Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8% - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Robbie · 10-08-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

There is nothing wrong at all with cutting spending, Hell I'm all for it.. The problem is the Right Wing tries to use that as their platform when if fact they never cut spending. The last 3 Republican presidents have increased spending by record numbers then try to call the tea pot black when they are the kettle.

You absolutely have to be an idiot, live in lala land or completely un-informed to actually believe the Republicans will ever "really" cut spending. (not aimed at you just at anyone in general)

I'm voting for Johnson. But in fairness I will say this: you are lumping a lot of people together. They aren't all the same. Romney is a completely different kind of Republican than Gingrich is and he is a completely different kind than Santorum (bat shit crazy lol)

Just like Obama is not the same as Clinton who was not the same as Carter. They all had different agendas. As for Bush...who really knows what his presidency would have been if not for 9-11 and the subsequent (and dumb) wars that the U.S. went into?

But taking your last sentence...IF I wanted to lump all Democrats into some kind of monolithic thinking like you are doing with Republicans I could easily change your sentence to read: "You absolutely have to be an idiot, live in lala land or completely un-informed to actually believe the Democrats will ever "really" cut spending

That sentence kinda works for both parties. And it's why I registered as a Libertarian last week.

SuckOnThis · 10-08-2012, 01:31 PM

This argument that tax cuts create jobs is the biggest lie there is. Its the other way around; higher tax rates create jobs by forcing business owners to look for more deductions, hiring people and paying payroll is one of those deductions.

Paul Markham · 10-08-2012, 10:57 PM

The UK is cutting spending, take a look at the IMF's prediction for the growth in the UK.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

This argument that tax cuts create jobs is the biggest lie there is. Its the other way around; higher tax rates create jobs by forcing business owners to look for more deductions, hiring people and paying payroll is one of those deductions.

Dude...I would never hire more people because I had less money from paying taxes. Especially given that I have to match funds for employees social security. Either you've never had employees on full payroll or you're just trolling.

Paul Markham · 10-09-2012, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Dude...I would never hire more people because I had less money from paying taxes. Especially given that I have to match funds for employees social security. Either you've never had employees on full payroll or you're just trolling.

Dude...... People hire people because they need them to grow. If they don't make enough and can't afford the cost, they stay small.

Really that was so easy to knock back across the net. Sharpen up on your service game.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Dude...... People hire people because they need them to grow. If they don't make enough and can't afford the cost, they stay small.

Really that was so easy to knock back across the net. Sharpen up on your service game.

You're a dumbass Paul. That was NOT what the guy said. He specifically said that raising taxes caused people to hire people.

I specifically said I would never hire someone because taxes were raised.

Learn to read before you type ignorant sentences.

Rochard · 10-09-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

There is nothing wrong at all with cutting spending, Hell I'm all for it.. The problem is the Right Wing tries to use that as their platform when if fact they never cut spending. The last 3 Republican presidents have increased spending by record numbers then try to call the tea pot black when they are the kettle.

But somewhere along the line reality has to come into play. It's very easy to say "I want to cut spending". And then when your faced with making it happen you discover it's really impossible. Okay, nothing is impossible, but it's "extremely difficult".

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But somewhere along the line reality has to come into play. It's very easy to say "I want to cut spending". And then when your faced with making it happen you discover it's really impossible. Okay, nothing is impossible, but it's "extremely difficult".

It's only difficult because they make it difficult.
Eventually they will have to stop spending because the whole thing will simply implode.

10.6 billion dollars per day in spending. 4 billion of that borrowed every day. Printing new money every year and adding it into the economy (making everything more expensive and the dollar lose worth).

Sooner or later that just won't work anymore and there simply will be no funds for any of these things that politicians just can't bring themselves to cut.

I've been hearing it since I was a teenager that if we didn't do something now, we would be screwed completely in the future.
But every year the politicians in Washington D.C. (congress and Senate) kick the can down the road by applying temporary fixes and borrowing more money. And no President has had the balls to take the bull by the horns and step in with some real leadership.

I think the "future" is almost here finally. And we are about to have no choice but to "cut" a whole lot...simply because there won't be any money to fund things.

Paul Markham · 10-09-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You're a dumbass Paul. That was NOT what the guy said. He specifically said that raising taxes caused people to hire people.

I specifically said I would never hire someone because taxes were raised.

Learn to read before you type ignorant sentences.

Maybe I didn't make it plain enough, should of realised I was discussing it with a one man band.

