Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A cure for cancer?

I was just reading the newspiece which explained that Obama has declared that the automotive industry will achieve an average of 35.5 MPG for small cars and lite trucks by 2016 and it made me wonder...couldn't he also just declare that the medical industry will find a cure for cancer by 2016 as well? Perhaps he could just order mother nature to stop warming the planet by 2016 too.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A cure for cancer?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A cure for cancer?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
And between now and the deadline

In reply to: A cure for cancer?

I have to wonder how much additional energy will be required to do the research and testing needed to attain that goal. And, I have to wonder if these cars that get higher gas mileage can be produced using the same or less energy than that required to produce today's vehicles. Another consideration would be longevity. Would the cars last as long or longer before requiring replacement. It's, IMO, quite short sighted to consider fuel mileage alone here.

Collapse -
(NT) He could just order the obstacles out of the way

In reply to: And between now and the deadline

Collapse -
the goal is already attained.

In reply to: And between now and the deadline

This is just Lord Obama's way of telling everyone they'll be driving our newer version of the American Travant once GM has been nationalized.

Collapse -
I seem to understand ...

In reply to: the goal is already attained.

that you don't agree with the GM management asking so much financial support that, in effect, they are practically nationalized. You'd rather see they went broke? That would be the free market economy, indeed.

Kees

Collapse -
You'd rather see they went broke?

In reply to: I seem to understand ...

That is not the only alternative. And if it should happen, so be it, There is no guarantee they won't go broke under government control either.

As it is, as a result of the bailouts and takeovers and stimulus we may ALL be going broke.

Collapse -
Broke or bankrupt, Keys...

In reply to: I seem to understand ...

Kees, when you said broke, did you mean bankrupt? Sometimes when a business id no longer viable, they file Chapter 11. This may be a way to save them. It freezes everything and lets it be reorganized with a neutral 3rd party in charge of that reorganization. The problem in the case of the current GM situation is can the current administration be truly neutral if they are the ones in charge of the reorganization. Auto unions have supported some elected officials with money and votes. If the ones in charge of the reorganization have received such support from a group who will be at the table when the division of the assets of the company comes up, can they be truly neutral? Many of the bond holders and others who have a claim on the company's assets feel that the unions got favorable treatment from the government so far in the case of the auto companies. Perhaps it would be better to let it go into Chapter 11 and let a truly neutral party be in charge.

Collapse -
After the bailout hoo-ha they are going Chapter 11 anyway...

In reply to: Broke or bankrupt, Keys...

That was a waste!

Should have been done last year. By now they'd be almost through it all.

Collapse -
It means Ford will have to compete against...

In reply to: Broke or bankrupt, Keys...

....a govt owned business. Does that seem fair, or proper way to reward the business that didn't fail and didn't need a bailout?

Collapse -
Yes, retain some business integrity and go bankrupt instead.

In reply to: I seem to understand ...

That's better than setting an example that business now should look for govt welfare programs and bailouts. This whole bailout mess is getting completely out of hand and will cost more than having done the bankruptcy in the first place.

Collapse -
Didn't Ronald Reagan ask that?

In reply to: A cure for cancer?

It may be my poor memory, but I thought President Reagan asked for a cure for all cancers, 'within the decade'.

In Europe the goal is for 45 MPG. You've a way to go yet before being asked for that.

Mark

Collapse -
Why should we be?

In reply to: Didn't Ronald Reagan ask that?

What business is it of the gov't what fuel mileage we get?

Collapse -
I see

In reply to: Why should we be?

you're starting off your morning with your usual friendly manner.

"Why on earth was the thread about boxers stopped?".

"Why should we be?"

Any more to come?

Mark

Collapse -
Huh?

In reply to: I see

What's unfriendly about those? Why the hostility?

Collapse -
well, if you get 22.5 mpg today

In reply to: Why should we be?

45 mpg would, theoretically, make the government
50% less dependent on OPEC (amongst others)

,.

Collapse -
Is the government dependent on OPEC?

In reply to: well, if you get 22.5 mpg today

How so?

Collapse -
(NT) Is the US self sufficient in oil production?

In reply to: Is the government dependent on OPEC?

Collapse -
That doesn't answer the question.

In reply to: Is the US self sufficient in oil production?

What does it have to do with the government? The government is NOT in charge of oil, at least not so far. Lord knows with everything else being taken over.

They are not our masters...YET.

Collapse -
you used the word first

In reply to: That doesn't answer the question.

so i (and presumably Mark) went along with you and used it too...

Why should we be?
by EdHannigan - 5/22/09 4:13 AM
In reply to: Didn't Ronald Reagan ask that? by MarkFlax Moderator

What business is it of the gov't what fuel mileage we get?


if you care to substitute ***** i'm sure we could follow suit once again...


,.

Collapse -
Can you rephrase that...

In reply to: you used the word first

in a manner that makes sense? Can you follow the thread at all?

What do you suppose, "In Europe the goal is for 45 MPG. You've a way to go yet before being asked for that." means?

Asked by whom? Do you follow the news at all?

Collapse -
sure i can

In reply to: Can you rephrase that...

Why should we be?
by EdHannigan - 5/22/09 4:13 AM
In reply to: Didn't Ronald Reagan ask that? by MarkFlax Moderator

What business is it of the gov't what fuel mileage we get?

