Death Of The SUV?

George Bush started a mess by signing a law requiring vehicle fleets to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Barack Obama and the Congress changed this to 2016 forcing vehicle manufacturers to step up efforts and spend billions to retool at a faster pace and the automotive industry had no choice but to accept because the government owns two of the big three. The move will greatly curtail the sales of SUVs because SUVs will not be able to get the kind of mileage that the CAFE requires and will incur a surcharge for being a gas guzzler.

The reason that SUVs and other powerful vehicles consume more is because it takes more fuel to generate more power, power required to use these vehicles to their fullest potential.

The CAFE standards will not apply to Barack Obama’s limousine, a vehicle that weighs 5 tons and though the fuel mileage is not published, one can safely assume it is fewer than 10 miles to the gallon. The vehicle has 5 inch think bullet proof glass and is armored to protect its occupants. There is no way to get fuel efficiency in a vehicle like that. The same is true for Bush who signed the original law. His limo got poor mileage as well.

But, but, he is an important man and needs the protection.

No doubt, but he is no more important than any of the citizens who employ him, pay his salary and pay for his vehicle. Yes, he gets the protection and we pay for it.

Fine, but why should we not be able to choose vehicles that suit our needs without having to pay more? Why should our selections decrease because the people who drive gas guzzlers (many of whom drive leased vehicles we pay for) and who do what they want?

Many people need SUVs or similar vehicles to do their jobs. People have to go to work regardless of the weather. Doctors, nurse, police officers, firefighters, and many others all have to go to work no matter what it is like outside. Why should any of these people not be entitled and FREE to buy the vehicles they think will best meet their needs without paying more? Why should their choices be limited?

It is pretty hypocritical for these people to drive gas guzzlers that we pay for and then to tell us that we have to drive vehicles that meet standards that do not apply to them.

Obama said that he asked if this type vehicle (his limo) comes in a hybrid (only a moron would not know that answer) and he basically has no choice in the matter. This is true but remember that Obama did not drive a hybrid as a personal vehicle until he started his bid for the White House. Prior to that he drove a Chrysler 300 with a Hemi engine. Those cars get about 17 miles per gallon.

If that is the car he wanted to drive then good for him. He chose a car that got fuel mileage that is about half of what will be imposed on us (just to note, my Jeep gets better mileage than that Chrysler 300) and that was his choice. That is what freedom is about.

In order to appeal to the enviro-nuts he went to a hybrid when he ran for the White House. And he asked about a hybrid limo knowing full well that they could not make one.

This is another case of good enough for me but not for thee.

Where I live it snows during the winter and sometimes those snowstorms are heavy and deep. People in critical jobs must get to work and many people with SUVs offer to drive critical employees to work. Unlike the slugs in DC who closed down the city, those in the real world with critical jobs must get to work.

Why should people who pay the salaries of every person in Congress and the Obama administration be required to pay more for vehicles they have to have when those very people who make the standards drive vehicles that will never meet them?

In fact, why should someone pay more for a vehicle, whether he needs it or simply wants it, just because it is on the hit list of people in DC?

The new standards go in effect in 2016. People who want SUVs need to buy them before then to slip in before the standards take effect.

One other thing to keep in mind. Any savings reported by changing to a more fuel efficient vehicle are dependent on the price of gas.

Freedom means the freedom to choose a vehicle that you want without being punished for the choice.

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

79 Responses to “Death Of The SUV?”

  1. Darrel says:

    CAFE standards refer to a fleet average. You can still buy your guzzler and feel free to pay four to five times the road (gas) tax per mile that I do. Knock yourself out.

    They’re real cheap right now (and will be getting more so). When gas is $5 per gallon, or $7, they will be giving them away. Oh wait, because of a government welfare plan for the rich, they already were giving them away.

    In an ironic act of complete and utter stupidity, the especially heavy SUV’s, have long been subsidized by the government (since 2003). Thanks Bush. This is why you see so many of them. This is breath taking idiocy, and will also end.

    The subsidy was so vast it would in effect make the vehicles actually free for some business.

    Here’s how:

    “…raising the cap on business equipment to $75,000 will make it possible to write off the entire cost of most SUVs (including the Hummer H2 – MSRP $49,270 and BMW X5 – MSRP $40,195) in the first year. Others, like the Hummer H1 will be practically free to the business owner. Here’s how:

    According to the Detroit News (http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0301/20/a01-64218.htm), a business owner who purchases a Hummer H1 (MSRP $106,185) for business purposes could write off $25,000 of the purchase price as an equipment investment. Another 30% of the remaining purchase price (or $24,356) could also be deducted under a provision passed in Congress last year to stimulate the economy. The Hummer owner could then deduct 20% of the remaining purchase price (or $11,366) under regular depreciation rules. That’s a total deduction of $60,722. Under the Bush plan, the total deduction for a Hummer H1 would go up to a potential $88,722.

    With all the tax breaks and loopholes, some vehicles would in effect, be free. Who knew the day would come when you could buy a new Chevy Suburban for about the cost of a two-door Saturn?”

    LINK.

    D.
    —————–
    Observe:

    “Thanks to a generous tax credit, Karl Wizinsky is driving a very large vehicle these days — a 2002 Ford Excursion.

    “It doesn’t hurt to have a larger vehicle, but I wouldn’t say it’s a requirement of my business,” he said on a cell phone while driving the Excursion. “But I ended up saving $32,000.”

    This year, the perks of buying a large SUV — if you’re a small business owner — got even bigger.

    Congress recently passed a tax bill, as proposed in President Bush’s economic stimulus plan, that offers a $100,000 tax credit for business owners who purchase any vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds or more when fully loaded.

    When Wizinsky’s accountant told him about the credit last year, the amount was much less, at $75,000, but it was enough to encourage Wizinsky to trade in his Mercury Marquis for the Excursion.

    “It sounded too good to be true,” said Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Novi, Mich. “But it was true. So I bought the SUV. For a small company like mine it’s a significant credit.”

    ABC.

    More here see #7.

  2. Big Dog says:

    God forbid businesses can write off an expense. But more importantly, it was because of a stimulus so that makes it OK.

    I mean, people now get $25,000 golf carts for free because of Obama Stimulus. I am sure there are plenty of other bennies as well.

    I don’t mind paying more for my gas. Unlike a piano tuner, I have to be at work.

    Unlike a piano tuner, doctors, nurses, firefighters, and police officers HAVE to be at work.

    In fact, I think people in these professions should get a tax write off because of it. Why not, they give incentives to people who buy hybrids.

    What I do know is that in the snowstorms I was able to get out and do my job. I saw no one in a Prius driving in a foot of snow.

    I saw no one in a Prius taking doctors and nurses to work.

    I saw no one in a Prius getting renal patients to dialysis.

    And no one I work with who has a Prius drove it to the job.

    There are big vehicles for a reason.

    Obama’s Caddy, now there is a waste of gas.

    • Darrel says:

      Your argument is bogus. I have a ’98 CRV, AWD, non-hybrid that cannot get stuck and it gets 25 mpg.

      Here is a list of just the better reviewed hybrid SUV’s.

      Soon we will have all electric options as well. A few of those and the fleet average goes way up.

      You’re attempted ridicule that Obama’s limo couldn’t possibly be a hybrid is similarly bogus. Don’t confuse electric hybrid with lack of power. The electrics that are coming will in fact have more power (my prius has more power than my CRV and more power than any of my previous vehicles except one). Unlike gas engines, electric motors have maximum torque starting at zero. Electrics will blow the doors off of gas.

      Now that it’s warm again, I am getting 50 mpg. My prius will completely pay for itself in saved fuel, and that’s going from a vehicle that got 25mpg. If I had changed from a vehicle getting 18 mpg or so, it would only take a few years.

      D.
      —————-
      ps. Piano tuners have emergencies too. When I prepared instruments for Little Richard, Josh Groban, Itzhak Perlman, Dave Brubeck, Marie Osmond, Lou Rawls, Chick Corea, Anita Bryant, Gregory Hines, Lee Greenwood, etc., it was rather important that I get to their event, and get there on time.

      • Big Dog says:

        I am sure that any storm of that magnitude would cancel the concert.

        If you could get an electric motor that held a charge then it might be worth it. The gas engine does not stop after 50 miles and when you are driving in snow or mud you will run down the batteries fast. They make electic race cars that will beat gas ones in a drag but the batteries cost 40 grand tp recharge.

        Your CRV can get stuck. All vehiclea can. If you need any information on that or any methods in recovery (getting unstuck) let me know it is s specialty of mine. I wrote the chapters in the Army manual.

      • Darrel says:

        This electric car the Tesla Roadster has been available since ’08, goes zero to sixty in 3.9 seconds and has a range of 236 miles.

        Maximum torque, at all speeds, up to 14k rpm. Check out the specs at the link.

        My local Toyota mechanic says they are already being trained for the all electrics that are coming.

        Bigd: They make electic race cars that will beat gas ones in a drag but the batteries cost 40 grand tp recharge.”>>

        DAR
        The batteries in electric cars only hold a few dollars worth of electricity at most. The electric car mentioned above that goes 236 miles holds about $5 worth of electricity. That’s about two cents worth of energy per mile.

        It’s motor, like any electric motor, works at about 92% efficiency. Our silly gas engines, after a century of tweaking, waste about 80% of their energy in heat. It’s the nature of the beast.

        In a few years we will have electric cars that literally blow the doors off of today’s cars, and we’ll wonder why we farted around so long with the gas ones, spitting fumes into our air, as if it were a sewer. Dumb.

        Hybrids are the bridge, electric is the future. Oil is far too precious to burn. In a few short years this gas guzzling, government subsidized, SUV fiasco, will be seen as the monument to human stupidity and waste that it is.

        D.

  3. “Good enough for thee but not for me” is also the mantra for the Democrats’ health-care agenda, as we already know. They’ll find a way to exempt themselves from their cap-and-tax plan, as well.

    The laws of physics and economics cannot be defied with impunity. When the effects of Obama’s ukases set in, the political reaction will be extreme. Hopefully, those who follow our current crop of thieves will draw the moral. But one way or another, there will be a reckoning.

    Thanks to your site, and others that publicize these matters, the Democrats will be lucky to attain a Congressional majority again in the 21st Century. Keep the pressure on!

  4. Mike Radigan says:

    Darrel said, “ps. Piano tuners have emergencies too. When I prepared instruments for Little Richard, Josh Groban, Itzhak Perlman, Dave Brubeck, Marie Osmond, Lou Rawls, Chick Corea, Anita Bryant, Gregory Hines, Lee Greenwood, etc., it was rather important that I get to their event, and get there on time.”

    Saving lives and property are emergencies, tuning a piano, not so much. Gee, I can’t perform because Darrel didn’t tune my instrument. And leave it to Darrel to name drop. I’M IMPORTANT.

    • Darrel says:

      Absolutely shameless name dropping (in a post script).

      Hey Mike, figured out this chart yet? It’s trending up. And that’s a good thing.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        I figured it out a long time ago. Also figured out you never admit to being wrong no matter the facts. Hey how’s that map doing where Denmark shares its border with more than one country?

        • Adam says:

          Funny, I don’t recall Darrel saying Denmark “shared a border” with more than one country. I recall Darrel saying Denmark is “surrounded” by lots of countries…

        • Mike Radigan says:

          No, Darrel said Denmark shared a border with more than one country. He even posted a link to a map. Darrel!

        • Adam says:

          Nope. Tell the truth. Let me recreate that conversation for you:

          Darrel: “Hey Mike, Denmark ranks #2. It’s surrounded by countries.”

          Mike: “It shares a border with ONE country.”

          Darrel: “Look at the top ten. They have neighbors, lots and lots of them.”

          Mike: “Denmark shares a border with Germany. That’s it.”

          Notice how you’re the only one that talks about sharing borders? Darrel is just stating the obvious: There are countries all around Denmark.

          You’re insisting Darrel admit he’s wrong for saying something you’ve simply imagined him to have said.