Cost of worker in wages/taxes = X Cost of worker in terms of equipment, location, etc = Y Profit from his work has to be more than X+Y to make it viable.

It's that simple to someone who employs people. Or more simply.

What ever it costs to employ someone, he/she should make there employment worth at least 50% more than cost.

Even if the cost includes tax, lunches, transport or a hooker every Friday. The cost of the worker has to be less that what the worker produces by a decent amount.

So you wouldn't employ someone whose cost was $1,000 a week and produced you $1,000 a week in in pure profit. Because $200 of the workers cost was tax.

And when the Government does stop spending, expect your US sales to drop.

tony286 · 10-09-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm voting for Johnson. But in fairness I will say this: you are lumping a lot of people together. They aren't all the same. Romney is a completely different kind of Republican than Gingrich is and he is a completely different kind than Santorum (bat shit crazy lol)

Just like Obama is not the same as Clinton who was not the same as Carter. They all had different agendas. As for Bush...who really knows what his presidency would have been if not for 9-11 and the subsequent (and dumb) wars that the U.S. went into?

But taking your last sentence...IF I wanted to lump all Democrats into some kind of monolithic thinking like you are doing with Republicans I could easily change your sentence to read: "You absolutely have to be an idiot, live in lala land or completely un-informed to actually believe the Democrats will ever "really" cut spending

That sentence kinda works for both parties. And it's why I registered as a Libertarian last week.

But Democrats have cut spending before. lol

tony286 · 10-09-2012, 10:11 AM

Also people keep forgetting , they are president not king.

Rochard · 10-09-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

It's only difficult because they make it difficult.
Eventually they will have to stop spending because the whole thing will simply implode.

10.6 billion dollars per day in spending. 4 billion of that borrowed every day. Printing new money every year and adding it into the economy (making everything more expensive and the dollar lose worth).

Sooner or later that just won't work anymore and there simply will be no funds for any of these things that politicians just can't bring themselves to cut.

I've been hearing it since I was a teenager that if we didn't do something now, we would be screwed completely in the future.
But every year the politicians in Washington D.C. (congress and Senate) kick the can down the road by applying temporary fixes and borrowing more money. And no President has had the balls to take the bull by the horns and step in with some real leadership.

I think the "future" is almost here finally. And we are about to have no choice but to "cut" a whole lot...simply because there won't be any money to fund things.

It's very easy to promise the moon, but making good on those promises are usually impossible. Right now Romney is telling us he's going to lower taxes, increase spending for the military, decrease the deficit, and create jobs - And yet doesn't have a plan.

It's very easy to say "these are our goals" but once you get into office you get dragged into every fist fight and problem one can imagine.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

But Democrats have cut spending before. lol

Yeah, so have Republicans IF you accept the bullshit definition of "cutting spending" that these lying politicians have created.

When you or I cut spending we actually spend LESS.

When these corrupt bureaucrat career politicians "cut spending" they just decrease the amount that the spending INCREASES from the amount it increased last year.

No matter how you look at it...they are all crooks. Vote every goddamn one of them out of office.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's very easy to promise the moon, but making good on those promises are usually impossible. Right now Romney is telling us he's going to lower taxes, increase spending for the military, decrease the deficit, and create jobs - And yet doesn't have a plan.

It's very easy to say "these are our goals" but once you get into office you get dragged into every fist fight and problem one can imagine.

Obama made a LOT of promises. And he convinced me in 2008 that he would actually do them. Instead he spent the first two years waiting on Congress to write the health bill while people needed jobs.

And yes, Romney has a plan. The plan is to create jobs. Whether you agree with his plan to unleash the oil companies and create jobs through the energy sector PLUS lower taxes on business is your personal choice. But just to say he doesn't have a plan isn't correct.

I've waited 4 years to see Obama's plan. Still don't know what it is. The only thing he keeps doing is giving out govt. money to his friends.

I think Romney's idea makes one helluva lot more sense. I agree with him on that part.
But his idea of growing the military and his stupid religious right stance on social issues makes him just as unacceptable as Obama.

This time I'm not going to waste my vote on the "lesser of two evils" which seems to be what everyone is doing...I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson.

Even if he doesn't win, at least I voted my conscience and not what the media on both sides is trying to convince me to do.

Captain Kawaii · 10-09-2012, 06:38 PM

The government's own U-6 is 14.7% unemployment.
Which means its still probably even higher and can easily be higher in specific markets.

http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemploym...211815397.html

Now back to the arguments in progress.

