, it is a possibility). What’s left?
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
“Evo Morales is not a dictator. He’s an indigenous Bolivian, and he and the indigenous of Bolivia have every right to control their own resources.”
Sorry, he’s a dictator in the mold of Castro, Chavez, and Ortega.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 14, 2009, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
“Sorry, he’s a dictator in the mold of Castro, Chavez, and Ortega.”
Castro was not popularly elected.
If the world could put up with the US electing a complete idiot like George Bush, we can respect other countries decisions in regards to their leaders.
Posted by: Ryan C | July 14, 2009, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
“You do realize there is not enough capacity/excess electricity to handle this demand, correct?”
Not exactly. Of course we will need to use more fuel to generate more electricity for the cars. We may not need to build many more power plants however. Even though we use more lights at night our peak usage of electric power is during the day. Since there is no such thing as storage at this level most of the power plants cut back during the night, but that’s when most people will be charging their electric cars, so the plants will just have to run at a higher output at night than they do now.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
With all due respect, do you even understand the Free Market?
And James I’d like to make one last comment about the ‘free market’.
When GM closed it’s electric car plant and bought Hummer instead they demanded the return of all the electric cars they had leased. The customers pleaded with them to let them buy the cars but were forced at lawyers pen-point in some cases to return them so GM could crush them all. They destroyed perfectly good working electric cars -and why? So nobody would find out how good they were. They didn’t want people to find out about them because everybody would want one, and that’s not what they wanted to sell us. They wanted us to buy big gas guzzling pieces of junk. What on Earth is free market about that? And BTW: the best patents for batteries are owned by the oil companies and they’re sitting on them and challenging anyone in court that makes anything close. Don’t tell me that if we just want to buy something that the ‘free market’ will make it available. They are fighting against the electric car.
Posted by: Skip | July 14, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
Skip, one question for you. Do you believe it was a coincidence that GM filed for bankruptcy? I’d say the people–the Free Market– spoke.
Posted by: James Danley | July 15, 2009, 1:09 am 1:09 am