Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Was the "Slow Down Folsom" effort successful?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#61 bishmasterb

bishmasterb

    MyFolsom Loser

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,563 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 31 May 2005 - 03:04 PM

yab,

You can believe that SUVs represent an overall negative impact on our lives without believing that every single thing about them is pure evil. SUVs have good attributes, that is why people buy them.

And as far as your concerns about tax breaks. I agree with you, there should be no tax breaks or incentives for any type of automobile. None for the big SUVs and none for ZEVs or hybrids.

By the way, GM just recently buried their remaining EV1s in the desert. I don't think that is good for the environment. wink.gif

#62 YabYum

YabYum

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 0 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 03:30 PM

QUOTE(bishmasterb @ May 31 2005, 03:04 PM)
yab,

You can believe that SUVs represent an overall negative impact on our lives without believing that every single thing about them is pure evil. SUVs have good attributes, that is why people buy them.


oh, no, i realize they serve a purpose. but that purpose isn't anywhere near the CITIES of this country. monster suv's serve a purpose if you live or work in the unpaved Sierra's, but not for Sally SoccerMom to navigate herself to the grocery store.

QUOTE
And as far as your concerns about tax breaks. I agree with you, there should be no tax breaks or incentives for any type of automobile. None for the big SUVs and none for ZEVs or hybrids.


i disagree with your assesment that there should be no incentives/tax breaks for cars that run off alternative fuels/hybrids/etc. right now, tax breaks for purchasing a hybrid car fall around a few thousand dollars, whereas tax breaks for SUV's can be as much as $25,000!! the government should be encourage and promoting any and everything that has to do with becoming LESS fuel-dependent. Period.

QUOTE
By the way, GM just recently buried their remaining EV1s in the desert. I don't think that is good for the environment. wink.gif



that was GM's choice, not anyone else's. it's insane that they did that, seeing as how they could have EASILY sold those remaining cars for , say, $20k a piece. they were functional, efficient, and there was a loooong waiting list of customers that wanted to lease them. but instead GM opted to go the dramatic (and hazardous) route by crushing and burying them.

what's that saying? "Bad PR's better than no PR"? that's all this was. Drama.

#63 bishmasterb

bishmasterb

    MyFolsom Loser

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,563 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE(YabYum @ May 31 2005, 03:10 PM)
oh, no, i realize they serve a purpose. but that purpose isn't anywhere near the CITIES of this country. monster suv's serve a purpose if you live or work in the unpaved Sierra's, but not for Sally SoccerMom to navigate herself to the grocery store.

I think individuals know what's best for themselves. I think you are the best arbiter of what you should drive. I won't try to tell you what vehicle is better or worse for you.

QUOTE(YabYum @ May 31 2005, 03:10 PM)
i disagree with your assesment that there should be no incentives/tax breaks for cars that run off alternative fuels/hybrids/etc. right now, tax breaks for purchasing a hybrid car fall around a few thousand dollars, whereas tax breaks for SUV's can be as much as $25,000!!  the government should be encourage and promoting any and everything that has to do with becoming LESS fuel-dependent. Period.

If you really think it should be within the government's authority to incentivize certain industries, then you are going to end up with exactly the situation you are complaining about. Those with the most political influence will get the $$. And that will never be the environmental lobby. It will however be the SUV manufacturers.

QUOTE(YabYum @ May 31 2005, 03:10 PM)
that was GM's choice, not anyone else's. it's insane that they did that, seeing as how they could have EASILY sold those remaining cars for , say, $20k a piece. they were functional, efficient, and there was a loooong waiting list of customers that wanted to lease them. but instead GM opted to go the dramatic (and hazardous) route by crushing and burying them.

Actually, GM made what appears to be a sound business decision. The cost of warranty/support/legal obligations outweighed the money they would receive from selling a handful of cars. They did the right thing.


#64 YabYum

YabYum

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 0 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE(bishmasterb @ May 31 2005, 04:03 PM)

Actually, GM made what appears to be a sound business decision. The cost of warranty/support/legal obligations outweighed the money they would receive from selling a handful of cars. They did the right thing.


i'm on my way out the door, but one last thing: you know the above quote from you is pure B.S. you know as well as i do that they EASILY could have drafted up a document waiving their (GM's) liability for any future warranty/etc.etc. Let's say there were 300 cars crushed. At $25,000/car (sold "as is"), that would've earned GM $7,500,000 !!!!


how is any of this "sound business"? there WAS demand, even if only small, but the market DID exist, and the crushing WAS unncessary...