Rochard · 10-09-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Obama made a LOT of promises. And he convinced me in 2008 that he would actually do them. Instead he spent the first two years waiting on Congress to write the health bill while people needed jobs.

I didn't buy into Obama. I didn't vote four years ago. But I had more faith in Obama than I did McCain.

People don't understand what we just went through. This isn't about high unemployment - this recession nearly took out a dozen countries and their governments. We are lucky it didn't become a full fledged depression. Half the people on my street lost their houses - HALF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And yes, Romney has a plan. The plan is to create jobs. Whether you agree with his plan to unleash the oil companies and create jobs through the energy sector PLUS lower taxes on business is your personal choice. But just to say he doesn't have a plan isn't correct.

Well, what is his plan? All I've heard so far is he's going to increase spending to the military while reducing taxes and the deficit - all the while increasing jobs. He makes it sound so easy. Well, how is he gonna do it? Other than shutting down PBS and killing off Big Bird, how is he gonna do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I've waited 4 years to see Obama's plan. Still don't know what it is. The only thing he keeps doing is giving out govt. money to his friends.

What friends is he giving out money to? He must have some friends here in Sacramento in my home town, being as some of the stimulus money went for a $300 million freeway bypass that JUST opened this weekend. (Thanks for that btw.)

They say this about every politician - "He gives away the money to his friends". Who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

But his idea of growing the military and his stupid religious right stance on social issues makes him just as unacceptable as Obama.

A lot of people dismiss the military thinking it's all about war and killing people. Our military is so much more than that. Our military is a massive training school that employs millions and creates all of the technology we have here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

This time I'm not going to waste my vote on the "lesser of two evils" which seems to be what everyone is doing...I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson.

This is what everyone always does anyhow.

Brujah · 10-09-2012, 07:50 PM

I remember considering who to vote for in 2008. I might've actually voted for McCain if not for Sarah Palin. This time around, Ryan doesn't bother me much. Romney's a definite No. Pass. Anyone else. I also think Obama is the lesser of two evils. Anyway, I might go with Gary Johnson, but I'm afraid Florida can use all the Obama votes it can get.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 07:50 PM

Then Rochard, I guess you've already set your mind to things.

I told you in my answer that the "plan" Romney has is to unleash the Energy industry. I'm not here to argue his plan for him..but a lot of it is pretty obvious. Build the Keystone Pipeline is one of those "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised and failed to deliver (remember him laughing and saying that it turned out that jobs weren't "as shovel ready as I thought"?)
And just that one project will stimulate the economy as the workers will need food, clothes, buy stuff at the stores, go to the movies, go to bars, etc.

Then he pointed out that Obama has cut in HALF the amount of permits for drilling oil on public land. He said he will DOUBLE those.
Whether we believe them or not...the oil companies have said that they have found massive new oil reserves in Alaska, the Gulf, etc. in the last couple of years.

That's a lot of jobs...and not fast food employee type jobs..HIGH paying jobs.

That's just ONE of his ideas to get our economy going.

It's not brain surgery. There are jobs waiting to happen.

As for Obama giving stimulus money to his friends...did you not watch the debate? Romney told Obama to his FACE that he gave the stimulus money to his campaign contributors. He named the companies off in a list. The most famous of which is Solyndra.
Romney even pointed out that the feds give the oil companies 2.5 billion a year. But Obama gave 90 billion a year to "Green" energy companies. That's like 40 years worth of oil subsidies! And guess what..all the companies are campaign contributors and cronies of Obama.

Nothing new in that kind of shady shit in Washington. But what is new is people's refusal to SEE it and call him out on it.

As for the military....we are spending 10.6 BILLION dollars a day. We are STILL in Germany and Japan 70 years after WW2 (My brother-in-law is stationed in Germany right now and we the taxpayers are paying for him, his wife, and his little girl to all live in Germany and stimulate THEIR economy)

It's time to CUT that shit. I don't believe that it is the role of the United States govt. to have troops all over the world. That's just the way I see it. We can have that "massive training school" right here in the U.S.A.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

I remember considering who to vote for in 2008. I might've actually voted for McCain if not for Sarah Palin. .

Palin was a definite deal breaker. Not because she was "dumb"...but because she was fucking crazy! (religious nut)

GrantMercury · 10-09-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Obama runs the Labor Dept?

Of course. And Obama goes and jacks up gasoline prices because he hates...something...I forget what. And he sent the hurricane to (further) wreck the GOP convention.

