Obama says trucks must do better

On 08/13/2011 11:06 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2011-08-13, jim > wrote:
>> On 08/12/2011 11:28 PM, Brent wrote:
>> <snip inability to follow or make coherent argument>
>
> You mean trim off what you can't deal with.

no, you're fighting strawmen. i won't play that game.

>
>>>> as i said, long term vision is pursued by many, across multiple
>>>> businesses and multiple political administrations. i know a guy who
>>>> lobbies for his industry, and during the course of ~30 years, has, among
>>>> other things, increased federal spending on his "cause" [into which he's
>>>> strategically positioned to be the biggest product vendor of course]
>>>> from zero to over $200MM a year. that's pretty small beer compared to
>>>> so many other "visionaries", but he's a great example and not all his
>>>> efforts have been governmental or direct. very subtle, very focused.
>>>> he's a superb and ruthless operator whose efforts have paid back big time.
>
>>> You're point morphing. A single person working to improve his bottom
>>> line daily for 30 years is not a visonary looking to make society a
>>> certain way.
>
>> he has funded directly and indirectly lobby groups on local and national
>> levels for thirty years, and has created an annual federal spend budget
>> of $200MM a year out of nothing. not to mention of course significant
>> local government funding.
>
>> this is the very definition of long term visionary thinking and has most
>> definitely made society move the way he wants it. but you're too
>> concerned with arguing against the strawmen of the words you're
>> [inaccurately] trying to put in my mouth to pay attention.
>
> Someone spending 30 years to steal a couple hundred million from
> taxpayers is nothing and has nothing to do with the short term thinking
> of congress critters.

i thought i was being clear, but apparently either i'm inarticulate or
you can't read. he's succeed in getting public spending of $200MM PER
YEAR on his pet projects, into which he sells his product. his annual
sales are vastly in excess of $200MM and would only be a fraction of
current figures if not for his lobbying of your tax dollars to support
his industry.


> BTW, learn what a strawman is. Accusing you of
> morphing the point is not a strawman.

if only.

b'bye brent, you're done.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-08-13, jim beam > wrote:
>> On 08/12/2011 05:17 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2011-08-12, jim > wrote:
>>>> On 08/12/2011 11:58 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>> The government, especially an elected government, is the most short
>>>>> sighted institution in society.
>>>>
>>>> but the special interests that corrupt them are not. they are long
>>>> term, persistent, and relentlessly pursue their vision, regardless of
>>>> administration.
>
>>> Wall street is also very short sided.
>>
>> ??? if a certain top wall st bank's executives "retire", then for
>> decades and for multiple administrations strategically position
>> themselves in government "advisory" roles, and even television punditry,
>> what is that if not long term thinking??? [rhetorical]
>
>Individuals gaming the system are not the "special interests" looking
>to shape society. Now if you say the ruling class has long term
>interests, that would be correct. But those are families of very wealthy
>people who are ruthless and play the short sightedness of government,
>wall street, etc for their own benefit.
>

That's all wrong. Entire industries - eg pharma, medical, insurance,
defense, agriculture, finance - work to "shape society" to benefit
them, by continual institutional lobbying.
The groups they create, such as PhRMA, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc
far outlive any individuals.
You're nuts if you think these lobbyists don't try to shape society.
The defense industry encourages war. So we are at war.
It makes them money.
The medical and insurance industries encourage the most ****ed
up health system in the "advanced" countries.
It makes them money.
This whole society is constantly making work and financial decisions
based on the ****ed up health care insurance system.
If the auto industry lobbyists had their way CAFE standards would not
have been instituted and there would have been multiple serious "gas
crises" that didn't occur. And advancements in auto technology
would be 20 years behind where they are now.
The auto companies are run by beancounters, not engineers.
Personally I like having the option of buying a fuel efficient car.
Congresscritters have limited terms and limited lifespans.
Lobbyists are forever.
And they can buy and sell Congress.
Beam has it exactly right.
Corruption is the problem.
To think defense, pharma, medicine, and other corporate lobbyists
don't try to shape society to pad their pockets is naive.
That's the problem with libertarians.
They live in a different universe.
What's right and wrong with how government policy "shapes society"
usually has little to do with the population, and all to do with the
desires of corporate lobbyists.
It's socialism for corporations and moneyed special interests that
shapes society here in the U.S.

