Hi Everyone:
During these hard economic times, I have been surprised that there are a lot of people who do not use coupons. Why doesn't everyone use coupons? I don't get it. There is absolutely nothing to lose and money to be gained by using coupons.
My local grocery stores doubles the value of coupons worth up to $.99. Therefore if you have a manufacturers coupon for $.75, you get $1.50 off that product. Now in addition to that $1.50 off, if you have a store coupon worth say $.50, that doubles to $1.00. Combine the two coupons and that means you get $2.50 off that product. Depending on the price of the product, you may even get the product for free. How can you beat free? But still, I witness a lot of people at the check out at grocery stores and they don't use any coupons. Why? How hard is it to cut out coupons in the coupon flyers? Even if you don't get a newspaper, there are web sites where you can print out coupons. How much easier can it get? I get the newspaper every day of the week and I am able to save enough money through the use of the coupons I find that it pays for the yearly subscription. In my case, using coupons each week, equates to a free newspaper each and every day and even delivered to our house to boot! If you save say $5.00 each week at the grocery store, that translates into $250.00 per year. Use more coupons, save even more money.
Walmart's business has done extremely well during these hard times by using a business plan that fits perfectly in these times by having low prices. Their business plan now includes increasing their grocery items. Now subtract the use of coupons on those low prices and voila, those prices are even lower and affordable. You just can't lose.
I have also recently noticed that there are even more and more coupons in flyers for restaurants to entice people to eat at their establishments. These include chain restaurants as well as local places. During down economic times, people will not go out to eat as much as they did previously. Except for using coupons at restaurants for a date, in a new relationship, using coupons makes eating out more affordable. How can you lose?
There are even coupons for maintenance for your car. The coupons include: oil changes, transmission flushes, brakes and mufflers etc. Why pay $29.00 or higher for an oil change when you can pay $18.00?
To me it is a no brainer to use coupons at every available opportunity. It is just common sense to use them.
Til next week. Remember using common sense makes sense and can even save you cents!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Overtime in Municipalities
Hi Everyone:
Today's blog is about an astounding fact that I have been recently reading about in my local newspaper. In almost every municipality in Westchester and Putnam Counties, in New York State, the top wage earners are not the elected or salaried people, but hourly employees who are eligible for overtime. I was dumbfounded to learn that there are Police Officers and other municipality employees who made up to $150,000 during the last fiscal year. It was not just one person in a given department, there were numerous people in the same department who made well over $125,000. Those are astronomical amounts.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in the necessity of Police Officers and the other departments that help to give all the services needed to have a safe, clean and effective municipality. But it is painfully obvious that the upper management in the departments as well as the elected officials do not know how to effectively run them. It is also painfully obvious that again, politicians have zero common sense.
Why? If any business had numerous employees in a given department making such incredible amounts of overtime, that doubles their regular pay, year after year, there is a common sense solution to solve this problem. A company would hire X amount of either full time and/or part time employees to relieve the overtime. The part time employees would not cost the company any additional money for benefits and the full time new hires benefit costs would have to be taken into consideration so as to not incur more money then the total overtime costs. How simple is that solution? You would think someone would implement that plan.
Of course there is always a wrench that is thrown into this overtime mess. That wrench is the unions that these employees belong to. When an union employee retires, their last three years of their pay prior to retirement date are averaged to determine what their yearly pension will be. That in itself is a costly problem due to the fact that three years before an employee retires they volunteer for the most amount of overtime that they can get. I personally believe that a different equation should be used to determine what the yearly pension amount should be. Of course that would have to be negotiated with the unions, which would be a very daunting task. Why? The unions would stand on past practices and that's that, period. When a lot of these employees retire after 20 years or at age 55 yes 55, they go on to another career. Then they get their new salary from their new job and they also receive their pension. So, to get around the sticking point of fruitlessly trying to negotiate with the unions, all that needs to be done is to hire more employees to cut the overtime. A simple solution that does not have to be negotiated.