Obama has all kinds of evil power.

Most GOP voters are idiots. The rest are greedy pricks.

Robbie · 10-09-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Most GOP voters are idiots. The rest are greedy pricks.

You must know that when you make generalizations about massive amounts of people...it makes you look really bad.

Rochard · 10-09-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Then Rochard, I guess you've already set your mind to things.

I told you in my answer that the "plan" Romney has is to unleash the Energy industry. I'm not here to argue his plan for him..but a lot of it is pretty obvious. Build the Keystone Pipeline is one of those "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised and failed to deliver (remember him laughing and saying that it turned out that jobs weren't "as shovel ready as I thought"?)
And just that one project will stimulate the economy as the workers will need food, clothes, buy stuff at the stores, go to the movies, go to bars, etc.

Seems to me Obama has opened up more land to drilling than ever before.

The pipeline... You need to open up your eyes here and apply common sense. If were building a pipeline directly to the heart of America, this would be a great idea. But why do we need to build a pipeline all the way to the Gulf of Mexico? Take a look at where our oil comes from and then a map. Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the US, and we are going to build them a way to bypass us so they can ship it elsewhere?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Then he pointed out that Obama has cut in HALF the amount of permits for drilling oil on public land. He said he will DOUBLE those.
Whether we believe them or not...the oil companies have said that they have found massive new oil reserves in Alaska, the Gulf, etc. in the last couple of years.

But this is double talk. We've increased drilling in these areas over all. We've cut back on drilling on public land, and increased drilling on privately owned land. Overall we've increased. So Romney is going to do what - increase drilling? Gee, that's what Obama boy did.

What your saying is Romney was to open up all of this public land - owned by us, the people - and turn it over to big business so they can continue to bend us over at the pumps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's just ONE of his ideas to get our economy going.

So his "one idea" to get our economy going is to turn over public land - land owned by our government - over to the oil companies so they can take the oil and sell it as a massive profit while shipping Canadian oil to Asia.

Holy crap, that's brilliant. Business as usual for the big oil companies, and now the largest oil exporter to the US is going to increase their oil exports to Asia. That will fix everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

As for Obama giving stimulus money to his friends...did you not watch the debate? Romney told Obama to his FACE that he gave the stimulus money to his campaign contributors. He named the companies off in a list. The most famous of which is Solyndra.

If I recall correctly, Telsa was named on that list. Are they Obama supporters? Romney mentioned that they failed to produce what they promised. Telsa built over one thousand roadsters and is working on their next generation of cars. Tesla employs 900 people. They are building electric cars that are faster than Ferraris. I've seen them on the road down in LA, at The Grove.

Romney named all of what, four companies that "Obama gave stimulus money to"... Fucking half of the country voted for him, so that number seems mighty small. Some of that stimulus money went build a new freeway two miles from my home (thanks for that btw) - Is that because Obama has friends in Sacramento? You can take any government list of businesses and half of them are owned by someone who supports one party or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Romney even pointed out that the feds give the oil companies 2.5 billion a year. But Obama gave 90 billion a year to "Green" energy companies. That's like 40 years worth of oil subsidies! And guess what..all the companies are campaign contributors and cronies of Obama.

And this is bullshit childish politics. Again, nearly half of the nation voted for him. It's entirely possible that half of the companies that got the 90 billion dollars might have contriubted to Obama - but half send money to the Republican party.

Unless you have a master list of everyone who received money and how much they contributed to Obama, your pointing imaginary fingers at imaginary crimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

As for the military....we are spending 10.6 BILLION dollars a day. We are STILL in Germany and Japan 70 years after WW2 (My brother-in-law is stationed in Germany right now and we the taxpayers are paying for him, his wife, and his little girl to all live in Germany and stimulate THEIR economy)

But... Romney wants to increase the money we spend to on our military.

And either way, I'm okay with us being in Japan and Germany. It sends a message to the rest of the world saying "Fuck with us, and we will occupy your country until the end of time". We should still be in Iraq and we should remain in Afghanistan. We need to send the message saying "fuck with us and we'll piss on your country for the next one hundred years".

With Germany, great, it gives us a military base directly in the heart of Europe. Might come in handy with what's going on in Turkey this week. With Japan, great, it gives us a base in Asia - where China is whipping out it's dick. We need bases in places like Germany, Japan, Korea...