snip
>
>> as i said, long term vision is pursued by many, across multiple
>> businesses and multiple political administrations. i know a guy who
>> lobbies for his industry, and during the course of ~30 years, has, among
>> other things, increased federal spending on his "cause" [into which he's
>> strategically positioned to be the biggest product vendor of course]
>> from zero to over $200MM a year. that's pretty small beer compared to
>> so many other "visionaries", but he's a great example and not all his
>> efforts have been governmental or direct. very subtle, very focused.
>> he's a superb and ruthless operator whose efforts have paid back big time.
>
>You're point morphing. A single person working to improve his bottom
>line daily for 30 years is not a visonary looking to make society a
>certain way.
>

You don't get it. The guy beam was talking about is a lobbyist.
It's his employer and employer's industry that have the vision.
A big reason pot isn't legal is pharma spends millions in lobbying
against that.
It will hurt their anti-depressant sales.
You don't think that "shapes society?"
There's too many examples.
Look, this is a capitalist country at its core.
Just not the same "capitalism" most suckers suppose it is.
Because we have the best government money can buy.
The government is a free market.
You anti-free market?

--Vic

On 2011-08-13, jim beam > wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 11:06 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2011-08-13, jim > wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2011 11:28 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> <snip inability to follow or make coherent argument>
>>
>> You mean trim off what you can't deal with.
>
> no, you're fighting strawmen. i won't play that game.

Stop projecting. You're the one trying to reduce my argument to a single
man's self interest. It had nothing to do with a single person, but with
institutional character. Ron Paul in congress alone is a single man that
doesn't fit my argument regarding the institution.

>>>>> as i said, long term vision is pursued by many, across multiple
>>>>> businesses and multiple political administrations. i know a guy who
>>>>> lobbies for his industry, and during the course of ~30 years, has, among
>>>>> other things, increased federal spending on his "cause" [into which he's
>>>>> strategically positioned to be the biggest product vendor of course]
>>>>> from zero to over $200MM a year. that's pretty small beer compared to
>>>>> so many other "visionaries", but he's a great example and not all his
>>>>> efforts have been governmental or direct. very subtle, very focused.
>>>>> he's a superb and ruthless operator whose efforts have paid back big time.

>>>> You're point morphing. A single person working to improve his bottom
>>>> line daily for 30 years is not a visonary looking to make society a
>>>> certain way.
>>
>>> he has funded directly and indirectly lobby groups on local and national
>>> levels for thirty years, and has created an annual federal spend budget
>>> of $200MM a year out of nothing. not to mention of course significant
>>> local government funding.
>>
>>> this is the very definition of long term visionary thinking and has most
>>> definitely made society move the way he wants it. but you're too
>>> concerned with arguing against the strawmen of the words you're
>>> [inaccurately] trying to put in my mouth to pay attention.
>>
>> Someone spending 30 years to steal a couple hundred million from
>> taxpayers is nothing and has nothing to do with the short term thinking
>> of congress critters.

> i thought i was being clear, but apparently either i'm inarticulate or
> you can't read. he's succeed in getting public spending of $200MM PER
> YEAR on his pet projects, into which he sells his product. his annual
> sales are vastly in excess of $200MM and would only be a fraction of
> current figures if not for his lobbying of your tax dollars to support
> his industry.

Again, a single person is irrelevant to my institutional argument. The
institution of the congress is a short sided institution concerned with
the next election.

>
>> BTW, learn what a strawman is. Accusing you of
>> morphing the point is not a strawman.
>
> if only.
>
> b'bye brent, you're done.

No you are. I won't let you force fit my argument into something your
limited abilities can deal with so you're running away. A reason
people in the USA get scammed year after year is because they cannot
comprehend institutions. Like you it's about the neighbor's cousin who
does something or the other, not the institutional conditions.