You would think that politicians should know that running a municipality is very similar to running a business and overtime costs are overtime costs and they need to be controlled. Again, politicians need to learn about common sense and how to use it.
Till next week.
Today's blog is about an astounding fact that I have been recently reading about in my local newspaper. In almost every municipality in Westchester and Putnam Counties, in New York State, the top wage earners are not the elected or salaried people, but hourly employees who are eligible for overtime. I was dumbfounded to learn that there are Police Officers and other municipality employees who made up to $150,000 during the last fiscal year. It was not just one person in a given department, there were numerous people in the same department who made well over $125,000. Those are astronomical amounts.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in the necessity of Police Officers and the other departments that help to give all the services needed to have a safe, clean and effective municipality. But it is painfully obvious that the upper management in the departments as well as the elected officials do not know how to effectively run them. It is also painfully obvious that again, politicians have zero common sense.
Why? If any business had numerous employees in a given department making such incredible amounts of overtime, that doubles their regular pay, year after year, there is a common sense solution to solve this problem. A company would hire X amount of either full time and/or part time employees to relieve the overtime. The part time employees would not cost the company any additional money for benefits and the full time new hires benefit costs would have to be taken into consideration so as to not incur more money then the total overtime costs. How simple is that solution? You would think someone would implement that plan.
Of course there is always a wrench that is thrown into this overtime mess. That wrench is the unions that these employees belong to. When an union employee retires, their last three years of their pay prior to retirement date are averaged to determine what their yearly pension will be. That in itself is a costly problem due to the fact that three years before an employee retires they volunteer for the most amount of overtime that they can get. I personally believe that a different equation should be used to determine what the yearly pension amount should be. Of course that would have to be negotiated with the unions, which would be a very daunting task. Why? The unions would stand on past practices and that's that, period. When a lot of these employees retire after 20 years or at age 55 yes 55, they go on to another career. Then they get their new salary from their new job and they also receive their pension. So, to get around the sticking point of fruitlessly trying to negotiate with the unions, all that needs to be done is to hire more employees to cut the overtime. A simple solution that does not have to be negotiated.
You would think that politicians should know that running a municipality is very similar to running a business and overtime costs are overtime costs and they need to be controlled. Again, politicians need to learn about common sense and how to use it.
Till next week.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
New York City's Mass Transit
Hi Everyone:
Again, there are things that happen that to me make absolutely no sense. It makes me wonder if people, (in this week's case politicians) even know the term and/or what the meaning of common sense is.
If you or I needed money for whatever reason, we would go to a bank and apply for a loan. Except for the financial mess that the banks are in now, (i.e.: sub-prime mortgage fiasco), banks should verify your income and savings etc. Then a determination is made as to the amount of money (loan) you will receive.
It is now very apparent that the above is not the way New York State's government works. Here in New York City, we have the largest mass transit system in the country. It is called the MTA, (Mass Transit Authority) and it consists of: 4 rail lines (Hudson, Harlem, Long Island and Connecticut), a subway system and a bus system. I am not totally sure of the exact number of daily riders, but it is in the millions per day. A few months ago the MTA stated that there was going to be a deficit in their upcoming fiscal year and that fares would have to go up 25%. The 25% fare increase would go into effect unless either the federal and/or NY state governments came up with some additional money that would reduce the fare increase. To make a long story short, at the eleventh hour, the NYS government (in their infinite wisdom) did figure out a way to give additional funding to the MTA that will reduce the fare increase to 10% this year.
Where did this extra money come from? Among other tax increases, the NYS government will impose a payroll tax of $.33 per $100.00 of a company's payroll in NYC and in all of the surrounding counties of NYC. In the counties furthest north of NYC, that the MTA serves, the payroll tax will be $.25 per $100.00. Somehow, supposedly, health care facilities and schools will be reimbursed for the payroll tax that they pay out so as to not increase school taxes or health care costs. I wonder where that money will come from, since NYS has it own deficit of billions of dollars? NYS will also impose a surcharge on all taxi-cab rides. There are other new taxes but that is not the issue that I am talking about today. It seems that the MTA has not been audited in over 40 years. 40 YEARS!!!! The MTA has always received government handouts to keep them afloat, but never been audited? That is without a doubt a travesty and an injustice to not only the riders of the MTA but also to the companies whose employees don't even use the system but will have to help fund it. I would bet anything that the MTA has massive amounts of wasteful spending, maybe even some fraud, but no one knows since they have not and will not be audited.
