$30 Billion Wasted by the Government Could Make People Suicidal

Discussion in 'Suicidal Thoughts and Feelings' started by Righteous, May 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Righteous

    Righteous Well-Known Member

    Thats right $30,000,000,000 of our tax dollars that we used to bail out the auto industry has been fucked off. The businesses are still closing and people are still losing their jobs. Man, I know a lot of people who could of used that money 2 pay off their houses and feed their children. But let the auto companies tell it, things will get better eventually. Yea right, thats what they all say.

    Now think about how a man who has got laid off, or a family who has lost there house are feeling knowing that our government is constantly handing out billions of dollars 2 corporations that are already rich but yet, the government can't give the average citizens about $20,000 or $40,000 so they can maintain a good lifestyle. If u are affected by this recession, don't kill yourself yet. Stay strong, God is helping me through this, and I'm sure that Karma will bless u as long as u stay a good person.

    People better get wise 2 the evil shit thats going on this world. A lot of super rich people are cheating us out of money, and they have no regret 4 their sins of stealing, selfishness, and deception. If someone doesn't do something to stand up against this madness, destruction will be unavoidable.
     
  2. Stranger1

    Stranger1 Forum Buddy & Antiquities Friend

    I agree this world has gone to shit..It won't be long and there will be wars breaking out everywhere..Our government is in way over it's head..I also agree that with the recession they could do more for the people rather than let the rich get richer..They already have theres so cut them off.. As far as the auto industry goes. If they can't manage their own buisness then they need to close there doors..Sure it will put people out of work, but the government can help them get retrained in a different occupation..Who are we kidding that will never happen..
     
  3. Righteous

    Righteous Well-Known Member

    Yea buddy, that's truly 2 good 2 be true. The government actually caring about training people 4 good jobs. I have more belief in Dracula than believing that the government wants to help us. Thats there plot, 2 keep people uneducated and with no skills, so the government can dominate the population. Thats how they virtually wiped out the Native Americans.
     
  4. Righteous

    Righteous Well-Known Member

    OK, are some of my topics just boring or do u guys feel that some of the stuff I post isn't something 2 be suicidal about. I ask because some of my topics don't get a lot of replies
     
  5. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Well first of all, you can talk about anything you want to and with the wide variety of people here, you can usually find someone to respond to just about anything. So don't worry about that. Also, don't worry about replies, just keep posting. THe site isn't really that political, but there are a few of us out there.

    Sometimes we just miss it and it falls down the board too fast.

    Now about those government questions. I'm 54 now, and I't still trying to figure out some of the shit that goes on. About the $30 billion though, nevermind, it's a drop in the bucket. Yeah, it could have helped a lot of people, but considering how much they waste, forget it. THe deficit is like 10 trillion dollars. I'd really like to know where all that went, considering the condition we're in.

    Now they're telling us Medicare will be out of money in 7 years and Social Security in about 35? I think I heard that right. Well, they'll just have to pony up and print more money. Yeah, I know that causes infation and more problems down the line...and they better figure it out.

    As far as my suicidal tendencies...You bet your ass part of it is becuase of the government. NOt only the $$ part, what about all the covert CIA shit that's been going on over the last 80 years. You want to really get depressed about the government. Read "Killing Hope". It's about all the stuff the CIA has done since the early 1900's. I'm telling you, it's a hundred times worse than you could ever imagine.

    Please feel free to send me a private message...I bet we could have some great discussions.
     
  6. Pad

    Pad Well-Known Member

    I don't find your posts boring, I enjoy reading them. I don't feel intelligent enough to reply tbh.
     
  7. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Okay, jobs are being lost even with the 30 billion. But how many MORE jobs would be being lost without it?
     
  8. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Also, I watch and read a lot of politically based material. I've heard from several sources that we still haven't seen the worst of it. If that's true and I've no reason to doubt it, then you are right, some kind of destruction is, in fact, unavoidable.

    I'm talking about cities burning and people with pitchforks and axes (o.k., it's kind of hollywood, but you get the idea) walking up the hill destruction.
     
  9. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    I'm personally a strong believer in Keynesian economics. This is the time for a massive deficit, pumping money into the economy... It's too bad no one follows the other side of the Keynesian theory, i.e. that you should run a large surplus in boom times.
     
  10. Crue-K

    Crue-K Well-Known Member

    This was posted on one of the blogs I read.

    The Myth of the Efficient Car - Obama's 'Help'

    Let’s get something straight about green industry: in its basic form it means we all have to buy new stuff … lots of it. As an industrial policy that will create jobs and increase spending, it’s pretty sound. As an environmental policy, it’s largely a fraud.

    Nowhere is it more disingenuous than the pursuit of the fuel-efficient car. In their effort to stave off collapse of their industry, auto executives have continually cited their efforts are building the high-efficiency cars of the future. The problem is, there are no cars of the future, and the looming catastrophe of global pollution, including climate change, will never be solved by building more cars – efficient or otherwise.