        • Adam says:

          Or would you say Cuba isn’t surrounded by countries because it is an island? Mexico, the US, Haiti, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica are all Cuba’s neighbors even though they don’t share a border. You’re both right, you’re just not saying the same things.

        • Darrel says:

          If Mike would like to see a list of mistakes/errors I have made I would be glad to furnish this for him. Blake has repeatedly requested this so I can just look in my archives of Bigd posts. I make elementary grammar mistakes all the time for instance. I do try to be right on the facts.

          This ridiculous bit about Denmark however, for reasons Adam pointed out, wouldn’t make any list because it is not an error but rather another instance of Mike not comprehending a rather mundane nuance of language. He is literalizing the word “surrounded” in this instance when the context shows it was not intended literally.

          And how far back does Mike go to dredge up this bogus, ridiculous, example that ends up biting him in the bum? August of last year!

          I am becoming more and more convinced over time that the errors of conservatives (and probably radical libs) exist largely because of problems with grasping language.

          D.

          • Big Dog says:

            Yes Darrel, when one parses words like ration and can’t comprehend the difference between a traffic jam and rationing, it is obvious that the language is a problem.

            We have all made our fair share of mistakes.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          The original argument dealt with the ease of crossing borders. Therefore, only sharing a border was appropriate.

        • Adam says:

          “The original argument dealt with the ease of crossing borders. Therefore, only sharing a border was appropriate.”

          Don’t make stuff up, Mike.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I’m not Adam. We were talking about countries that were peaceful and I argued that isolation was a contributing factor. Isolation as in protecting your border. It’s a lot easier to be peaceful and protect your border if you don’t share a border. That was the original argument.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: “I argued that isolation was a contributing factor.”>>

          DAR
          And I showed you it wasn’t.

          As I said in August:

          “The example is ludicrous. An examination of the list of countries does not show a correlation between peacefulness and closeness to other countries. Austria shares large borders with 7 countries. It’s #5.”

          Look at the top ten. They have neighbors, lots and lots of them.” –ibid

          You were trying to making excuses for the US coming in 83rd in peacefulness. The idea that isolation is the reason for this lousy showing makes no sense.

          D.
          —————-
          “If water counts then the U.S. shares a border with France.”
          –This is Mike, in August, pretending Denmark being 50 miles from Norway, Sweden and Poland is comparable to the 5,500 mile distance between the US and France.

          Someone needs to learn when to stop digging.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Well, Darrel, at least you acknowledge I was arguing isolation so I was correct about sharing a border in contrast to open sea. And I still say isolation is a big factor. Believe what you will and Austria it a poor example as it was afraid to do anything with Germany next door.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, grasping language is not limited to conservatives- you progs cannot even understand either the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.
          Talk aboutnot comprehending something- that one’s a pretty big faux pas.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        Darrel’s own source for peaceful countries lists isolated countries at the top in large numbers. And I never said it was the only factor. And the list has errors in it as Denmark and Norway are both ranked 2 and no rank at 3 or 10. So nine countries include New Zealand, Iceland, and Japan which are islands. Denmark and Canada have one border. Norway, Sweden, and Finland pretty much share borders among themselves except for Finland’s with Russia. They are further isolated by their northern latitude. Makes for tough sledding so to speak. And you argue isolation is not a factor. Give me a break.

        And, of course, Austria. Another factor which applies to Finland’s with Russia and Austria, don’t tug on Superman’s cape.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “the list has errors in it as Denmark and Norway are both ranked 2…”>>

          DAR
          Denmark and Norway had identical scores of 1.217:

          “…all five of the Nordic countries ranked in the world’s top 10 most peaceful nations. Denmark and Norway tied for second place (behind New Zealand)”

          LINK.

          Also note: “There is little variance between the overall scores of the top 20 countries”

          Mike: “and no rank at 3 or 10.”>>

          DAR
          Finland and Slovenia were tied at 9th place.

          PDF

          Someone needs to hand Mike a new shovel, I think he’s worn that one out.

          Incidentally, the actual “original claim” I knocked down in that August thread, before you started flopping all around with distractions, distortions, red herrings and general goal post redistribution, was that the US was the “most peaceful country on Earth,…”

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Mike said, “The original argument dealt with the ease of crossing borders. Therefore, only sharing a border was appropriate.”

          Adam said, “Don’t make stuff up, Mike.”

          The celebrity tuner just verified my statement, Adam, so admit you were wrong.

          Also, the Scandinavian countries are isolated within their own borders by a sparse population and rugged terrain.

          The celebrity tuner said, Incidentally, the actual “original claim” I knocked down in that August thread, before you started flopping all around with distractions, distortions, red herrings and general goal post redistribution, was that the US was the “most peaceful country on Earth,…”

          I never argued that the U.S was the most peaceful. You knocked down nothing. I argued against some of the validity of your source. Your source itself states:

          Criticism and response to criticism

          The Economist, in publishing the index, admitted that, “the index will run into some flak.” Specifically, according to The Economist, the weighting of military expenditure “may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defense.” The true utility of the index may lie not in its specific rankings of countries now, but in how those rankings change over time, thus tracking when and how countries become more or less peaceful.
          The Peace Index has been criticised for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children. Riane Eisler, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, argued that, “to put it mildly, this blind spot makes the index very inaccurate.” She mentions a number of specific cases, including Egypt, where she claims 90% of women are subject to genital mutilation and China, where, she says, “female infanticide is still a problem,” according to a 2000 UNICEF study.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “The celebrity tuner”>>

          DAR
          I prefer “Tuner for the Stars.”

          Mike: “I never argued that the U.S was the most peaceful.”>>

          DAR
          Blake did. It was his article/thread.

          D.
          ——————
          Creating harmony where there is discord (and dat chord).

          ps. I am flattered that you are still stinging from a smack down 7 months ago, but Mike, you really ought to let it go. Your little isolation theory is flatly refuted by reality:

          “Western Europe is markedly the most peaceful
          region, with the majority of the countries
          in this group ranking in the top 20 overall.” –ibid

          Gee, I wonder if those countries are close to each other? US is 83rd.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Mike: “I never argued that the U.S was the most peaceful.”>>

          DAR
          Blake did. It was his article/thread.