On 2011-08-14, Vic Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-08-13, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2011 05:17 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2011-08-12, jim > wrote:
>>>>> On 08/12/2011 11:58 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>> The government, especially an elected government, is the most short
>>>>>> sighted institution in society.
>>>>>
>>>>> but the special interests that corrupt them are not. they are long
>>>>> term, persistent, and relentlessly pursue their vision, regardless of
>>>>> administration.
>>
>>>> Wall street is also very short sided.
>>>
>>> ??? if a certain top wall st bank's executives "retire", then for
>>> decades and for multiple administrations strategically position
>>> themselves in government "advisory" roles, and even television punditry,
>>> what is that if not long term thinking??? [rhetorical]
>>
>>Individuals gaming the system are not the "special interests" looking
>>to shape society. Now if you say the ruling class has long term
>>interests, that would be correct. But those are families of very wealthy
>>people who are ruthless and play the short sightedness of government,
>>wall street, etc for their own benefit.
>>
>
> That's all wrong. Entire industries - eg pharma, medical, insurance,
> defense, agriculture, finance - work to "shape society" to benefit
> them, by continual institutional lobbying.

Thanks for agreeing with me. Have you been paying attention? Those are
institutions, groups of corporations, not individuals. Read what I wrote
above again, I was addressing the concept that single individuals with
long term self interest do not make institutional self interest. If
institutions had long term self interest, they would never ever get in
bed with government. Government ends up owning corporations or
effectively owning corporations that go that route. They become at the
very least dependent on government and can no longer make it in the free
market.

> The groups they create, such as PhRMA, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc
> far outlive any individuals.
> You're nuts if you think these lobbyists don't try to shape society.
> The defense industry encourages war. So we are at war.
> It makes them money.
> The medical and insurance industries encourage the most ****ed
> up health system in the "advanced" countries.
> It makes them money.
> This whole society is constantly making work and financial decisions
> based on the ****ed up health care insurance system.
> If the auto industry lobbyists had their way CAFE standards would not
> have been instituted and there would have been multiple serious "gas
> crises" that didn't occur. And advancements in auto technology
> would be 20 years behind where they are now.
> The auto companies are run by beancounters, not engineers.
> Personally I like having the option of buying a fuel efficient car.
> Congresscritters have limited terms and limited lifespans.
> Lobbyists are forever.
> And they can buy and sell Congress.
> Beam has it exactly right.
> Corruption is the problem.
> To think defense, pharma, medicine, and other corporate lobbyists
> don't try to shape society to pad their pockets is naive.
> That's the problem with libertarians.
> They live in a different universe.
> What's right and wrong with how government policy "shapes society"
> usually has little to do with the population, and all to do with the
> desires of corporate lobbyists.
> It's socialism for corporations and moneyed special interests that
> shapes society here in the U.S.

Since you can't even format properly and seem to be just babbling I just
stopped reading where it was clear you didn't comprend anything that I
wrote.


>>> as i said, long term vision is pursued by many, across multiple
>>> businesses and multiple political administrations. i know a guy who
>>> lobbies for his industry, and during the course of ~30 years, has, among
>>> other things, increased federal spending on his "cause" [into which he's
>>> strategically positioned to be the biggest product vendor of course]
>>> from zero to over $200MM a year. that's pretty small beer compared to
>>> so many other "visionaries", but he's a great example and not all his
>>> efforts have been governmental or direct. very subtle, very focused.
>>> he's a superb and ruthless operator whose efforts have paid back big time.

>>You're point morphing. A single person working to improve his bottom
>>line daily for 30 years is not a visonary looking to make society a
>>certain way.

> You don't get it. The guy beam was talking about is a lobbyist.
> It's his employer and employer's industry that have the vision.

A vision of dependence on government? How is that a long term plan? It's
a long term plan for self-destruction. It's good in the short term.

> A big reason pot isn't legal is pharma spends millions in lobbying
> against that.
> It will hurt their anti-depressant sales.
> You don't think that "shapes society?"
> There's too many examples.
> Look, this is a capitalist country at its core.
> Just not the same "capitalism" most suckers suppose it is.
> Because we have the best government money can buy.
> The government is a free market.
> You anti-free market?

