Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3291
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
Know it well, I did not know the same people were responsible for CAFE.
But it figures. It's the same sort of half-assed job without thinking
it through. One of these days I should estimate how much extra fuel
is burned due to CAFE by calculating what could be saved using large
passenger cars instead (assuming a 15% market slice for light trucks as
it was before CAFE of course). hmmm....
I've stated it before though, emissions regs required better control
systems and better control systems lead to better fuel economy. A
simplification of course, as in some areas emissions and fuel economy
can conflict. (lean burn, NOx, etc...)
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
Know it well, I did not know the same people were responsible for CAFE.
But it figures. It's the same sort of half-assed job without thinking
it through. One of these days I should estimate how much extra fuel
is burned due to CAFE by calculating what could be saved using large
passenger cars instead (assuming a 15% market slice for light trucks as
it was before CAFE of course). hmmm....
I've stated it before though, emissions regs required better control
systems and better control systems lead to better fuel economy. A
simplification of course, as in some areas emissions and fuel economy
can conflict. (lean burn, NOx, etc...)
#3292
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
Know it well, I did not know the same people were responsible for CAFE.
But it figures. It's the same sort of half-assed job without thinking
it through. One of these days I should estimate how much extra fuel
is burned due to CAFE by calculating what could be saved using large
passenger cars instead (assuming a 15% market slice for light trucks as
it was before CAFE of course). hmmm....
I've stated it before though, emissions regs required better control
systems and better control systems lead to better fuel economy. A
simplification of course, as in some areas emissions and fuel economy
can conflict. (lean burn, NOx, etc...)
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
Know it well, I did not know the same people were responsible for CAFE.
But it figures. It's the same sort of half-assed job without thinking
it through. One of these days I should estimate how much extra fuel
is burned due to CAFE by calculating what could be saved using large
passenger cars instead (assuming a 15% market slice for light trucks as
it was before CAFE of course). hmmm....
I've stated it before though, emissions regs required better control
systems and better control systems lead to better fuel economy. A
simplification of course, as in some areas emissions and fuel economy
can conflict. (lean burn, NOx, etc...)
#3293
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
bet
> you could get up over 100%!
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.
news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
bet
> you could get up over 100%!
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.
#3294
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
bet
> you could get up over 100%!
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.
news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
bet
> you could get up over 100%!
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.
#3295
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
bet
> you could get up over 100%!
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.
news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
bet
> you could get up over 100%!
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
mittam.
#3296
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been naive and
thought it was science group.>
Never confuse environmentalists with science, they have repeatedly proven
themselves to be radical Socialists in green clothing!
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been naive and
thought it was science group.>
Never confuse environmentalists with science, they have repeatedly proven
themselves to be radical Socialists in green clothing!
#3297
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been naive and
thought it was science group.>
Never confuse environmentalists with science, they have repeatedly proven
themselves to be radical Socialists in green clothing!
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been naive and
thought it was science group.>
Never confuse environmentalists with science, they have repeatedly proven
themselves to be radical Socialists in green clothing!
#3298
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been naive and
thought it was science group.>
Never confuse environmentalists with science, they have repeatedly proven
themselves to be radical Socialists in green clothing!
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been naive and
thought it was science group.>
Never confuse environmentalists with science, they have repeatedly proven
themselves to be radical Socialists in green clothing!
#3299
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
LOL!
What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer. In other words, the employer
shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
YOU. That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code.
Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
Tax....
> --
> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane
> mittam.
>
>
LOL!
What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer. In other words, the employer
shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
YOU. That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code.
Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
Tax....
> --
> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane
> mittam.
>
>
#3300
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
LOL!
What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer. In other words, the employer
shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
YOU. That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code.
Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
Tax....
> --
> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane
> mittam.
>
>
LOL!
What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer. In other words, the employer
shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
YOU. That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code.
Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
Tax....
> --
> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane
> mittam.
>
>