    We’d desperately like to believe that there is a way to preserve our car-centered civilization, while simultaneously placating the gods of atmospheric warming. Even the president-elect believes it, and Obama made fuel-efficient cars a central part of his energy policy. He promised a $7,000 tax credit to hybrid car buyers, aiming for a million plug-in hybrids, getting 150 mpg, by 2015. He wants to put an additional million completely plug-in vehicles by the same year. And he’s willing to federal funds up for research, or at least he was before we lost all our money.

    Even on its face, this seems like a tepid response to climate change. At the moment there are upward of 250,000,000 registered vehicles in the United States – more than there are licensed drivers. Converting one percent or so of them to greater fuel efficiency is not likely to do very much in the time needed to act. Nevertheless, the hope is that introduction of a new generation of electric and semi-electric will eventually lead to a replacement of our entire fleet of gas-guzzlers. Maybe. But the bigger problem is that increasing fuel efficiency has never led to an overall reduction in pollutants. In fact, efficiency has always led to more production and consumption.

    But there’s an even more profound problem with building more efficient cars. In 1865, English economist William Stanley Jevons discovered an efficiency paradox: the more efficient you make machines, the more energy they use. Why? Because the more efficient they are, the better they are, the cheaper they are and more people buy them, and the more they’ll use them. Now, that’s good for manufacturers and maybe good for consumers, but if the problem is energy consumption or pollution, it’s not good.

    The so-called Jevons Paradox was resurrected in the 1980s by a variety of environmentalists and is occasionally referred to as the Khazoom-Brookes postulate or the more explicative rebound effect. It’s been neatly summarized as, “those energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macro level.” Or, in short, you make money on each transaction and lose it in volume.

    The rebound effect is not an immutable scientific law, but it’s a widely observed phenomenon and has held true in the most energy-intensive consumer activities. The most commonly cited example is in lighting. As the Encyclopedia of Earth puts it, “For instance, if a 18W compact fluorescent bulb replaces a 75W incandescent bulb, the energy saving should be 76%. However, it seldom is. Consumers, realizing that the lighting now costs less per hour to run, are often less concerned with switching it off; in fact, they may intentionally leave it on all night.” I know I have at times.

    The same effect has occurred with cars. Automobiles have become more efficient over the years. Led by the Japanese, carmakers have increased the fuel to weight ration, decreased damaging vibration and vastly increased reliability. In the 1950s, a car that lived to drive 100,000 miles was a rarity; today they routinely last 150,000. The result? Increasing fuel consumption. And not just because more people in the developing world are buying cars, either. People everywhere are buying more of the better, cheaper more efficient cars and – here’s the problem – driving them more. And that was even so when gas peaked there at $8 a gallon in Europe.

    The real problem is, though, cars don’t move people, cars move cars. The average car or light truck is two tons or so: 4000-plus pounds to move 200 pounds of people. OK, everybody out of the SUVs and F-150s and into a nice, green Prius. However, the curb weight of an unladen Prius is 2765 pounds, which means a ton and a half around to get you and a bag of groceries home. Not good.

    Environmentalists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute and green business advocate Paul Hawken have generated a lot of press with a proposed 100 mpg lightweight, plastic composite called the hypercar. But all the drawings of the hypercar very much resemble…a car. Tires, windows, bodywork, engine and drive train. Even if everything is paper-thin – something the public won’t easily warm to –you’re still driving five times body weight around.

    Even if we were able to produce a 100 mpg, zero pollution vehicle, we’d still need to maintain the infrastructure of roads, bridges, and energy distribution. That means steel, concrete, asphalt and plastics. Just concrete production alone generates as much as 10 percent of all greenhouse gas. In 2007, the U.S. produced 95 million tons of cement by burning fossil fuels and, according to the EPA, is the third largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. (Scientific America, August 7, 2008) The production of asphalt – a petroleum product – also creates carbon. As does the production of motor oil, tires, and on and on.

    And there’s another intractable problem: the very thing that makes tires so useful – comfort, stability, adhesion – also produces immense rolling friction. In order for us to makes cars that are maneuverable and relatively safe, they have to grip the road, which takes buckets of energy to overcome. One reason trains are able to transport people using far less energy per passenger mile is that there are fewer wheels per person and steel wheels have much less rolling friction.

    Without divine intervention – which seems to be the basis for most energy reduction schemes – there is simply no way to maintain both the atmosphere and personal transportation. Even if the population were frozen at its present level, even if economic growth stopped the sheer number of people wanting – and under the present regime, need – personal transportation makes any plan to reduce car pollution by increasing efficiency is futile. The personal automobile must be abandoned, and quickly.