Rochard · 10-09-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

I remember considering who to vote for in 2008. I might've actually voted for McCain if not for Sarah Palin. This time around, Ryan doesn't bother me much. Romney's a definite No. Pass. Anyone else. I also think Obama is the lesser of two evils. Anyway, I might go with Gary Johnson, but I'm afraid Florida can use all the Obama votes it can get.

I don't know much about Ryan, but I'm wondering if he might be the better candidate for the Republican party.

Robbie · 10-10-2012, 10:46 AM

Rochard...how did Obama increase drilling on PRIVATE land? He has now power over that.
He DECREASED the amount of new permits for drilling on public land...the only place he can.

That is why when Romney said that to his face...Obama just stared blankly and couldn't defend himself against that. Because it's TRUE.

If there had been no private drilling...there would have been a HUGE decrease in oil production in the U.S. which is exactly what Obama has stated he wants. He wants less oil to "force" us to use "green" energy.

Paul Markham · 10-10-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Palin was a definite deal breaker. Not because she was "dumb"...but because she was fucking crazy! (religious nut)

Not because she was "dumb"

So having a dumb President is OK.

Robbie · 10-10-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Not because she was "dumb"

So having a dumb President is OK.

"Dumb" is relatively speaking.
She would be "dumb" compared to a guy like Clinton.

On the other hand she would be a genius compared to a Paul Markham.

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Rochard...how did Obama increase drilling on PRIVATE land? He has now power over that.
He DECREASED the amount of new permits for drilling on public land...the only place he can.

That is why when Romney said that to his face...Obama just stared blankly and couldn't defend himself against that. Because it's TRUE.

If there had been no private drilling...there would have been a HUGE decrease in oil production in the U.S. which is exactly what Obama has stated he wants. He wants less oil to "force" us to use "green" energy.

But is this really true or this more political bullshit?

Fact checking from CNN:

Quote:

On state and private lands, oil production was actually going down in the 2000s, leveled off between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, then went up by 385,000 barrels a day in fiscal year 2011, when the most recent data are available, Sieminski said.

On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term.

So oil production over the past four years on federal land is up, not down. Romney lied.

And at the end of the day, what's the point? Oil production goes up, and oil production goes down.

Vendzilla · 10-10-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But is this really true or this more political bullshit?

Fact checking from CNN:

So oil production over the past four years on federal land is up, not down. Romney lied.

And at the end of the day, what's the point? Oil production goes up, and oil production goes down.

Romney said permits on federal land have gone down, not production.

Paul Markham · 10-10-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

"Dumb" is relatively speaking.
She would be "dumb" compared to a guy like Clinton.

On the other hand she would be a genius compared to a Paul Markham.

But I wasn't running for vice President with an old man and cancer survivor.

As I said, your service game is weak.

Brujah · 10-10-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Romney said permits on federal land have gone down, not production.

I heard something like over 7,000 permits were issued, but were still just sitting there unused. Doesn't sound like there's a permit problem.

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Romney said permits on federal land have gone down, not production.

Your right really. Here's exactly what he said:

Quote:

The third area, energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies.

Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I'm president, I'll double them, and also get the ? the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada.

While it's true that permits have dropped, this is a decade long trend - not because of Obama. The decrease isn't fifty percent, far from it. It was 37% - compared to Bush, who decreased such permits 42%.

This is completely misleading. It's not 50%, it's 37%, it's part of a decades long tend, and the President before Obama (which was Bush) also decreased such permits by a whopping 42%.

This is political bullshit already - taking fact that is pretty much irrelevant, making it seem important without telling the public the entire story, and making it sound like it's the solution to our economic woes - It's not. And in the mean time production is still up, and I'm paying more than ever at the pumps.

(source for my stats)

Quote:

During the last three fiscal years totally under Bush, there were 9,661 "new leases" granted for federal lands. For the three most recent fiscal years (which includes a few months of Bush's administration), there were 5,568 such new leases. This works out to a 42.4% decrease.

Take the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands. There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama's first term. This is a 37.4% decrease.

Vendzilla · 10-10-2012, 03:28 PM

I think Obama just wants to pay off his supporters that are pushing green energy, read this
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/17/...bama-cronyism/
you think Solyndra was bad?

Tesla has only manufactured 255 cars, they have lost 660 million in the last 14 months and Obama loaned them 465 million. That's 1.8 million per car.

http://www.freep.com/article/2012092...s-expectations

And one thing on drilling our own oil, we lease the land to the oil companies, places like Anwar, place is not good for anything else but the oil and it will put people to work.