Clearly you have no comprension of what I've written for years.

Big Pharma and health care will be nationalized in the long term.
They've gotten in bed with government which is good for the short term
profits. In the long term they will be owned by the government. Why?
Because in order to get profits today they have allowed themselves to be
regulated. Today they have the upper hand. This does not last forever.

Congress critters often retain office by giving out 'free stuff'. That
is stuff they take from some people and give to other people. Eventually
government will demand more and more stuff from the health care industry
while capping their prices. (while inflating the money supply at the
same time) Right now, with the big profits and no competition they will
become bloated and sluggish unable to function except at high cost. The
government has eliminated the competition that would have kept them fit.
Then the government squeeze. Congress critters need votes. People will
complain they can't pay the prices. Congress will reduce/freeze the
prices. Costs will increase. the companies will go bankrupt. The
government will step in.

It's happened so many times in so many places... it will keep happening.
But the current corporate executives should be long retired by then with
lots of cash.

Relatively speaking, our cars and trucks are a hell of a lot
better than our president's performance and economy.

I think we need to demand a change within two years.

On Aug 9, 4:02*pm, Tegger > wrote:
> bob urz > wrote :
>
> >http://www.manufacturing.net/News/20...a-To-Set-Fuel-
> > Standards-For-Big-Vehicles
>
> > bob
>
> Wow. Obama is a moron.

Yeah what an idiot.. wanting to improve fuel economy...

We had this discussion several weeks ago didnt we?

"MG" > wrote in message
...
>> --
> And it's up to us to keep it in check. There are plenty of other reasons
> your dollar is worth less. You think that the financial meltdown was a
> result of regulation? Hardly.

It was my understanding that the US$ had suffered because the gov printed
too much paper money and it was not supported by the economy. That has
to be at least a part of it.

A country, the economy of which is based on McDonald's and Taco Bell,
doesnt have the position that it might have had when it produced a large
share
of the hard products in the world market.

hls > wrote:
>"MG" > wrote in message
>>> --
>> And it's up to us to keep it in check. There are plenty of other reasons
>> your dollar is worth less. You think that the financial meltdown was a
>> result of regulation? Hardly.
>
>It was my understanding that the US$ had suffered because the gov printed
>too much paper money and it was not supported by the economy. That has
>to be at least a part of it.

If that were actually the case, there would be rampant inflation, which
there is not.

>A country, the economy of which is based on McDonald's and Taco Bell,
>doesnt have the position that it might have had when it produced a large
>share
>of the hard products in the world market.

THAT is the problem right there.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Aug 9, 9:47*pm, Tegger > wrote:
> Brent > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Obama won a popularity contest
>
> I think Obama won because he was black. Did you watch his inauguration? I
> did. Precious few white faces in that crowd. 2008 was the most racist
> election in history.


Balls. Obama won because the Republicans ran unacceptable
candidates. A two-faced sack of crap and an unqualified idiot. I
would have voted for my neighbor's dog if it meant that we wouldn't
have McCain/Palin elected.

Then again, we re-elected GWB, so obviously the electorate as a whole
isn't that bright.

On 2011-09-30, N8N > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 9:47*pm, Tegger > wrote:
>> Brent > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Obama won a popularity contest
>>
>> I think Obama won because he was black. Did you watch his inauguration? I
>> did. Precious few white faces in that crowd. 2008 was the most racist
>> election in history.
>
>
> Balls. Obama won because the Republicans ran unacceptable
> candidates. A two-faced sack of crap and an unqualified idiot. I
> would have voted for my neighbor's dog if it meant that we wouldn't
> have McCain/Palin elected.
>
> Then again, we re-elected GWB, so obviously the electorate as a whole
> isn't that bright.

Controlled choice. It's been a controlled choice for a long time. Obama
is the *perfect* front man for what's been going on. Just in case bets
were hedged with Biden as vice but Obama should get "exceeded
expectations" on his review from the various interests that presidential
candidates are supposed to pander to and serve if they want to be
"electable"