64% can't cover $1,000 emergency
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
It wont be as cost effective as buying it overseas. It'll employ some people but not in the sort of jobs most people want to go into. It'd be great if we had better mass transit, since the power loss wouldn't be so significant.
say's the welder rigt
there are more 100,000 jobs in the oil industry than most other son
Why are y'all even bothering. It doesn't matter what somebody who disagrees says and what it is about. He suffers from Democratic Party Tourette's Syndrome. DPTS only effects the uber-liberal true believer sheeple, they suffer from ticks from which, when the ticks come upon them, their brains are overwhelmed and they are incapable of doing anything other than shouting "racist" whenever somebody more to the right of them (which is everybody) is spotted anywhere in the vicinity of someplace they can be heard.
So, the conversations with DPTS sufferers generally go like this:
Normal Person: "I went to the park the other day...."
DPTS sufferer: (interrupts) "You racist! Black people have parks too!"
NP: "What?"
DPTS sufferer: "You stupid Nazi Racist Rush Limbaugh Listening Stupid Conservative! Black people have parks too!"
NP: (thinking, what the hell?) "Dude, can I finish my story?"
DPTS: "Racist! Your story isn't as important as that of minorities!"
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
And said welder has converted cars to CNG. And then converted the same cars back.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
I know what they pay. I also know most people don't want to be in it. Same with CNG. And I know that the market for it isn't as big as your or SF thinks.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Yeah, and that infrastructures in place. You don't have a set infrastructure for CNG. It'll require a lot of jobs that people in general don't want to do (working their physical ass off). But even if it does give people jobs, you don't have as big a market for the product as you think. Using CNG for personal transportation isn't efficient.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Do link us to whatever data source you are using to state that it isn't efficient.
1. Cite where I have advocated higher taxes.
2. Cite half the nations workers pay no federal income tax.
You support the party that kept your wages low your whole life.
If you are sixtythree and made 50k last year, you would have made over 90k if reaganomics hadn't been instituted, and by your standards Reagan is a socialist. What your side is working towards is complete collapse of the system so it can be replaced with a more totalitarian, easier to run system of their creation.
Think of it. Roughly half the people in this country routinely vote for the party that only works for 2% of the population and works against the other 98%.
Alias
Banned
First of all, my wages are not and never have been "low". Secondly, no political party has any effect on my wages.
Tell us how much the average salary should be for the guy who works at the Jiffy Lube?
Your plastic data doesn't mean shit. Some people have always lived beyond their means.
1) saying 'some' have is very misleading... IN NO WAY was it prevalent. Not in ANY way close to what we see today. People even just 50 years ago could not get access to credit... let alone the credit levels we see today
People couldn't get credit? Are you O.K.? Oh I see, you mean 'some' people.
That is all fine and dandy except electric cars with CNG reserved for trucks is a more effective solution.
Competition for natural gas will be too high for cars to afford. The infrastructure already exists, demand is lowest at night, when most cars are charging, the load balancing effect helps the utilities, the cars themselves become part of a smart grid upgrade. Furthermore electric cars use much less energy overall .
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I have no problem going with electric cars vs. the current environment, but I think you are incorrect to say it is more effective than CNG. The utilities burn either coal or nat gas to produce the electricity. Thus, you are still increasing demand for nat gas by the usage amount and likely (though I am not positive) losing energy in the exchange. I would rather go direct nat gas burn make car go.
My uncle has been driving a nat gas car for 8 years now and loves it, with the exception that he can't take long trips with it due to an insufficient number of nat gas stations nationwide. From what he has said (warning, this is obviously anecdotal) the power remains the same, nat gas is cheaper and he gets better mpg.
Bottom line, I am all for working on solutions that eliminate as much of our foreign dependency as possible.
People really need education on nat gas. On a dollar to dollar basis it's probaly cheaper than gasoline right now. It's a lot cleaner and needs way less refining. And we Have many trillions of dollars worth just like we have untapped in oil.
If we ever have a real economic crisis well tap it.
If we ever have a real economic crisis well tap it.
Good Luck
New member
Exactly. As credit become more available to more people the incidence of personal debt started to rise along with a corresponding decline in personal savings. And a big part of that was due to government intervention in banking practices, encouraging if not outright mandating increased credit to lower and lower income families.
The definition of "middle class" has certainly undergone changes over the decades. In the 50's the standard view of a middle class family would have included a 2 bedroom home (3 BR for upper-middle class), a single car in a detached garage, a single family television, etc. By the mid 80's that view had changed to 3-4 BR home, 2 cars in an attached garage, two or more televisions, etc. Today, a minimum standard for middle class includes a bedroom for each child plus (by previous standards) extra large master bedroom for the adults, 3 or more cars, television in most rooms including the kitchen, more than one personal computers, cell phones for each member of the family, etc. etc. etc. By the standards of the 50s, today's "typical" middle income family would have been considered in the wealthy category. As such, because the standards for the term "middle income" have risen significantly, it would not be inaccurate to describe the middle income of today as better of than 30 years ago, in spite of the economic woes of today.
Please! In poorer countries even cheap, used electronics are beyond the purchasing power of the middle class. European countries are not poor. Try looking at rural China. The middle class would look on the purchase of your "dirt cheap" used electronics as a "someday if we get lucky" dream. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, and of that there are probably 4 billion who are worse off than the worst of our poor. I can tell you first hand that the average American - and from your reactions that includes you - haven't a foggy clue what it really means to be genuinely POOR. Even the majority of our "poor" do not know. Poor is not eating off of food stamps while living in a run down 2 bedroom apartment in a cheap assed rent-assistance district in the slums. By standards of the world, that is middle class.