#65 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,588 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE(bishmasterb @ May 31 2005, 04:03 PM)
GM made what appears to be a sound business decision. The cost of warranty/support/legal obligations outweighed the money they would receive from selling a handful of cars. They did the right thing.

View Post



I think GM was just bullied by the gas industry and thats why they did what they did....they could have done very well with that car if they had expanded development and marketing - think about it - how many ads on TV did you see for giant SUV's vs ads for hybrid cars. it was probably 20 to 1

check out this movie about a guy who invented an engine that ran off water http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105788/ - you can only imagine how badly the oil industry would not want something like that (or a hybrid) to be successful - that would hurt their profits...

Gas and money rules the world these days - its too bad - because if money didn't rule we'd probably be a much further advanced civilization by now.

Travel, food and drink blog by Davehttp://davestravels.tv

 


#66 tgianco

tgianco

    Living Legend

  • Moderator
  • 4,152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Willow Springs
  • Interests:Baseball, soccer, football, poker, wine, good food, reading

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:19 PM

GM is not a car oompany. They are a financing company and health plan administrators.

Oh, speaking of GM and retirement plans (even for you govt. workers), what's happening now at United Airlines will happen to GM workers and, eventually, to all the state workers (police, fire, teachers, union rats) that think they don't need to save some themselves in retirement. Yes, even the govt. won't be able to raise taxes as high as would be needed to fund the overly generous retirement benefits they have promised.

Sorry to be the spoiler, but it's true (unless the 'far' lefties get their way and we start calling one another "comrade").
In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

#67 bishmasterb

bishmasterb

    MyFolsom Loser

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,563 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE(YabYum @ May 31 2005, 05:10 PM)
i'm on my way out the door, but one last thing: you know the above quote from you is pure B.S. you know as well as i do that they EASILY could have drafted up a document waiving their (GM's) liability for any future warranty/etc.etc. Let's say there were 300 cars crushed. At $25,000/car (sold "as is"), that would've earned GM $7,500,000 !!!!
how is any of this "sound business"? there WAS demand, even if only small, but the market DID exist, and the crushing WAS unncessary...

View Post


Yab,

I'll leave whether or not it was a sound business decision on GM's part up to the company board of directors and shareholders, both of which I assume supported the move. Further, it is not easy to waive warranties, because they are backed up by the force of law and not optional in any sense that I am aware of. The bottom line is that if the cost to support a vehicle was greater than the income from selling it, they made the right decision.

Back to the more important point that you raised about tax breaks and subsidies for SUV producers. Do you agree that large corporations wield more political influence and are able to create law that is much more beneficial to them than the environmental lobby is able to? Your own statement " tax breaks for purchasing a hybrid car fall around a few thousand dollars, whereas tax breaks for SUV's can be as much as $25,000!" seems to indicate that you do accept this. If this is the case, let's get rid of any tax subsidies from the government. That way, by your numbers, hybrid vehicles will gain a $20K+ benefit per vehicle! Surely you think this is a good thing.

#68 (Gaelic925)

(Gaelic925)
  • Visitors

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:48 PM

Hello! madsmiley.png What is the topic here? If you want to talk about SUV's start another topic.

#69 bishmasterb

bishmasterb

    MyFolsom Loser

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,563 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 31 May 2005 - 07:05 PM

QUOTE(Gaelic925 @ May 31 2005, 06:48 PM)
Hello!  madsmiley.png  What is the topic here? If you want to talk about SUV's start another topic.

View Post


What!? Three pages of Slow Down Folsom isn't enough? smile.gif

#70 YabYum

YabYum

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 0 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 07:37 AM

a timely article related to some of the Great SUV debate:

http://www.sfgate.co...mnists/morford/

Die Die SUVs Please Die
Sales of the bloated monster trucks are in a huge slump. Time for enviro-lovers to rejoice?


By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, June 1, 2005

You hear that? That cheering and rejoicing and heavy exhausted sighing? Why, it's coming from the massively fatigued Prius-happy enviro-green set and it's all about the fact that sales of huge bloated oil-belchin' SUVs are in a major free-fall, down nearly 20 percent for the year and dropping faster than Jenna Bush can slam a bottle of Cuervo.
Can we all just wave our Greenpeace flags high and scream an I-told-you-so and go spank an Expedition driver and be glad for that? Can I get a "heck yeah"?

Because indeed, it's the kind of minor but still gratifying news you want to sort of dowse yourself in rub all over your progressive brain and inject into your withered Bush-bashed spirit and say ahh, finally, finally people are coming to their senses and finally the world is waking up and finally some enlightenment is peeking through.

This is the hope. Finally people are understanding just how inane and dangerous and pollutive and just plain stupid these vehicles so very much are, and maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny bit of hope that the planet can finally begin to exhale and unclench and we can finally begin to progress, to move toward something akin to health and compassion instead of this painful devolution and isn't that all happy sounding and positive? Aren't good things imminent and abounding?

And yet, no. Because just as these very shining and positive thoughts escape your brain like some sort of happy pink mist, still you are gnawed, as always, deep down. Still the other, less gullible, less perky voices in your head kick back with a six-pack of Skyy Blue and a boxed set of Jenna Jameson DVDs and a deep obvious roll of the eyes and say, yeah right, not so fast, sucker.

This is the funny thing about this sort of good news -- it usually just isn't all that good. This is when you gotta sit up and take the medicine. This is when you gotta get slapped in the face with cold hard dumbass 'Murkin reality.

Because the truth is, SUV sales are down not because people are becoming more politically aware and not necessarily because people are finally becoming more environmentally attuned and not because the population as a whole is finally realizing how BushCo has dragged us into a violent hellpit of screaming oily economy-gutted warmongering inarticulate debt. Wishful thinking, sweetheart.

And it's certainly not because everyone suddenly realized the oil-soaked Saudis are just as bad as the Taliban and we should be investigating alternative fuels and rediscovering the joys of riding bikes and walking to work, and while we're at it let's all examine our souls and examine our motives and examine just what the heck it is we in this country think we're doing by being the most gluttonous, environmentally devastating resource-abusin' landmass on the entire hobbled whirling sphere. All this is but a fraction of the explanation.

Nope, SUV sales are down for one reason and one reason only: high gas prices. SUV sales are down because when it costs upward of a hundred bucks to fill up your shiny clunky chrome-rimmed uber-bloated Escalade so you can burn donuts in the Wal-Mart parking lot for two hours on Friday night, dude, well, your sister's Dodge Neon suddenly looks like a worthy alternative. Even in Texas.

Optimism, this ain't. I wish I could say that the Prius-led revolution is at hand, that signs are increasingly resplendent of a massive war-weary cultural awakening, but of course I'm afraid the proof is just all too obvious that we just ain't all that nimble of spirit or that interesting a species and we just ain't that enlightened as a collective brain. Not yet, anyway.

Truth is, if gas prices were to suddenly drop to a buck fifty again and stay there for a few months, why, SUV sales would jump right back up. This has been proven. This has happened before. heck, even the gas-starved Europeans indicated in a big poll a while back that if a gallon of Euro petrol suddenly dropped from five bucks to one, they'd be all over the big-bloated-American-car thing faster than Lynne Cheney on bad lesbian prose.

It's all real simple: When resources are cheap and plentiful, we gorge, we indulge, we stop caring. About repercussions, about the environmental, socioeconomic, spiritual or karmic costs of our behavior. Ditto the CEOs, the corporations that feed our gluttony -- they go for profit uber alles, even if it means massive economic abuse, backhanded politicking or war. It's just the way of the species.

However, when resources get scarce and expensive, we pay attention. We get scared. For our wallets. For our excessive habits. This is America, beeyatch: Fear and money are the only things that really trigger us. We respond only to crisis, change our behavior only when absolutely forced to, or because the GOP has pumped the nation full of bogus fear. Same as it ever was.

See, it's not really about raised consciousness. Not yet, anyway. It's not about a deep concern for how we treat the air, the planet, each other. By and large, we don't seem to give much of a damn for the fact that SUVs roll and pollute and stomp the Earth like Karl Rove stomps live kittens, not to mention how they endanger your family's life, and every other passenger in every other car you can't successfully swerve around in an emergency. After all, it's all about the illusion of safety and machismo, baby. Who cares if it's actually true?


And besides, SUVs aren't exactly going away. They're simply morphing into the new breed of crossover vehicles, essentially jacked-up trucklike cars on steroids, and one look at the upcoming manufacturing forecast from any automaker proves that, save for a handful of hybrid models, not a single automaker is eagerly rolling out a new fleet of small, sexy, environmentally friendly, gas-frugal vehicles.

And why? Why don't automakers care? Because they don't have to. Not yet. Despite amazing new engine technologies, automakers haven't cared to improve MPG ratings for over 20 years, thanks in large part to the GOP yanking away all incentive or pressure for them to do so and essentially giving them carte blanche to gouge and pollute however the heck they want. Not to mention how the EPA's MPG ratings for most cars are, quite simply, way off.