How can the NYS government increase taxes on all these companies and people based solely on what the MTA's head honchos say? In this day and age, can we really believe what a company like the MTA says as truthful? WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE here people? NYS should have audited the MTA prior to forking over any additional funding and have the MTA prove that they are running a tight ship and are in need of the funding. Am I crazy here or doesn't that just make common sense to audit them. Better yet, the MTA should have offered to open up their books for a thorough examination. I guess I know the answer as to why they didn't want to voluntarily open up their books; most likely there is massive amounts of money being wasted and the MTA doesn't think it is anybody else's business. How wrong they are and how wrong the NYS government is, in not forcing them to be audited.
Think about this.......maybe a course on common sense should be invented that all politicians and CEO's for that matter, should be mandated to take and pass prior to becoming a politician or CEO. Whoa, what a concept. Enough said.
Until next week.
Remember to use common sense, it will make your life that much easier and better.
Again, there are things that happen that to me make absolutely no sense. It makes me wonder if people, (in this week's case politicians) even know the term and/or what the meaning of common sense is.
If you or I needed money for whatever reason, we would go to a bank and apply for a loan. Except for the financial mess that the banks are in now, (i.e.: sub-prime mortgage fiasco), banks should verify your income and savings etc. Then a determination is made as to the amount of money (loan) you will receive.
It is now very apparent that the above is not the way New York State's government works. Here in New York City, we have the largest mass transit system in the country. It is called the MTA, (Mass Transit Authority) and it consists of: 4 rail lines (Hudson, Harlem, Long Island and Connecticut), a subway system and a bus system. I am not totally sure of the exact number of daily riders, but it is in the millions per day. A few months ago the MTA stated that there was going to be a deficit in their upcoming fiscal year and that fares would have to go up 25%. The 25% fare increase would go into effect unless either the federal and/or NY state governments came up with some additional money that would reduce the fare increase. To make a long story short, at the eleventh hour, the NYS government (in their infinite wisdom) did figure out a way to give additional funding to the MTA that will reduce the fare increase to 10% this year.
Where did this extra money come from? Among other tax increases, the NYS government will impose a payroll tax of $.33 per $100.00 of a company's payroll in NYC and in all of the surrounding counties of NYC. In the counties furthest north of NYC, that the MTA serves, the payroll tax will be $.25 per $100.00. Somehow, supposedly, health care facilities and schools will be reimbursed for the payroll tax that they pay out so as to not increase school taxes or health care costs. I wonder where that money will come from, since NYS has it own deficit of billions of dollars? NYS will also impose a surcharge on all taxi-cab rides. There are other new taxes but that is not the issue that I am talking about today. It seems that the MTA has not been audited in over 40 years. 40 YEARS!!!! The MTA has always received government handouts to keep them afloat, but never been audited? That is without a doubt a travesty and an injustice to not only the riders of the MTA but also to the companies whose employees don't even use the system but will have to help fund it. I would bet anything that the MTA has massive amounts of wasteful spending, maybe even some fraud, but no one knows since they have not and will not be audited.
How can the NYS government increase taxes on all these companies and people based solely on what the MTA's head honchos say? In this day and age, can we really believe what a company like the MTA says as truthful? WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE here people? NYS should have audited the MTA prior to forking over any additional funding and have the MTA prove that they are running a tight ship and are in need of the funding. Am I crazy here or doesn't that just make common sense to audit them. Better yet, the MTA should have offered to open up their books for a thorough examination. I guess I know the answer as to why they didn't want to voluntarily open up their books; most likely there is massive amounts of money being wasted and the MTA doesn't think it is anybody else's business. How wrong they are and how wrong the NYS government is, in not forcing them to be audited.