SuckOnThis · 10-10-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Tesla has only manufactured 255 cars, they have lost 660 million in the last 14 months and Obama loaned them 465 million. That's 1.8 million per car.

So that's your litmus test on whether new technology should be pursued or not? If they are not showing a profit in their infancy scrap it? In your world we would still be eating off of rocks in caves.

Tesla is leading the world in advances of using solar to power cars, the govt should be pumping ten times that amount to them.

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I think Obama just wants to pay off his supporters that are pushing green energy, read this
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/17/...bama-cronyism/
you think Solyndra was bad?

I don't understand what this proves. Some of the stimulus money went to bad companies? I'm sure it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Tesla has only manufactured 255 cars, they have lost 660 million in the last 14 months and Obama loaned them 465 million. That's 1.8 million per car.

Your stats are off about Tesla. They've produced one thosand roadsters, and the next model is just coming off the assembly lines. They only 300 or of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

Quote:

Tesla cumulative production of the Roadster reached 1,000 cars in January 2010.

It's 1.8 million per car. It's creating a new business model from scratch.

Robbie · 10-10-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

So that's your litmus test on whether new technology should be pursued or not? If they are not showing a profit in their infancy scrap it? In your world we would still be eating off of rocks in caves.

Tesla is leading the world in advances of using solar to power cars, the govt should be pumping ten times that amount to them.

I don't think that their profit margin has anything to do with what he was saying.

I too, think Tesla is kicking ass. Can't figure out why they can do it, but Detroit can't build a good electric car.

Anyway...I think the point is...they got a huge chunk of money from the gov.t but didn't DO anything. With all that money given to them we (the taxpayers) should be seeing some RESULTS.

They already had the technology and the cars. That money should have built them a newer factory with more efficient production which SHOULD have put more Tesla's out on the road and made them a helluva lot cheaper.

My guess is that money just disappeared down a rabbit hole like so much federal money seems to.

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

So that's your litmus test on whether new technology should be pursued or not? If they are not showing a profit in their infancy scrap it? In your world we would still be eating off of rocks in caves.

Tesla is leading the world in advances of using solar to power cars, the govt should be pumping ten times that amount to them.

I couldn't agree more with this. This is cutting edge stuff that Toyota, Ford, and Chevy cannot do and here we have this little scrappy upstart that is about to turn the automobile industry upside down.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, oil is they key here. We need oil to move our cars around and oil to move our products around. Our entire economy revolves around oil, and our entire defense plan is based on it. Here we have a small company that might just change that - you would think the US Government would be investing billions after billions just for the chance to be done with oil.

But do you see the irony here? They are bitching about throwing "bad money" at green company that is able to build battery powered cars that don't need oil while also bitching that Obama is not issuing enough permits to drill. Battery powered cars is bad, but sucking every last drop of oil out of federally owned property is good. You know, it's all about big business.

(And while I'm at it, if Tesla can make battery powered cars that can go 300 miles on a charge, why isn't the bigger companies like Chevy and Ford trying to buy them?)

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Can't figure out why they can do it, but Detroit can't build a good electric car.

I'm not being a dick here about this, but I'd love to know why that is. How the fuck is it that a small upstart can do it but Toyota can't? Chevy? Ford?

Something is seriously fucked here.

tony286 · 10-10-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm not being a dick here about this, but I'd love to know why that is. How the fuck is it that a small upstart can do it but Toyota can't? Chevy? Ford?

Something is seriously fucked here.

Maybe oil companies have a hand in it? You are right why does auto technology move extremely slow.think about it the combustion engine is really old technology.

Robbie · 10-10-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Maybe oil companies have a hand in it? You are right why does auto technology move extremely slow.think about it the combustion engine is really old technology.

I absolutely believe the oil companies bought up the patents on most electric car technology and shoved it in a box somewhere covered in cobwebs.

We had electric cars in the late 1800's...hell New York had an entire FLEET of electric cabs in the 1890's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City

But now...in 2012 we just can't figure it out? Give me a break!

Vendzilla · 10-10-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't understand what this proves. Some of the stimulus money went to bad companies? I'm sure it did.

Your stats are off about Tesla. They've produced one thosand roadsters, and the next model is just coming off the assembly lines. They only 300 or of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

It's 1.8 million per car. It's creating a new business model from scratch.