So then, let us celebrate the death of these silly monster tanks with only mild, muffled cheers, aimed mostly at those cute pseudo-macho hellbeasts driven by myopic jingoist love bunnies who stick little 'Murkin flags on the back of these 8-mpg Ford Excursions and call it patriotism.


Because the good news is, as long as gas prices stay up -- and verily, they could be way up, forevermore -- huge numbers of the biggest of the dumb trucks will be sitting on the lots, unsold. But bad news is, the sad, misinformed, aggro attitude that spawned them has yet to shift much more than an inch.


#71 YabYum

YabYum

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 0 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 07:45 AM

QUOTE(bishmasterb @ May 31 2005, 05:26 PM)

Back to the more important point that you raised about tax breaks and subsidies for SUV producers. Do you agree that large corporations wield more political influence and are able to create law that is much more beneficial to them than the environmental lobby is able to? Your own statement " tax breaks for purchasing a hybrid car fall around a few thousand dollars, whereas tax breaks for SUV's can be as much as $25,000!" seems to indicate that you do accept this. If this is the case, let's get rid of any tax subsidies from the government. That way, by your numbers, hybrid vehicles will gain a $20K+ benefit per vehicle! Surely you think this is a good thing.



do i agree that large corps have too much political clout when it comes to issues like this? Of course i do. Do I agree with it being fair? Nope.

And no, I don't see eliminating tax breaks for hybrids/alternative fuel vehicles as a "good thing". while there IS demand for these vehicles (more demand than automakers have thus far been willing to meet!), automakers have done very little to market these cars to the masses. and hey, with this Adminstration, do they really need to? h-e-l-l no. the government SHOULD be doing all it can to encourage people to buy these cars. the government SHOULD be doing all it can to unchain the American people from their dependency on mostly foreign oil. the government SHOULD be handing out incentives left and right , short-term at least, until more people buy into the alternative. The more people that drive hybrids or other similar vehicles, the more it benefits EVERYONE, not to mention the environment.....


#72 bishmasterb

bishmasterb

    MyFolsom Loser

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,563 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 01 June 2005 - 08:26 AM

Yab,

Well we have to disagree on the subsidies issue then. It is clear to me that giving the government the power to subsidize certain industries will only result in money being pumped into the industry with the most political influence. That will probably never be the environmental lobby, much to your chagrin.

However, if you simply eliminated the huge ($25,000 as you put it) subsidy on SUVs, you would actually be achieving the same thing you are looking for (as reducing a subsidy on a competing product has the same effect as increasing a subsidy on a product you favor).

I know you feel very strongly that government should subsidize the products that YOU like. Trust me, the big auto makers feel the same way about their products. And they will ALWAYS have more political influence than you or I. ALWAYS. Playing the government favorites game of subsidies is a losing bet for your cause, the environment.

OK, I'm sorry for the digression. I now return to the topic of Slow Down Folsom.

#73 YabYum

YabYum

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 0 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 08:28 AM

QUOTE(bishmasterb @ Jun 1 2005, 08:26 AM)
Yab,

Well we have to disagree on the subsidies issue then.

I know you feel very strongly that government should subsidize the products that YOU like. Trust me, the big auto makers feel the same way about their products. And they will ALWAYS have more political influence than you or I. ALWAYS. Playing the government favorites game of subsidies is a losing bet for your cause, the environment.

OK, I'm sorry for the digression. I now return to the topic of Slow Down Folsom.

View Post



we will agree to disagree. smile.gif

but, one last thing: it's not so much that I want the gubmint to subsidize things that I like. it's that the government SHOULD be subsidizing thigns like this simply because they are GOOD FOR THE ENVIORONMENT.

or....are we just not supposed to care about something silly and insignificant like that? you can answer that or not, i just wanted to state that one last time.

#74 Orangetj

Orangetj

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,237 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:15 PM

Yes, yes...SUV's represent all that is evil and wrong in the world. The truly enlightened all drive hybrid vehicles. THIS is the defining issue of right and wrong, SUV or hybrid? Hmmm...what if I buy a hybrid vehicle but drive it twice as much as my SUV and ultimately burn the same amount of fuel? Am I still enlightened?

#75 Cloud9

Cloud9

    Hopeless Addict

  • Member*
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,000 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:20 PM

What if you buy a hybrid SUV? smile.gif
"The important thing is not to stop questioning'' | "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-- Albert Einstein--

http://folsomforum.com/

IPB Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users