Think about this.......maybe a course on common sense should be invented that all politicians and CEO's for that matter, should be mandated to take and pass prior to becoming a politician or CEO. Whoa, what a concept. Enough said.
Until next week.
Remember to use common sense, it will make your life that much easier and better.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Driving
Hi All:
For the past couple of years I have noticed that more and more drivers are doing some pretty stupid moves on the road. Besides the point that some of these moves are illegal, the drivers seem to not care about their safety or anyone else's! Here are my top 10 stupid moves done by drivers. These are not in any particular order.
Stupid Move #1: A car passing you on the left or right side and then immediately pulls into your lane without signaling. The worst move is when they pass you, cut you off and then brake to avoid hitting the car in front of them. What was the point of passing you?
Stupid Move #2: You are traveling down a long hill on a highway and the driver in front of you decides to step on the brakes. What???? There was no one in front of them and I can only guess that doing the speed limit while going down hill was to fast for them. I can't figure out any other reason for them to brake while going down hill.
Stupid Move #3: Traffic is backed up for whatever reason, be it congestion or an accident etc.; there is always some idiot that has to drive on the shoulder to pass however many cars that they can.
Stupid Move #4: Women putting on makeup while driving. Why not put on your mascara, lipstick etc. before you leave your home.
Stupid Move #5: Text messaging while driving. WTH!!!! I can understand talking on a hands-free cell phone because your hands are on the wheel but in order to text you need at least one hand typing on the phone. This also includes talking on a non hands-free cell phone.
Stupid Move #6: Driving to slowly. I have no problem when people drive the posted speed limit, but when they drive 10 or 15 or even 20 mph slower then the speed limit that can be just as dangerous as speeding.
Stupid Move #7: Drivers reading newspapers or books while driving. Why is it so important to read while driving?
Stupid Move #8: A driver drops something on the floor and instead of leaving it there, they bend over to pick it up.
Stupid Move #9: Drivers who do not read the signs for EZ pass lanes prior to paying a toll. They get to the toll and realize that they are in the wrong toll lane, (due to the fact that they do not have EZ pass) and then they have to wait for a police officer because the gate won't raise up.
Stupid Move #10: No matter what the speed limit is, there are always people who pass you going at an incredible rate of speed that you seem to be standing still.
All of these are stupid moves, of which some are illegal, but these moves can and do cause accidents. It is obvious that there are a lot of drivers who either don't have or don't use any common sense while driving. Get with the program people and use common sense while driving.
I will be back on May 15th. Talk to you then.
For the past couple of years I have noticed that more and more drivers are doing some pretty stupid moves on the road. Besides the point that some of these moves are illegal, the drivers seem to not care about their safety or anyone else's! Here are my top 10 stupid moves done by drivers. These are not in any particular order.
Stupid Move #1: A car passing you on the left or right side and then immediately pulls into your lane without signaling. The worst move is when they pass you, cut you off and then brake to avoid hitting the car in front of them. What was the point of passing you?
Stupid Move #2: You are traveling down a long hill on a highway and the driver in front of you decides to step on the brakes. What???? There was no one in front of them and I can only guess that doing the speed limit while going down hill was to fast for them. I can't figure out any other reason for them to brake while going down hill.
Stupid Move #3: Traffic is backed up for whatever reason, be it congestion or an accident etc.; there is always some idiot that has to drive on the shoulder to pass however many cars that they can.
Stupid Move #4: Women putting on makeup while driving. Why not put on your mascara, lipstick etc. before you leave your home.
Stupid Move #5: Text messaging while driving. WTH!!!! I can understand talking on a hands-free cell phone because your hands are on the wheel but in order to text you need at least one hand typing on the phone. This also includes talking on a non hands-free cell phone.
