Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:32:28 -0500 From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup
"Nutmegger" <nutmegger_7717nopsamo.com> wrote in message news:b7l77t$228l8$1nopsam38055.news.dfncis.de... [snip] > >There are highly advanced technical companies in other > > countries that are well qualified to develop new technology that they can > > offer worldwide. > > And, have you considered maybe they won't because there is no market for it? Not at all after my conversation with you! If there is a need, then there is a market, so I _know_ that there is a gigantic market for it here in the US, based on what you have said. > You sound like you have some personal involvement in all this, maybe through > your employment or maybe your investments? No personal involvement, just strong convictions. You propose more government involvement; I believe that government should get out of our way and limit themselves to their original mandate. The federal government's only job is to protect its citizens from outside threats. You advocate tax credits to encourage specific behavior, I believe that taxes are too high and wages should not be considered income for tax purposes. We just have different viewpoints that we can share in this forum. I won't convince you and you won't convince me, but at least we can talk about it. I have no investments in energy, transportation, tobacco or anything else we have discussed here, and I work in the computer industry as a Systems Engineer. How about you? What affiliations are pushing your "big government" agenda and feelings against the current administration? > >Should our government mandate this equipment and make everyone pay > > the higher prices? > > No, they should develop or fund something that doesn't cost as much. Development = Research = Cost. Your statement sounds like the joke about the carpenter that said "No matter how often I cut this piece of wood, it is still too short." We can change it to "No matter how much money I spend on research for this, I still can't reduce my cost." 20 years ago, a congressman handed out the "Golden Fleece Award" because the government funded research like this. Having the government spend money to save certain consumers money when they buy a certain vehicle will still cost us money. And with the inherent inefficiencies of government spending, it will cost us more than if we just paid for it ourselves in the first place. That is why I am keeping myself informed about what is available in alternate fuel technology. > They should also lead by example, which you say that they have by setting > requirements to convert. But, I have yet to see it around here on the east > coast. Did they give themselves a cut-off date? They did. IIRC, it is 2006. But I wonder, how would you expect to "see it"? These vehicles don't look any different than what is already on the road. Even the fuel filler is concealed, as it would be with any other car. I spoke to the manager of the nearby gas station that sells E-85. She told me that not many people with passenger cars use E-85, but the post office was coming in all the time to fuel their vehicles. For vehicles that use CNG or LPG, fleet users have on-site fueling stations that you probably wouldn't see or notice. > Yeah, well our leader sets a great example. You are correct. I agree that he is doing a great job. I am looking forward to his second term.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |