From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: When You Have Nothing Left... Oh... The Poor Children
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 10:20:21 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 5/8/25 11:35, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2025 00:57:08 -0000 (UTC), pothead
> <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-05-07, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 May 2025 03:37:13 -0000 (UTC), pothead
>>> <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-05-07, AlleyCat <katt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2025 20:37:29 -0400, Governor Swill says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump has paused sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries to allow for
>>>>>> negotiations but has kept in place severe levies on Chinese imports,
>>>>>> which have already led to some consumer-price increases. The president
>>>>>> has played down concerns, saying last week that ?maybe the children
>>>>>> will have two dolls instead of 30. Pressed on those comments Sunday,
>>>>>> he insisted people could do with less. "They don?t need to have 250
>>>>>> pencils. They can have five," he said on NBC.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans have gone through during times that were WAY more arduous and grueling.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Make do with what you have."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stand on your own two feet."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tighten those belts."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Be frugal."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Count your blessings."
>>>>>
>>>>> "A penny saved is a penny earned."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Less is more."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Live within your means."
>>>>>
>>>>> "DO WITHOUT."
>>>>>
>>>>>> When did stopping consumers from shopping become a winning political
>>>>>> strategy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump's already won, dumb ass. It was in all the papers.
>>>>>
>>>>> So was The Great Depression. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting how the libtards didn't complain when Biden and blue states
>>>> were pushing all the green stuff like banning ICE vehicles, gas stoves,
>>>> gasoline lawn equipment etc.
>>>>
>>>> Talk about an authoritarian.
>>>
>>> You would equate incentives for reducing fossil fuels to deliberately
>>> wrecking the economy with a self inflicted wound?
>>
>> No.
>> I would equate putting the cart ahead of the horse with a pie in the sky
>> alternative to fossil fuels when the technology simply does not exist
>> a self inflicted wound.
>
> Which is bullshit.
It also illustrates how the American psyche has inverted from a "can
do!" attitude to a "why even try?" self-defeatist one. For not only is
the EV technology sufficiently mature, but it is cost-competitive.
> The technology does exist in several forms. All that's
> needed is the time to convert, say, a generation of users.
Not even one generation, as the main obstacle to adoption is that
private equity wants better/faster rates of ROI profit.
The government's role is to fund those pieces which private equity
doesn't consider its ROI to be sufficiently compelling (fast) for
themselves, which primarily is the EV charging infrastructure element.
The government's payoff for making this investment is it improves total
EV adoption rates, resulting in a higher rate of overall GDP growth.
>> I also do NOT like being told I can't do this or that,
>
> Unless it's Republican doing the telling.
GOP: "Don't like being raped? Just cross your legs!" /s
>> legal of course, and being forced to adopt some movement that
>> is dubious at best, the greeniacs, that is a recipe for failure.
>>
>> Instituting rules ending fossil fuels without a viable replacement is suicide.
>
> What rules were instituted that ends fossil fuels?
>
> Oh, yeah, California air quality standards. You're free to not live
> in California, you know.
Another equitable approach is to more extensively quantify the
externality harms being done by FF users on society, to then increase
consumption taxes on FF users finally pay for their externalities; the
higher direct costs of FF consumption will then be a market force which
will motivate greater FF efficiency and seeking of non/less FF intensive
alternatives in the Marketplace. This approach's challenge is that the
linkage to externality costs is indirect: tax revenue generated may not
actually be spent to reduce externalities but can go towards other
things, like a tax break for the 1%, a pro football stadium, etc.
-hh