Recent Comments:
Obama picks worst car ever to come out of Motown {Autoblog}
May 7th 2008 4:30PM Seven,
You are the one who is misinformed on the effects of federal tax cuts, whether it be from Kennedy, Reagan or Bush. Comparing the tax burdens by income level illustrates that the whole oft peddled story that the 2001 tax cuts hurt the middle class are absolutely false.
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
2000 2005
Top 1% 37.42% 39.39%
2000 2005
Top 5% 56.47% 59.67
2000 2005
Top 10% 67.33% 70.30%
2000 2005
Top 25% 84.01% 85.99%
2000 2005
Top 50% 96.09% 96.93%
2000 2005
Bottom 50% 3.91% 3.07%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
A single person earning $30,000 / year now pays $4,000 less in federal taxes than they did 10 years ago.
Next-gen Prius coming in January with more power, efficiency {Autoblog}
Apr 29th 2008 12:14PM The Sky Is FALLING!!
Modern Retro: BMW M1 Hommage officially revealed {Autoblog}
Apr 27th 2008 11:04AM Dick Teague should be upset at what they have done to his AMX/3.
Tony Stewart looking at making a return to Chevrolet {Autoblog}
Apr 25th 2008 1:14PM Stewarts' sprint cars are powered / sponsored by Chevy / GM, so he has some loyalty to those he's already in business with.
Chevrolet announces 2008 Cobalt XFE improvement {Autoblog}
Apr 24th 2008 7:58PM oby,
You are nothing but a GM hating troll. The Cobalt is such a horrible car that Forbes just ranked it as one of the least expensive vehicles one can own.
According to Forbes, the five year ownership costs for a Cobalt LS are $33,362, or $217 less than what it costs to own a Civic DX for the same amount of time. As they put it, "its low maintenance and repair costs (only the Honda Fit beats it) compensate for its fuel expenses. Most of all, Cobalt's low depreciation rate of 61 percent (again bested only by the Fit) assures that its lifetime cost of ownership remains low." Now that GM has improved its' MPG, the Cobalt is even less expensive to own. A 10% average increase in MPG would lower the over all ownership cost of the Cobalt to $32,417, over a thousand dollars cheaper to own than a Honda.
Oh, and just for the record, your beloved Yaris, loses 72% of its' value over five years versus 62% for the Cobalt, per Forbes.
The fastest way for a person to prove their stupidity is to speak- or post. Courtesy of your continued unsubsantiated rants, everyone on autoblog knows that you, oby, and are idiot.
GM slips to number four on the Fortune 500 {Autoblog}
Apr 22nd 2008 10:20PM I find it interesting that Proctor & Gamble, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America all have a higher profit margin than ExxonMobil (14, 13 and 13% respectively, vs 11%), while Berkshire Hathaway, IBM, and Wachovia have the same profit margin and yet no one is calling for them to cap their prices or to be penalized with a windfall profits tax.
2009 Buick Lucerne adds the ability to use a fuel that it will likely never use {Autoblog Green}
Apr 21st 2008 10:24PM @Drake,
It's not just about the money, it's about how foolish it is to generate ethanol from corn, given that more energy is spent producing it than using it saves. That's common sense, which is something that is sorely missing from the eco-debate. You also over-looked the fact that E-85 emissions are worse for you than those of straight gasoline, or does that not count?
The problem of our 'energy crisis' is the government itself. The US government has given into every enviromentalist group who has issues with extracting the vast amounts of oil on our soil. There's more oil under Utah than Saudi Arabia, but we can't access it. There's a minimum of 143 billion barrels of oil under Montana, but God forbid we should access it. 90% of the oil extracted from Alaska is sold to Asian markets, not the US, courtesy of the government. See a pattern here? We have oil- enough that we don't have to be dependent on the Middle East or Venezuala (Canada and Mexico are our two biggest suppliers of oil, y'know), but we can't touch any of it. Had we been extracting this oil- while developiong alternative sources- we wouldn't be in the boat we're in.
So, no, my attitude isn't "screw everyone else", as you say, it's "make sure the ill-informed don't screw everyone else". Too much of this 'green' BS, such as one's 'Carbon Footprint', is going to wreck the worlds' economies (it's already happening in Japan & Europe courtesy of the Kyoto Treaty), and thus lower the standard of living for mankind. All because of that 'less than 1% of actual CO2 emissions caused by man'.
We should all be environmentally conscious, but not in a way that we lose our freedoms and lower our standard of living.
I suggest you lose the attitude and get your facts straight before getting preachy.
2009 Buick Lucerne adds the ability to use a fuel that it will likely never use {Autoblog Green}
Apr 21st 2008 11:57AM E-85 is not only less efficient a power source, getting 25 - 30% less mileage per gallon, but it requires more energy to produce than it saves. Furthermore, its emissions are worse that that of standard gasoline, especially for asthmatics. The only winners of the ethanol scam are the producers and the politicians who voted for funding said scam who receive wonderful campaign contributions from the corn / farm lobby.
2009 Buick Lucerne adds the ability to use a fuel that it will likely never use {Autoblog Green}
Apr 21st 2008 9:41AM About a third of all corn produced now goes to ethanol production, which is a factor in the increased cost of food. Doing so, at higher prices than food producers were paying, increases the cost for food producers who pass along the increase to consumers. Add in market speculators who are running the price up as well, and you have your current food price scenario.
Market speculators, combined with increased demand from developing markets, is what is driving the cost of oil.
VIDEO: Al Gore gives a new slide show. Now with increased optimism! {Autoblog Green}
Apr 17th 2008 10:01AM It amazes me how the Left preaches about tolerance and that we should make sure that opposing points of view are heard- unless it is a voice that disagrees with their objectives. Al Gore continually repeats the mantra "the debate is over", when in fact, many scientists have evidence that it is not. These scientists do not get the exposure that pro-man made global warming scientists / activists get. When they do get the opportunity to state their case, they are ridiculed for even questioning the gospel of Al- a man who received a D & a C in his two collegiate science classes.
How many news stories have informed people that most of the members of the IPCC are not scientists, but in fact political appointees of those who support the man made global warming theory. Scientists who refute the man made GW theory are ridiculed, but yet political appointees with little or no background in climatology are given a Nobel Peace Price.
We have been told that the last ten years were the hottest on record and that it was getting warmer basically every year, exemplifying that global warming was a fact. Once it was shown that there was no increase in the earths’ temperature during that time frame, the phrase global warming was replaced with climate change. Of course changing the name of the problem is not new, as many of the people who warned us about Global Cooling in the 70's are the same ones telling us that our same behaviors are causing Global Warming now. Of course, this whole notion that climate change is going to kill us all is nothing new, as 1895 – 1930 people were concerned about the coming Ice Age, while from the 30’s to the 60’s it was Global Warming that was going to kill us all. Same problem, only now man is the cause.
To believe in the man made GW / CC propaganda, one has to disregard everything we know about the earths climate and temperature during its' existence. GW / CC proponents would have you believe that every day on earth was a constant temperature with no changes in climate- until man ruined everything. If man is solely responsible for the increased levels of CO2, then how do you explain the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, when the CO2 level was 16 times higher than today? Or, the Cretaceous Period, 140 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 was 8 times higher? Or, the CO2 levels from 95 million years ago which were about the same as levels today? How can these levels have changed long before the appearance of man?
The temperature and climate of the earth is an ever changing thing. Nothing in nature is constant. The earth has seen far greater changes than those occuring now, but now it is mans fault.
It is good to be environmentally friendly, but GW / CC is being as a socialist tool to control peoples’ rights.