          Blake doesn’t speak for me.

          I’m still waiting for Adam’s retraction, not that it will ever happen.

          And to answer a point elsewhere in the thread and at the risk of repeating myself according to the celebrity tuner’s own source:

          Specifically, according to The Economist, the weighting of military expenditure “may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defense.

          And isolation is also a big factor on crime rates within the U.S. Even on a PER CAPITA BASIS the five lowest states are New Hampshire, S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Vermont, and Maine. How do you explain that, celebrity tuner? Source:

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

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “still waiting for Adam’s retraction”>>

          DAR
          You haven’t even show he was wrong about anything. You have had several undeniable errors pointed out to you in just this thread (I’ve listed them for you below), yet you haven’t acknowledged any of your errors.

          Mike: “Specifically, according to The Economist,”>>

          DAR
          You are just regurgitating the same material you posted in August perhaps hoping people don’t remember that it was responded to then. Boring.

          Mike: “isolation is also a big factor on crime rates”>>

          DAR
          And now you want to further distract and evade with a new issue “crime.”

          You’re becoming joke.

          D.
          —————
          Let’s review your list of your errors, just in this thread alone:

          You said, to me:

          1) “how’s that map doing where Denmark shares its border with more than one country?”

          This implied that I said Denmark shared it’s border with more than one country. That’s false. I never did.

          When gently Adam pointed this out by saying:

          “I recall Darrel saying Denmark is “surrounded” by lots of countries…”

          You then compounded your error and corrected Adam:

          2) “No, Darrel said Denmark shared a border with more than one country.”

          Adam then hit you over the head with the Big Truth Stick of No Mercy and provided you with unimpeachable evidence, the exact quote and a link.

          Did you acknowledge your error? No, you deflected with:

          “The original argument dealt with the ease of crossing borders.”

          You didn’t support this but it doesn’t have anything to do with you making up false quotes that I never said.

          Then you went on to claim:

          3) “the list has errors in it as Denmark and Norway are both ranked 2 and no rank at 3 or 10.”>>

          No, the list doesn’t have errors. You, as usual didn’t look at the source material and don’t know what you are talking about. Two sets of countries in the top ten were tied. Your claim is false. Any acknowledgment? Retraction? Of course not. Just more BS.

          4) “The celebrity tuner just verified my statement,”

          That one is false too. You’re confused. Let’s see you support it.

          So that’s four obvious ones. I trust you will keep shoveling so this list will probably be getting longer.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          The celebrity tuner and his cabal… It just goes on and on. Are you now saying crime is peaceful? Are you saying that a land border is no different than a sea border? Your reference to surround implies there is no difference for ease of invasion than sharing a land border. I beg to differ. And who cares if two countries are tied? OK, you win on that one, celebrity tuner. As Joe would say, “BFD.” And you did verify that the original argument dealt with isolation.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “you did verify that the original argument dealt with isolation.”>>

          DAR
          We know you can make assertions and now we know you can repeat them over and over. That’s nice but can you back them up? You obviously can’t or you would have tried already. That’s what counts.

          Give it a shot, and we’ll see if you can do it without adding to your list of errors. I don’t think you can.

          Incidentally, are you going to continue to run from acknowledging your mistakes in this thread?

        • Mike Radigan says:

          My original argument with you was about isolation. Anything you state to the contrary is a lie.

          Also the celebrity tuner ignores the criticisms of the methodology in his source.

          And speaking of the methodology…

          The celebrity tuner said, “And now you want to further distract and evade with a new issue ‘crime.'”

          But again in his own source the methodology used:

          Indicator 11: Number of homicides
          Indicator 12: Level of violent crime
          Indicator 13: Likelihood of violent demonstrations
          Indicator 14: Number of jailed persons
          Indicator 15: Number of police and security officers

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “My original argument with you was about isolation.”>>

          DAR
          If this is your argument, it is flatly refuted by the many counter examples I have provided, in particular *the US.*

          If there were anything to your theory then we should find the US getting a low score because it goes to war with countries on it’s border. It’s been a while since we’ve had a scuffle with Canada and Mexico don’t ya think? I think even you can understand that those are not likely to show up in a 2009 measurement. If you look at this List of wars involving the US, I think you should find the conflicts in the last 50+ years have nothing to do with the US sharing a border with these countries.

          If you want to find peaceful countries, looked to Western Europe. Lot’s of countries, lot’s of borders, lots of peace.
          And you’ve ignored all of my other examples (and I’ve got lots more).

          And as usual you continue to refuse to even acknowledge your howling errors.

          And you refuse to even try to support your claim of Adam making an error here.

          Mike: “But again in his own source the methodology used:
          Indicator 11: Number of homicides
          Indicator 12: Level of violent crime”>>

          DAR
          Oops, you’ve gone and stepped in it again. That’s error #5. Now you’re equivocating. Do you remember that new word you learned?

          You are confusing crime within a country, with war between countries. One has nothing to do with the other *WHEN* the question being examined is:

          Does the peacefulness of a country correlate with the number of borders it shares with other countries?

          That’s your thesis (based upon one cherry picked New Zealand) and it isn’t helped in any way whatsoever by referring to crime occurring within a country.

          Keep digging.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Once again, celebrity tuner, I’m not Blake and I never argued that the U.S. shouldn’t be rated where it was. Any implication to the contrary is a lie. I argued that isolation is a big factor. If you choose to believe otherwise be my guest, but don’t lie and say that wasn’t my point.

          That said, your source lists a criticism of its results because the U.S. acts as a protector of other nations. Crime within a country is listed in your source’s methodology. If you argue against the validity of the methodology then you must argue against the validity of its results. Again, it’s your source and your source’s methodolgy.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “I never argued that the U.S. shouldn’t be rated where it was.”>>

          DAR
          Excellent. Then you are hardly addressing my argument anyway, which was that the US is not the “most peaceful country on Earth,…”

          But let’s look at what you actually said.

          In your very first post, August 30th you said:

          “The U.S. ranks low because it’s been the world protector.”