Stupid Move #6: Driving to slowly. I have no problem when people drive the posted speed limit, but when they drive 10 or 15 or even 20 mph slower then the speed limit that can be just as dangerous as speeding.
Stupid Move #7: Drivers reading newspapers or books while driving. Why is it so important to read while driving?
Stupid Move #8: A driver drops something on the floor and instead of leaving it there, they bend over to pick it up.
Stupid Move #9: Drivers who do not read the signs for EZ pass lanes prior to paying a toll. They get to the toll and realize that they are in the wrong toll lane, (due to the fact that they do not have EZ pass) and then they have to wait for a police officer because the gate won't raise up.
Stupid Move #10: No matter what the speed limit is, there are always people who pass you going at an incredible rate of speed that you seem to be standing still.
All of these are stupid moves, of which some are illegal, but these moves can and do cause accidents. It is obvious that there are a lot of drivers who either don't have or don't use any common sense while driving. Get with the program people and use common sense while driving.
I will be back on May 15th. Talk to you then.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
US Foreign Policy
Hi All:
One of the big news stories of the past week was President Obama's willingness to want to talk with some foreign countries who are not our friends. These countries are so anti-American that previously we haven't wanted to "sit down" and talk with them. The countries that I am speaking of are: Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. Before I continue, we should look at our country's past history of dealing with countries that also vehemently hated the United States of America.
One of the big news stories of the past week was President Obama's willingness to want to talk with some foreign countries who are not our friends. These countries are so anti-American that previously we haven't wanted to "sit down" and talk with them. The countries that I am speaking of are: Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. Before I continue, we should look at our country's past history of dealing with countries that also vehemently hated the United States of America.
Almost sixty eight years ago, back in 1941, we declared war (and rightfully so) against Japan after their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor that killed thousands of Americans. Japan immediately became our sworn enemy and we were not going to stop fighting them until they capitulated. In addition, we declared war against Germany (another sworn enemy) and were not going to stop fighting them until they also capitulated. It took 4 years and tens of thousands of our troops being killed until the US and our allies declared victory over both countries when they finally surrendered.
During the 1960's we went to "war" against North Vietnam due to their aggression against South Vietnam. Although that "war" lasted almost 10 years we didn't win and tens of thousands of our troops were killed and North Vietnam never surrendered. North Vietnam did take over South Vietnam which we were trying to stop from happening.
Fast forward to the present day. Now Germany and Japan are some of the most important friends this country has. Does that mean that we have to go to war against a country and beat them before we can sit down to talk with them that ultimately leads to our being friends? Not true! North Vietnam won that "war" but now relations with the US are becoming more normalized then anyone could have predicted back in 1973.
So why then it is such a bad idea to want to sit down and talk with other countries who are not our friends? Critics say that the US should never talk to these countries. Unfortunately that policy did not work during the past 8 years.
Common sense must be used here because diplomacy is the appropriate course of action to take. If this country can sit down and talk to these countries that eventually leads to ironing out what ever issues exist, without a single life being lost, then I am all for it. Go common sense!
Until next week.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Assault Weapons
Hi All:
Sometimes I read or watch a news program that makes me think that some people in this country have lost their minds and common sense is the furthest thing in their minds. I know that this subject is a touchy one with a lot of people, but we need a whole lot of good old common sense here!
Last Sunday, 4/12/09, I watched 60 Minutes, a well respected, news magazine show that has been on the air for decades. One segment on the show was about the State of Virginia gun shows. Did you know that in Virginia it is harder to buy an alcoholic drink then to buy an assault weapon? Yes that is unfortunately very true! The segment showed and talked about people selling any type of firearm, including assault weapons, right out of their car trunks in the parking lots at Virginia's gun shows. Now unless you are from Virginia or have attended a gun show there, you might not know that selling guns like that is perfectly legal. WHAT!!!!!!! Not only can guns be sold like that, there is no requirement to do a background check. If you have the money, you can buy any type of gun no questions asked. Some people say, so what, what is the big deal? The big deal is this: people with a criminal history or people mentally challenged can buy an assault weapon(s) that easily.