Sorry, I meant to say since they got all that money, what business model are you talking about? making cars that only 2% of the population can afford with tax payer money, then giving tax breaks to buy them? electric cars have been around for a long time. Longer than gas powered by a long shot.

tony286 · 10-10-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I absolutely believe the oil companies bought up the patents on most electric car technology and shoved it in a box somewhere covered in cobwebs.

We had electric cars in the late 1800's...hell New York had an entire FLEET of electric cabs in the 1890's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City

But now...in 2012 we just can't figure it out? Give me a break!

I didn't know that about the cabs

Robbie · 10-10-2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

I didn't know that about the cabs

It's pretty outrageous isn't it? The last thing that oil companies want to see is electric cars.

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Maybe oil companies have a hand in it? You are right why does auto technology move extremely slow.think about it the combustion engine is really old technology.

My father in law swears the oil companies killed off the electric car in the 1970s. I always thought he was a nut.

Now I'm wondering if he was right all along.

Rochard · 10-10-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Sorry, I meant to say since they got all that money, what business model are you talking about? making cars that only 2% of the population can afford with tax payer money, then giving tax breaks to buy them? electric cars have been around for a long time. Longer than gas powered by a long shot.

Now your just making no sense.

The US government has invested into a company that is making electric cars in a way no one has ever even attempted before. This can change the way we do everything, make everything cheaper - Produce won't be going up because the price of gas went up because some leader in the Middle East woke up with a headache... It will all be powered by solar electricity. Fucking brilliant. We won't have to pay for gas, the price of everything will go down, and all of the people like my brother who works in the oil industry can move into the new and exciting market of solar energy.

And the best part is we can change the our government works - no need to protect our oil interests in the middle east, so they can just to fuck each other now.

Win win.

Nah, where's the fun in that? Let's keep drilling for oil and not invest any money into the battery powered cars. So not worth it.

Robbie · 10-11-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

My father in law swears the oil companies killed off the electric car in the 1970s. I always thought he was a nut.

Now I'm wondering if he was right all along.

My dad said the same thing in the 1970's to me when I was a teen. There was no internet then...so I had to go to the library and read up on it. And he was right.

Vendzilla · 10-11-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Now your just making no sense.

The US government has invested into a company that is making electric cars in a way no one has ever even attempted before. This can change the way we do everything, make everything cheaper - Produce won't be going up because the price of gas went up because some leader in the Middle East woke up with a headache... It will all be powered by solar electricity. Fucking brilliant. We won't have to pay for gas, the price of everything will go down, and all of the people like my brother who works in the oil industry can move into the new and exciting market of solar energy.

And the best part is we can change the our government works - no need to protect our oil interests in the middle east, so they can just to fuck each other now.

Win win.

Nah, where's the fun in that? Let's keep drilling for oil and not invest any money into the battery powered cars. So not worth it.

How about lets invest in an electric car that sells for $20k that regular people can afford, instead of a car that 2% of the population can afford.
That idea worked pretty good for Henry Ford.

As for the price of oil, read this...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Did you know about the 3.5 billion barrels of oil they found in North Dakota?

We need to work on that so we can say FUCK our middle east interests, develop an electric car that everyone can afford, because at 50k and up, it's not going to make a difference if the unemployment rate is still this high.

You're debating if we should or not, I'm just saying they are going about it the wrong way, not if they should do it.

Vendzilla · 10-11-2012, 12:05 PM

You guys should know just how long electric cars have been around

they're faster now

and at 1.8 million a piece when this KID built this for $2400?

Brujah · 10-11-2012, 12:16 PM

A lot of different electric vehicles being made, the price will come down as electric motors and battery solutions get more efficient and cheaper.
http://www.plugincars.com/cars

SuckOnThis · 10-11-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

How about lets invest in an electric car that sells for $20k that regular people can afford, instead of a car that 2% of the population can afford.
That idea worked pretty good for Henry Ford.

As for the price of oil, read this...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Did you know about the 3.5 billion barrels of oil they found in North Dakota?

We need to work on that so we can say FUCK our middle east interests, develop an electric car that everyone can afford, because at 50k and up, it's not going to make a difference if the unemployment rate is still this high.

You're debating if we should or not, I'm just saying they are going about it the wrong way, not if they should do it.

You're fucking with us aren't you.

JFK · 10-11-2012, 01:30 PM

200 unemployed

10-08-2012, 01:31 PM	#152
SuckOnThis So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In my head Posts: 6,844	This argument that tax cuts create jobs is the biggest lie there is. Its the other way around; higher tax rates create jobs by forcing business owners to look for more deductions, hiring people and paying payroll is one of those deductions. Last edited by SuckOnThis; 10-08-2012 at 01:32 PM..

10-08-2012, 10:57 PM	#153
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	The UK is cutting spending, take a look at the IMF's prediction for the growth in the UK. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

10-09-2012, 07:50 PM	#167
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	I remember considering who to vote for in 2008. I might've actually voted for McCain if not for Sarah Palin. This time around, Ryan doesn't bother me much. Romney's a definite No. Pass. Anyone else. I also think Obama is the lesser of two evils. Anyway, I might go with Gary Johnson, but I'm afraid Florida can use all the Obama votes it can get. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

10-09-2012, 07:50 PM	#168
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	Then Rochard, I guess you've already set your mind to things. I told you in my answer that the "plan" Romney has is to unleash the Energy industry. I'm not here to argue his plan for him..but a lot of it is pretty obvious. Build the Keystone Pipeline is one of those "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised and failed to deliver (remember him laughing and saying that it turned out that jobs weren't "as shovel ready as I thought"?) And just that one project will stimulate the economy as the workers will need food, clothes, buy stuff at the stores, go to the movies, go to bars, etc. Then he pointed out that Obama has cut in HALF the amount of permits for drilling oil on public land. He said he will DOUBLE those. Whether we believe them or not...the oil companies have said that they have found massive new oil reserves in Alaska, the Gulf, etc. in the last couple of years. That's a lot of jobs...and not fast food employee type jobs..HIGH paying jobs. That's just ONE of his ideas to get our economy going. It's not brain surgery. There are jobs waiting to happen. As for Obama giving stimulus money to his friends...did you not watch the debate? Romney told Obama to his FACE that he gave the stimulus money to his campaign contributors. He named the companies off in a list. The most famous of which is Solyndra. Romney even pointed out that the feds give the oil companies 2.5 billion a year. But Obama gave 90 billion a year to "Green" energy companies. That's like 40 years worth of oil subsidies! And guess what..all the companies are campaign contributors and cronies of Obama. Nothing new in that kind of shady shit in Washington. But what is new is people's refusal to SEE it and call him out on it. As for the military....we are spending 10.6 BILLION dollars a day. We are STILL in Germany and Japan 70 years after WW2 (My brother-in-law is stationed in Germany right now and we the taxpayers are paying for him, his wife, and his little girl to all live in Germany and stimulate THEIR economy) It's time to CUT that shit. I don't believe that it is the role of the United States govt. to have troops all over the world. That's just the way I see it. We can have that "massive training school" right here in the U.S.A. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

10-10-2012, 10:46 AM	#174
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	Rochard...how did Obama increase drilling on PRIVATE land? He has now power over that. He DECREASED the amount of new permits for drilling on public land...the only place he can. That is why when Romney said that to his face...Obama just stared blankly and couldn't defend himself against that. Because it's TRUE. If there had been no private drilling...there would have been a HUGE decrease in oil production in the U.S. which is exactly what Obama has stated he wants. He wants less oil to "force" us to use "green" energy. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 10-10-2012 at 10:48 AM..

10-09-2012, 10:11 AM	#161
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Also people keep forgetting , they are president not king.

10-09-2012, 06:38 PM	#165
Captain Kawaii So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,748	The government's own U-6 is 14.7% unemployment. Which means its still probably even higher and can easily be higher in specific markets. http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemploym...211815397.html Now back to the arguments in progress.

10-10-2012, 03:28 PM	#182
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,201	I think Obama just wants to pay off his supporters that are pushing green energy, read this http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/17/...bama-cronyism/ you think Solyndra was bad? Tesla has only manufactured 255 cars, they have lost 660 million in the last 14 months and Obama loaned them 465 million. That's 1.8 million per car. http://www.freep.com/article/2012092...s-expectations And one thing on drilling our own oil, we lease the land to the oil companies, places like Anwar, place is not good for anything else but the oil and it will put people to work. __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

10-11-2012, 12:05 PM	#197
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,201	You guys should know just how long electric cars have been around they're faster now and at 1.8 million a piece when this KID built this for $2400? __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

10-11-2012, 12:16 PM	#198
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	A lot of different electric vehicles being made, the price will come down as electric motors and battery solutions get more efficient and cheaper. http://www.plugincars.com/cars __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

10-11-2012, 01:30 PM	#200
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,382	200 unemployed __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com