          How is that not an argument that the US shouldn’t be rated as it is?

          Mike: “I argued that isolation is a big factor.”>>

          DAR
          Nice revision. Actually, with your one cherry picked example you said:

          MK: “New Zealand is number one because it has no neighbors, period.” –ibid

          I read that to mean: New Zealand is number one… because… it has no neighbors, period.

          I don’t know how you could draw a more straight line between “no neighbors” = “number one.” And the “period” was a nice touch.

          If you want to begin to defend your argument you need to respond to the counter examples that refute your theory. When are you going to try and do that?

          Mike: “your source lists a criticism”>>

          DAR
          That’s nice, show this is has any relevance to your claim (it doesn’t). Any international study of a complex issue juggling 20+ variables is going to have criticism, and it should.

          Are you going to acknowledge your errors in this thread? I know how that’s important to you.

          Are you going to try and support your claim that Adam made an error?

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I gave a reason why it ranked low, not that it shouldn’t rank low. Big difference. And that same reason was given in YOUR source.

          And talk about cherry pick. You omit the following after you reference my listing of to New Zealand. Mike said, “Give me a break. It is about an isolated country as there is. Too bad Antarctica is not a country.” You deliberately misled as in lie. I used the word isolated so you’re a liar.

          Of course, the Antarctica reference was a joke, but I clearly used the word isolated and referenced isolated places.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “You deliberately misled”>>

          DAR
          I quoted you verbatim, with citation and link as anyone can see and verify for themselves. Your claim doesn’t even make sense. You are becoming incoherent. You have no defense of your nonsense so as usual you call me a liar, because you’re stuck. Yet you never back it up. You never even try. Learn a new trick, that one’s boring.

          Mike: “I used the word isolated so you’re a liar.”>>

          DAR
          I give up. Why am I a liar because you used the word isolated? I would love to see you flop around and try to provide evidence for this one.

          Anyway, let me remind you…

          If you want to begin to defend your argument you need to respond to the counter examples that refute your theory. Are you even going to try to do that? Apparently not.

          Are you going to acknowledge your errors in this thread? Or are you going to call names and run?

          Are you going to try and support your claim that Adam made an error? Didn’t think so. It wasn’t his error, it was yours.

          Moral of this story: Next time you try to dredge up a seven month old argument better check first and see that you didn’t get shellacked the first time around. Make sure you have your ducks in a row.

          And don’t make stuff up.

          D.
          —————–
          “No, Darrel said Denmark shared a border with more than one country.” –Mike, saying something that is not true

        • Mike Radigan says:

          The celebrity tuner is a fraud and a liar. He says that that I was wrong about saying isolation was a big factor in determining the ranking of peaceful countries. Then he provides the very link where I use isolated examples and use the word isolated. Of course, he omitted the sentence where I used isolated. Deceitful liar! Hey, celebrity tuner, which word did I use? Is it a) BFD, b) capsized, or c) isolated?

          Then he argues against the very metrics used to rank the countries. He argues for the conclusion, but against the indicators that determined the conclusion. And OK, the celebrity tuner didn’t say Denmark shared a border with more than one country. I assumed that’s what he meant because if he didn’t then his counterpoint to my isolation argument makes no sense.

          I’m beginning to think that he fancies himself as the protector of liberalism and, as such, the end justifies the mean. He points to the chart again saying less bad is good. That it is OK to ignore the x-axis. I challenge him to find ANY math book where it is OK to ignore the x-axis in a 2 dimensional bar chart. ANY! Each bar in his chart originates at the x-axis and goes up if there is a net gain in jobs for the period or down if there is a net loss. Less down is not up. Less crap is still crap.

          The celebrity tuner is a liar and a fraud. Better for him to stick to tuning celebrity instruments. Something I’m sure he’s good at.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “He says that that I was wrong about saying isolation was a big factor”>>

          DAR
          No, I think you are wrong in saying it’s the only reason New Zealand is number one. That’s what it means when you say:

          “New Zealand is number one because it has no neighbors, period.” –Mike

          That’s ridiculous. The study, which you obviously haven’t read, looks at many variables, most of which have nothing to do with sharing borders. Many of the variables, as you cited, refer to INTERNAL components. And even if isolation played a factor with your lone cherry picked New Zealand, in a couple of the variables, what does this get you? What does it have to do with the US’s ranking? Absolutely, nothing. So you are babbling about nothing.

          Why?

          Your notion, even if there was anything to it at all in the NZ case, doesn’t necessarily comport to the situation of other countries. In fact, as my many counter examples showed (and you ignored), it does not comport.

          Mike: Of course, he omitted the sentence where I used isolated.”>>

          DAR
          Show this. Stop making baseless assertions and actually support your claims. Show how I misquoted you if that is even what you are saying. You can’t do it. You are hoisted by the petard of your own words and now you swing in the wind and throw baseless insults.

          Mike: “…which word did I use?”>>

          DAR
          Whatever word I quoted you using. Link was provided. Feel free to add additional words or quote more. It does not change the point I made when I quoted you, word for word.

          Mike: “Then he argues against the very metrics used to rank the countries.”>>

          DAR
          No, I argued against you pretending they support your “shared border” claim. You obviously can’t deal with the counter examples that refute your theory.

          Mike: “OK, [he] didn’t say Denmark shared a border with more than one country.”>>

          DAR
          Good. Don’t you feel a little cleaner now? How about #3?

          Mike: “..find ANY math book where it is OK to ignore the x-axis in a 2 dimensional bar chart.”>>

          DAR
          Unbelievable. Are you still so dense can’t comprehend that the *location* of the x-axis is completely irrelevant to the TREND? As was explained to you repeatedly, my “up is good, down is bad” comment referred to the month by month TREND. When you changed the reference point, you equivocated. I thought this went on the “Mike learned this” pile.

          Mike: “The celebrity tuner is a [insult].”>>

          DAR
          Keep digging Mike. It’s what you do.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Celebrity tuner said, “No, I think you are wrong in saying it’s the only reason New Zealand is number one. That’s what it means when you say New Zealand is number one because it has no neighbors, period.” In this one case it’s true if you discount internal crime which you do. Outside of friendly Australia there is no other country even remotely close. That’s why I joked about Antarctica. And why do you ignore the crime indicators when they are 5 of the metrics used?

          Celebrity tuner said, “Unbelievable. Are you still so dense can’t comprehend that the *location* of the x-axis is completely irrelevant to the TREND? As was explained to you repeatedly, my “up is good, down is bad” comment referred to the month by month TREND. When you changed the reference point, you equivocated.” I said from the start the trend was up. I agreed with that. And you cannot graph the trend without the starting x-axis to graph each bar. How do you draw each bar if you do not start at the x-axis? And how much math have you had? You never did answer. I’m guessing maybe beginning algebra, nothing more. So what math book do you find where you can ignore the x-axis?
          The point is a net job loss is bad and it’s not good until there is a net job gain. And this doesn’t even touch the fact that eventually the trend must get better as there are no more jobs to lose.

          You said I lied when I said isolation was a big factor. And you omitted the very word and examples I used.

          Tune on oh great celebrity instrument tuner.

        • Darrel says:

          Mike: “you discount internal crime which you do.”>>

          DAR
          What does internal crime have to do with your border theory? Nothing. It does have something to do with peacefulness, so it’s in the study.

          Mike: “Outside of friendly Australia there is no other country even remotely close.”>>

          DAR
          Yes, I mentioned Australia, another problem for your theory (one of many). It’s 19th. Are you ready to chuck this claim yet?

          “New Zealand is number one because it has no neighbors, period.” -Mike

          Why isn’t Australia #1 Mike?

          Bigd: “why do you ignore the crime indicators when they are 5 of the metrics used?”>>

          DAR
          Because they have nothing to do with your ‘number of border countries’ theory.

          Blake said the US was the most peaceful country on earth. It doesn’t matter which metric you use, that’s just false. Your border theory doesn’t hold up but for different reasons.

          Mike: “How do you draw each bar if you do not start at the x-axis?”>>

          DAR
          As I explained to you, repeatedly. Put the bar where you want. Put it a million points up, put it a million points down. Just keep the ratio between the x-axis and each month, the same. The trend stays the same. My claim was about the trend. You are using a different reference point and thus get a different answer for “good.”

          Mike: “And how much math have you had?”>>

          DAR
          And why did I leave Canada?

          Mike: “You never did answer.”>>

          DAR
          Yes I did. And I even told you were the answer was. You don’t read, or you don’t comprehend or you’re lazy or stupid. Not my problem.

          Mike: “You said I lied when I said isolation was a big factor.”>>

          DAR
          No I didn’t. Cite this. You can’t. That’s why you don’t. Unlike you, I very rarely make the charge of “lying.” Unlike you, I don’t make claims I can’t back up. The word “lied” only occurs once on this page, and your usage here is the very first and only occurrence (not counting this post).

          I also respond to points directly and don’t refer to unreferenced “you said” BS.

          Mike: “And you omitted the very word and examples I used.”>>

          DAR
          Bullsh-t. Your claim means nothing until you show this. And then, because obviously not all text can be quoted, you need to show something left out was relevant and changed something. That would have been the FIRST thing to do if you weren’t making this up completely for the purpose of distraction. But you haven’t done any of this. Nothing. And you won’t, because you can’t.

          D.
          ————–
          Oops, forgot Bobby McFerrin. Don’t worry, be happy.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          The celebrity tuner spins more than a top. I mention one metric, never saying it is the only metric, then doofus says I’m wrong for mentioning a 2nd metric. For instance I said isolation is a big factor, never saying it is the only factor, then doofus says I cannot talk about internal crime. I guess that way he can dismiss his own indicators.

          Both New Zealand and Australia are isolated with lots of open water between them.

          I’ve always said the trend was up. Show me where I said otherwise. If the result is a net loss of jobs it is still bad. The trend has to go up eventually as you run out of jobs to lose. 10% plus unemployment is bad. And you stated it is OK to ignore the x-axis. Show me anywhere that confirms your wacky theory. Anywhere other than your own musings.

          You answered your math background in the abstract never saying which courses you took. So which courses did you take? You’re quick to brag about your celebrities. And as far as you moving to Arkansas from Canada for the weather that makes no sense. There are instruments to tune throughout the U.S. Why Arkansas? Hot and humid in the summer and cold as heck in the winter. Just great weather, not. Did you make a wrong turn in L.A.?

          Lying, Ssmething meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. You do this all the time. See the 1st paragraph in this reply. Protect the liberal line no matter what. I don’t know where you get all the time to make so many and such long posts here and elsewhere. That said, other than Adam you haven’t changed anyone’s mind. So post another long reply to this, be my guest.

          I’m done with this topic as I’m sure everyone has already chosen sides and I have better things to do. I await your nasty last reply. Moving on.

        • Darrel says:

          Once again another post that is non-responsive to points made and questions asked. You instead want go off on ad hominems, personal insult and don’t even try to back up your New Zealand theory (by responding to counter examples) or your charges of “liar and fraud.” Unfortunate.

          At this point I doubt you even remember what you were arguing about. But do remember it all started based upon a misquote from you, attributed to me.

          D.

  5. Adam says:

    In other news how about the employment situation report? More jobs added than lost in 3 of the last five months. We had +162,000 in March, +14,000 in Jan, +64,000 November. With -14,000 in February and -150,000 in December that means a net gain over those months. I’m sure this is bad news for Obama and the Democrats of course…somehow.

    • Mike Radigan says:

      How’s the fishing, Adam? Of course it’s good news. Put your pole away.

    • Big Dog says:

      How is it that we gained these jobs and the unemployment rate stayed the same?

      Adam, do not be fooled. The report also said that the BULK of the job gains were temporary census workers. I told you two months ago the numbers would be artificially inflated due to this.

      • Adam says:

        The 9.7% rate is millions of people so a 160,000 people is just a drop. Couple that with the changing number of folks looking for or ceasing to look for work and you’ll get numbers that stay the same even when net jobs are added or removed. When jobs start coming back in larger numbers than now then more people will look for work and unemployment rate will go way up until it balances out hopefully at a decent rate in the next 4 years.