Now I know that the NRA consistently states their rhetoric that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But what exactly is an assault weapon? Assault weapons like the AK-47 were developed with one and only one goal in mind; to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. In a war, these guns are invaluable. But in private hands, these weapons can and are extremely dangerous. Have you ever heard of a hunter that shot their game with an assault weapon? I didn't think so.
Now the NRA and its members will tell you that according to the Second Amendment, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The actual Second Amendment does state that, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The current legal meaning of the Second Amendment was recently addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that. The majority wrote that "The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home." But the sole purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people.
I have no objection to people owning non assault weapons. I do though strenuously object to people owning automatic handguns, 50 caliber rifles and AK-47's etc., etc. There is no need to have them. If you like to hunt, so be it, but you don't use those type of weapons. I do not believe that making ownership of those type of weapons illegal, infringes on any ones rights. If anything it will save lives.
Virginia's current law that allows such sales of assault weapons has no common sense and needs to be changed ASAP. I also believe that the Second Amendment's newest ruling by the Supreme Court should have a addendum to prohibit the sale and ownership of assault weapons. Now that would make common sense.
There is no good use for and makes no common sense in the private ownership of any kind of assault weapons, PERIOD!
Talk to you next week.
Sometimes I read or watch a news program that makes me think that some people in this country have lost their minds and common sense is the furthest thing in their minds. I know that this subject is a touchy one with a lot of people, but we need a whole lot of good old common sense here!
Last Sunday, 4/12/09, I watched 60 Minutes, a well respected, news magazine show that has been on the air for decades. One segment on the show was about the State of Virginia gun shows. Did you know that in Virginia it is harder to buy an alcoholic drink then to buy an assault weapon? Yes that is unfortunately very true! The segment showed and talked about people selling any type of firearm, including assault weapons, right out of their car trunks in the parking lots at Virginia's gun shows. Now unless you are from Virginia or have attended a gun show there, you might not know that selling guns like that is perfectly legal. WHAT!!!!!!! Not only can guns be sold like that, there is no requirement to do a background check. If you have the money, you can buy any type of gun no questions asked. Some people say, so what, what is the big deal? The big deal is this: people with a criminal history or people mentally challenged can buy an assault weapon(s) that easily.
Now I know that the NRA consistently states their rhetoric that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But what exactly is an assault weapon? Assault weapons like the AK-47 were developed with one and only one goal in mind; to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. In a war, these guns are invaluable. But in private hands, these weapons can and are extremely dangerous. Have you ever heard of a hunter that shot their game with an assault weapon? I didn't think so.
Now the NRA and its members will tell you that according to the Second Amendment, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The actual Second Amendment does state that, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The current legal meaning of the Second Amendment was recently addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that. The majority wrote that "The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home." But the sole purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people.
I have no objection to people owning non assault weapons. I do though strenuously object to people owning automatic handguns, 50 caliber rifles and AK-47's etc., etc. There is no need to have them. If you like to hunt, so be it, but you don't use those type of weapons. I do not believe that making ownership of those type of weapons illegal, infringes on any ones rights. If anything it will save lives.
Virginia's current law that allows such sales of assault weapons has no common sense and needs to be changed ASAP. I also believe that the Second Amendment's newest ruling by the Supreme Court should have a addendum to prohibit the sale and ownership of assault weapons. Now that would make common sense.
There is no good use for and makes no common sense in the private ownership of any kind of assault weapons, PERIOD!
Talk to you next week.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Hybrid Vehicles and Radio Talk Show
Hi Everyone:
Today's topic might seem to be a continuation of last weeks blog but with a twist. Today's blog was triggered by something that I had just read and I feel a need to talk about it. I just read an AOL news article about something that Rush Limbaugh recently said on his radio program. FYI, I have not ever listened to his radio show, but it is my understanding that millions and millions of people do listen. Therefore it is safe to presume that when he says something, there are a lot of people who believe him, be it good or bad.