    It would be better to do this in a measured and humane way, easing both automobile workers and users into a post-car world. It needs a societal consensus, requiring major shifts of goals and expectations, and few of us will take these steps on our own. But this change will eventually happen to us whether we like it or not, perhaps in time to stave off climactic disaster.

    There are already attempts at designing a post-car future. City planners have been pushing the “20-minute neighborhood,” where home, work, shopping and recreation are all within a 20 minute walk. Places like Portland, Oregon, are encouraging this kind of development with planning codes and tax breaks. These more compact, walkable neighborhoods would seem to point us in the right direction, but so far they’re extremely limited. Most people prefer car culture. And that includes Europe, and certainly Asia, as well. Unless the various governments enact explicit and enforceable sprawl restrictions, growth will trump any specific increases in efficiencies.

    The one step we ought to take right now is to withdraw our support – financial, political and emotional – from the pursuit of an energy-efficient car. We’d have better luck creating a perpetual motion machine.
     
  11. Righteous

    Righteous Well-Known Member

    grahamd, u make some sense in some of your messages above. But I have 2 disagree with some of what u are saying because it seems like u are paranoid about the environment. No offense though, I'm not trying 2 insult u, but u can't worry about the environment too much. I like protecting the environment too, but right now, there is no realistic solution 2 some of our environmental problems. Now people could make an enormous positive change to the environment by simply throwing their trash in a trash can rather than throwing it on the ground.

    But as far as transportation goes there is not much more u can do other than make a fuel efficient electric car. But u seem 2 be implying that this won't bring 2 much change. Trust me, it will be better than our current gasoline. Our current gasoline is causing major damage 2 the environment.

    U even went as far as saying tires can hurt the environment. Bro, calm down. Tires will not destroy the planet. But I got 2 agree with u, I don't think they will be making a fuel efficient car anytime soon. The gas companies are making tremendous profits off customers at the pump. They are not about 2 stop their greedy gas operation anytime soon.
     
  12. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Righteous and Graham both make good points about the issue regarding automobiles:

    Righteous: Phasing out gasoline powered vehicles and replacing them with electric and hydro-cell powered cars will help, but it is too little too late and

    Graham: aside from a society in which walking is the main mode of living, able to fulfill all aspects of life within walking distance (which may in fact be what the future holds, and for which there is a prototype in England) you are absolutely right about tires. Pulverized rubber not only contributes heavily to the pollution but is a carcinogen which in powdered form is breathed into the lungs while we drive.
     
  13. hammockmonkey

    hammockmonkey Well-Known Member

  14. KJAB

    KJAB Senior Member & Antiquities Friend

    " OK, are some of my topics just boring or do u guys feel that some of the stuff I post isn't something 2 be suicidal about. I ask because some of my topics don't get a lot of replies "

    (This was your 'quote' but I dunno how to insert 'quotes' - I just changed type colour though!)?

    I feel exactly like you in relation to posts. But more importantly, the stuff you post is relevant. Financial meltdown globally could be a huge trigger. It is for me.

    That's all.
     
  15. Crue-K

    Crue-K Well-Known Member

    I'm touched for the concern but as I stated at the beginning of the post, that it was an article I came across. On a personal level, I am most certainly not paranoid about the planet, far from it. I actually can say I am not arsed at all about the planet and even more so, I don't think tyres will be the death of us all.
     
  16. Reki

    Reki Well-Known Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those car companies bringing in massive amounts of revenue for the country in the long term? Thirty billion dollars is a lot of money but to go so far as to call it a waste is a little much. The country is in financial ruin and if the ship goes down the government goes down with it, I don't think screwing over the public for their own benefit is high on their list of priorities right now. If the money can keep those financial giants pulling in money for the country a few years down the road it's a better investment for everyone than making the public a little more comfortable in the short term and having them suffer indefinitely later.
     
  17. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    KJAB: Your post is entirely relevant! The OP says that the money wasted could make people suicidal. Obviously true: since it is triggering to you!
     
  18. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Id rather see the money go to the auto industry than the blood sucking financial sector. (The same ppl that have destroyed the middle class by shipping our jobs overseas etc)

    However, I fear that the auto crisis will just end up being an excuse to outsource more US manufacturing jobs and bust Unions and drive down wages even further.

    End "free" trade now!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2009
  19. Righteous

    Righteous Well-Known Member

    Man, that's real talk. I never looked at it that way. If too many good paying jobs are outsourced our country will be faced with 2 scary situations:

    1) Being forced to get into over $50,000 in debt to get a good job or

    2) Be forced to work low wage jobs at $5 or $6 an hour which is nowhere near enough money to have a good home and eat properly

    I just pray that this country gets on the right track
     
  20. Brighid Moon

    Brighid Moon Member & Antiquities Friend

    And studying that and knowing about it, as well as what's going on now, has done nothing but further my depression, fears and anxieties. Be careful what you ask, you may not want to know it. There's such a thing as knowing too much (even when you don't even begin to know it all).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.