        Who’s being fooled? The latest report states:

        Employment in federal government was up over the month, reflecting the hiring of 48,000 temporary workers for the decennial census.

        It states that 123,000 of the 162,000 were from the private sector. I hardly see how 48,000 is the BULK of the net gains.

        • Big Dog says:

          There are also huge numbers of people who have stopped looking and do not count any longer. The actual number is higher.

          The reports was that the bulk were Census workers. A third of them were, according to you and almost 3/4 of a million will be hired shortly. This will boost numbers but those jobs will go away in July.

          Look, the jobs numbers are good but let’s not forget that not all are going to be around and let us not forget that they would have started going up no matter what.

        • Big Dog says:

          It also depends on how they classify the jobs.

          The U.S. census has really been the key to the better (or more accurately less awful) employment numbers for the last several months. According to the recent payroll report, the U.S. government hired 48,000 census workers in March. Hiring has been going on for approximately a year now, but has only been substantial since last fall. The Financial Times of London has reported that the government will be hiring 1.2 million workers for the 2010 Census – twice as many as were needed for the 2000 Census (think of this as a form of hidden government economic stimulus). Only a small fraction of this number has shown up in the employment figures so far, unless the hiring is being hidden in the Business and Professional category. There appears to have been about 50,000 extra temporary workers showing up there every month since last fall. A footnote indicates that this number may include workers from ‘other’ categories – one possibility for ‘other’ would be government.
          ~snip
          So what made the 162,000 job gains possible in March? In addition to 48,000 jobs officially listed from the census, there were another 40,000 temporary help service jobs. Health care was the next biggest gainer with 37,000 jobs. Health care has been the only industry to consistently add jobs since the recession began in December 2007. It is not an economically sensitive industry. Leisure and hospitality added another 22,000 jobs, manufacturing 17,000 and construction 15,000. Seasonal adjustments, the government statistician’s tool for turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse, should be considered the source of extra employment in these industries.
          Link

          They will manipulate the numbers, it is an election year. Don’t be fooled.

  6. Big Dog says:

    I am just telling you what was reported. The public sector is where the jobs are. These numbers will get better over time but they would have no matter what.

    There are fluctuations and the temp workers for the census makes a big difference as do the other temporary hires.

    • Adam says:

      “These numbers will get better over time but they would have no matter what.”

      The better point is not simply that they are getting better but that they aren’t getting worse. Still waiting for that hyper-inflation and that double dip recession you swear is right around the corner. Always the optimist, you are…

      “There are fluctuations and the temp workers for the census makes a big difference as do the other temporary hires.”

      Sure, the Census is a big chunk, it’s just not the bulk as you say. Even your article cited is just speculating on how many temp jobs are related to the Census. The majority of jobs created were in the private sector even if they are temporary.

      You act as if a temp job isn’t beneficial to the economy and to the worker if only for a short time.

      • Blake says:

        The temp situation is deceptive, and doesn’t prove much of anything in the long run, as they will be unemployed soon, and back on the benefits bandwagon- private industry needs to have some six figure gains just to BEGIN to come back, and that is not going to happen until the useless unions begin to make some meaningful concessions to industry.
        Barring that, yes- we WILL see another dip in the recession, because government jobs cannot be relied upon.

    • Adam says:

      “They will manipulate the numbers, it is an election year. Don’t be fooled.”

      You’ve said this a lot but you can’t really provide proof can you? Yes, I’m sure there’s a conspiracy to hide census jobs inside other categories inside the labor report because we don’t want the 2 Americans reading that BLS and knowing it’s all a hoax and there’s no real recovery at all just a bunch of government jobs being created…

      • Big Dog says:

        All politicians manipulate numbers. This is why CBO estimates are worthless. It is why they end up spending more than they say. It is why the stimulus is touted as having worked.

        We shall see.

        • Adam says:

          Sorry, the stimulus did work. It’s just hard to hear the news with your head so far up an elephant’s butt. From in there it’s all Armageddon all the time.

  7. Big Dog says:

    I am sure America could be higher on the most peaceful scale if we would stop helping everyone else.

    We could have let Europe deal with Germany in both World Wars, let North Korea take over the South, stayed out of Vietnam, and could have kept our troops home from any number of other things that were not really our business.

    We could have been much higher on the peaceful scale.

    But if being called less peaceful is the price for doing what is right then so be it. Unlike fair weather progressives, I think we should stand by allies through think and thin and fight right beside them.

    But if the rest of the world has a problem, with our ranking then screw them. Tell them not to call next time they have a problem.

    • Darrel says:

      WWII was 70 years ago. The ranking in question was for 2009.

      Bigd: “[we] could have kept our troops home from any number of other things that were not really our business.”>>

      DAR
      There is wisdom in those words. The US will (probably by necessity) grow out of it’s empire stage, countries always do it seems. Then we can settle down and become nice and secular and agreeable, like Europe.

      D.
      ————-
      Probably more than a few of these weren’t necessary:

      List of wars involving the US.

      • Big Dog says:

        We do not need to become like Europe. Who will step in to protect us?

      • Darrel says:

        Canada would. Who’s gonna mess with them?

        They play HOCKEY.

        Did you know they lost more people, per capita, than the US did in WW2?

        I just learned that today.

        4 per 1,000

        v.

        3.2 per 1,000

        Anyway, if the US gets taken down it’s more likely to be from some idiotic inbred sources from within. The world would be coming here to help us patch it back up and get on a good grown-up European track.

        • Blake says:

          Idiotic inbred sources? Quit referring to your family that way, D- it’s not nice, even if they’ve been on Jerry Springer.
          A your-a-peein’ track? Doesn’t sound good to me- sounds”progressive”, and that is not good.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Idiotic inbred sources?”>>

          DAR
          Speaking of that, look who shows up!

          D.
          ————–
          If liberals ruled the world, this is what wars would look like.

          Maybe someday.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Temp jobs are beneficial to the worker but they will only add to unemployment later. And the article points out that more public sector jobs were hired than reported.