=-=-

well, if you get 22.5 mpg today
by jonah jones Moderator - 5/22/09 7:40 AM
In reply to: Why should we be? by EdHannigan

45 mpg would, theoretically, make the government
50% less dependent on OPEC (amongst others)

=-=-

That doesn't answer the question.
by EdHannigan - 5/22/09 1:44 PM
In reply to: (NT) Is the US self sufficient in oil production? by MarkFlax Moderator

What does it have to do with the government?

=-=-

i think only a moron would believe that the US (or any other)
gov't wouldn't/couldn't benefit from an across the board cut
in fuel consumption

,.

Collapse -
So would UPS...

In reply to: sure i can

But that is still non-responsive. Do you think it is the government's job to determine what gas mileage cars get or what the price of oil is?

I think if they want an across the board cut in fuel consumption they should jack the taxes way up. That would do it. Do you think that would make people happy?

Do you think that just telling them to increase the gas mileage will result in increased gas mileage? Gee, why not tell them to increase it to 100 MPG? Or 200 MPG?

Collapse -
No, it's not the government task to ...

In reply to: So would UPS...

determine the price of gas or oil. They determine the taxes only. And, of course, increasing the tax is a way to lower the consumption, which can be part of their policy. That's what goverment is for, to make policy and find the best way to reach their goals.

The OPEC determines how much they are selling it for. The oil companies decide how much profit they want to make refining and selling it. And then there's the free oil market that determines a large part of the price.

Who said the government did?

Kees

Collapse -
Jonah and MarkFlax certainly seen to be impying it...

In reply to: No, it's not the government task to ...

But-- That's what government is for, to make policy and find the best way to reach their goals.

Disagree that that is what government is for. Government is supposed to guarantee our rights and safety, and that's that, at least in the US. That is all the US Constitution mandates. Of course they do everything else BUT what they are supposed to be doing.

Collapse -
The U.S. imports many things..

In reply to: sure i can

The U.S. imports large quantities of many things. You could say that the U.S. would benefit from an across the board cut in any of them. So should the U.S. government set use or efficiency levels on other things?
I drink coffee, and it is imported. Does that mean that the government should set a cap on the level of coffee I use in the morning when I load up my Mr. Coffee? Should some things made of aluminum be made out of steel in the future to cut back on our imports of bauxite?

Collapse -
The U.S. imports large quantities of many things.

In reply to: The U.S. imports many things..

Yes, but the US government does not.

You could say that the U.S. would benefit from an across the board cut in any of them.

Why? I would not say that.

So should the U.S. government set use or efficiency levels on other things?

No, the government should stay out of areas that are not its concern.

Collapse -
depends how you look at things

In reply to: The U.S. imports many things..

i guess

Should some things made of aluminum be made out of steel in the future to cut back on our imports of bauxite?

who knows?....i guess you know the answer to that one J.

an example:
breakfast cereals are notorious for the amount of sugar they contain, if someone were to say "i intend to cut the amount of sugar in cereals by 50% in the next 3 years", would you or anyone else complain about the saving of money? or that it might improve the health of millions?

.,

Collapse -
Huh???

In reply to: depends how you look at things

Should some things made of aluminum be made out of steel in the future to cut back on our imports of bauxite?
That is up to the people who deal in such things. Why do we need to cut back on imports of bauxite?

an example:
breakfast cereals are notorious for the amount of sugar they contain, if someone were to say "i intend to cut the amount of sugar in cereals by 50% in the next 3 years", would you or anyone else complain about the saving of money? or that it might improve the health of millions?


If a manufacturer decided to do that and could sell the product, fine. What's the question here? You are not being very clear. Are you suggesting the government should mandate that cereal manufacturers use less sugar? That seem to be the direction in which we are heading.
Collapse -
What I don't get....

In reply to: depends how you look at things

is the assumption many have the the government knows better how to make cars and cereal and manage energy and banks and other things than people who have made it their livelihood for years. I mean, does anyone really think Barack Obama knows more about the automobile business than GM?

Does anyone think the government knows what it's doing with bailouts and the "stimulus"? I sure as hell don't.

Collapse -
Notorious sugar...

In reply to: depends how you look at things

Sometimes I find it interesting when something like sugar is branded "notorious". Consider what it is, basically dried sap of a grass. People put sap from a maple tree on many things, but I have not seen it branded as notorious. Eating raw lima beans is bad for you, but that bean is not so branded. Eating too much of many things may not be the beat for you, but some things seem to get special attention. Sugar is one, but so is salt.
I have noticed the term "sin tax" being used when the government imposes takes on things like tobacco or liquor. I notice that the same idea of "improving the health of millions" also comes up when sugar or "sin tax" things are discussed. Lately, I have seen new taxes soft drinks mentioned as a way to generate revenue for the government. I wonder, are we about to see things like soft drinks, potato chips, and pretzels branded as "sins" and therefore targets of new "sin taxes" in the government's quest for more money? How about coffee and tea? Their nutritional value is nil and you might say that a 50% cut in their consumption might "improve the health of millions". So should coffee and tea also become "sins" and be subjected to big increases in taxes on them?

Collapse -
Reply to - What I don't get....

In reply to: Can you rephrase that...

None of us has suggested that any government know how to make cars, and the other things.

But do you think that you would be where you are now without government intervention, and without the government setting the rules, and applying regulations? If you think you could have done all that without government, then you are a very naive person.

By the way, was it Barack Obama who the automobile companies first came to for aid? Under which President's administration did the banks first seek treasury bail-outs? No need to answer as that would make this a political thread, but you seem bent on blaming the current Presidency for everything.

Mark

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!