    We will see the inflation and maybe a double dip recession. I believe this and so do many economists.

    We will see. You cannot print money round the clock and not eventually have inflation. Think Germany about a hundred years ago (give or take).

  9. Big Dog says:

    Well, I do not have my head anywhere but in the real world.

    As I recall, it was armageddon all the time (and still is) when progressives want to pass another costly and unnecessary law. We must do this or (fill in the blank with some terrible thing). This is the crisis managament they have been doing all the time.

    When you cannot lead you use a crisis to get what you want.

    Obama could not lead a group of people out of a burning building. He could not even lead you out which is saying something because your nose is connected to his rearend.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Obama could not lead a group of people out of a burning building.”>>

      DAR
      I think maybe you should revisit the usefulness of that talking after Obama led the democratic party to historic health care legislative victory. A very profound achievement. Or as Biden likes to say, a BFD.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Bribing and threatening are not good leadership techniques.

      • Darrel says:

        Name a good (as in successful) leader who did not bribe and threaten.

        And while you’re at it, who did Obama threaten?

      • Blake says:

        Biden and Pelosi- Job Security.
        Still, Barry needs to be whacked on the nose, until he learns how to be “housebroken” with regards to the Constitution, because he’s “wee-weein'” all over it right now, and that deserves a good whackin’.

  10. Big Dog says:

    The US is quite different regardless of borders. We are the only remaining super power and get called for help all the time not to mention we have treaties that require us to defend our friends.

    So we could be an island and would have these obligations. When was the last time one of the low (or high?) ranking countries were called to help repel aggression?

  11. Big Dog says:

    Canada defend us? HAHAHAHAHA

    And the losses in WWII, perhaps if they knew how to fight….

  12. Big Dog says:

    Obama threatened every Democrat when he said that he would not campaign for any that did not support the bill and then the DNC said they would not be sending money to races where they voted against.

    That is a threat.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “he said that he would not campaign for any that did not support the bill”>>

      DAR
      Bah. That’s withholding a favor that no one has a right to. Especially if they don’t support his centerpiece legislation.

      Again: Name a good (as in successful) leader who did not bribe and threaten.

  13. Big Dog says:

    I like how Darrel argues. He says show (something) and then says it does not or that you can’t as if the argument is settled because he said so so don’t bother going on.

  14. Big Dog says:

    Having no knowledge of all leaders and their personal goings on it would be difficult.

    But I would say Omar Bradley was a leader who did not use bribes and threats.

    And the White House is a big bully pulpit. Threatening to withhold support (see threatening to do so) is a threat especially for those who are in perilous seats right about now.

    I bet he will campaign for Frank Kratovil. He is the most vulnerable and was allowed by the powers to vote no.

    Anyway, threatening and bribing are not the way to lead. If the bill was so good it would not take billions in bribes to get it passed.

    Obama is a terrible leader. Most privates in the service have more leadership experience and could do a better job.

    This First Sergeant could.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I would say Omar Bradley was a leader who did not use bribes and threats.”>>

      DAR
      Never heard of him. Oh, I see he was born in 1893.

      Had to go back a ways eh?

      No politician has a right to have a president campaign for him. It’s a privilege, one that can and should be taken away if you pee on his, and his parties, centerpiece legislation. Obama is hardly a threatening fellow. Oh well, as long as he gets the job done. And he did.

      Bigd: “Obama is a terrible leader.”>>

      DAR
      Really? I think he’s great. I mean really really good. Much better than even expected.

      Who are you guys going to run against him? Somebody to the right of Lindsey Graham of course, after all he’s not even a real republican.

      D.

  15. Big Dog says:

    We get wars when liberals rule the world. They appease the bad guys and get shat upon. 9/11, result of liberal appeasement, Iran hostages, liberal appeasement.

    WWII Liberal appeasement and when Iran nukes somebody it will be because of liberal appeasement.

    If you are strong and project strength then people will leave you alone.

    Peace through superior firepower.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “We get wars when liberals rule the world.”>>

      DAR
      No, liberals like the peace, it’s conservative who glorify war. Bizarre but true. Western Europe, peaceful, liberal. That’s the way of the future.

      Bigd: “They appease the bad guys and get shat upon. 9/11,>>

      DAR
      9/11 was Bush’s incompetence.

      Bigd: “Iran hostages, liberal appeasement.”>>

      DAR
      53 hostages, Islamic nutbar students. They all came home safe.

      How many came home from the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan? 241 dead. Then Reagan pledged to stay, and then left a year later. Was Reagan a liberal appeaser? My cherry pick is better than yours.

      Bigd: WWII Liberal appeasement”>>

      DAR
      How on earth do you get that? Hitler was a raving conservative fascist.

      Bigd: “and when Iran nukes somebody…>>

      DAR
      N. Korea got nukes, under your Bush. Liberal appeaser? And then he attacks the wrong country.

      It’s you conservatives who get bad results.

      Bigd: If you are strong and project strength then people will leave you alone.”>>

      DAR
      How’d that work in Beirut? How’d it work in Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam?

      That’s the old way. The new way is pillow fights.

      Bigd: Peace through superior firepower.”>>

      DAR
      Incidentally, nukes are now stupid and useless for war. You can’t use them. No one can except lunatics. They are dinosaurs, a waste of money for a civilized country (ours cost $20-$30 billion a year to maintain). The world is far to interconnected now. And we’ve wasted trillions on this foolishness. Dumb.

      D.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Hey Darrel, are you deliberately stupid or do you act that way. Bradley was BORN in 1893 so I did not go back to then to discuss his leadership.

    He died in 1981 and he led in WWII.

    I doubt you could find a politician to fit that bill but like I said, I am not there when they work.

    I could pick plenty of war heroes. I just happen to like Bradley a lot. I could have picked Norman Schwarzkopf.

    You have never heard of Bradley, how sad.

    There are patriots and there are politicians.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I doubt you could find a politician to fit that bill…”>>

      DAR
      That’s what I was asking for, since we were talking about Obama. Military leadership is different.

      Surely there’s a lot of threats and bribing going on in the military too?

      D.