Rush Limbaugh said this about hybrid vehicles: "Nobody's buying them. Nobody wants them! The manufacturers are making them in droves to satisfy Obama! Sorry for yelling. Nobody wants them!" That is quite a statement!!!
Let's look at some facts. Toyota on its own has sold over 1,000,000 Prius hybrids since 1999, when they first became available. Edmunds' Green Car Advisor, per the AOL article, points out that 1.3 million hybrid vehicles have been sold in this country since 1999. It is obvious that the year 1999 was 10 years before President Obama took office.
It is also obvious that Americans do want and do buy hybrid vehicles, otherwise 1.3 million of them would not have been sold. I have heard and read that there are a lot of people who believe that there is no such thing as global warming and hence no need for hybrid cars. Let's put that argument aside for a moment. An undisputed fact is that this country increasingly imports more and more oil with each passing year from foreign countries (some of which are not our "friends"). Doing so does not and will not make us energy independent. If we do not become energy independent, this country will always be beholden to foreign countries that can and will dictate price and availability. This amongst itself affects our country's national security.
We have all recently learned that Honda is now ready to introduce its new Insight hybrid at a cost of about $20,000. That is $3,000 less then the Prius. Let the price wars finally commence and may the buying public, our environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil be the winners. It is unfortunate that the big 3 are still behind the eight ball and are now beginning to try to play catch up, (see last weeks blog).
Although I agree that hybrid vehicles are a good start, they still use gasoline and the batteries do not last as long as the car itself. In addition, the electric only cars are also a good start, but you need to plug them in to recharge their batteries. There are still an abundance of power plants that use fossil fuels to produce electricity. I personally believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be the wave of the future. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don't use any fossil fuels and produce no harmful emissions, which is called zero emissions. All in all, we are in the infancy of beginning to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, thank goodness!
Now getting back to what Rush Limbaugh said. I am a firm believer that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but the listening public must use common sense to distinguish between what people say as fact and what they say as entertainment. If what he said about hybrid vehicles was meant for entertainment purposes and he said so, then that is fine. Sometimes even saying something as a joke (without using any common sense) on the radio for entertainment purposes can backfire and get you fired, remember Don Imus? But, if what he said was intended as a statement of fact, then Mr. Limbaugh was dead wrong, because the facts don't support him. People in a position of being able to speak to a large audience of people should and must use common sense before opening their mouths.
Thanks for reading. I will be back April 19th. Talk to you then.
Today's topic might seem to be a continuation of last weeks blog but with a twist. Today's blog was triggered by something that I had just read and I feel a need to talk about it. I just read an AOL news article about something that Rush Limbaugh recently said on his radio program. FYI, I have not ever listened to his radio show, but it is my understanding that millions and millions of people do listen. Therefore it is safe to presume that when he says something, there are a lot of people who believe him, be it good or bad.
Rush Limbaugh said this about hybrid vehicles: "Nobody's buying them. Nobody wants them! The manufacturers are making them in droves to satisfy Obama! Sorry for yelling. Nobody wants them!" That is quite a statement!!!
Let's look at some facts. Toyota on its own has sold over 1,000,000 Prius hybrids since 1999, when they first became available. Edmunds' Green Car Advisor, per the AOL article, points out that 1.3 million hybrid vehicles have been sold in this country since 1999. It is obvious that the year 1999 was 10 years before President Obama took office.
It is also obvious that Americans do want and do buy hybrid vehicles, otherwise 1.3 million of them would not have been sold. I have heard and read that there are a lot of people who believe that there is no such thing as global warming and hence no need for hybrid cars. Let's put that argument aside for a moment. An undisputed fact is that this country increasingly imports more and more oil with each passing year from foreign countries (some of which are not our "friends"). Doing so does not and will not make us energy independent. If we do not become energy independent, this country will always be beholden to foreign countries that can and will dictate price and availability. This amongst itself affects our country's national security.
We have all recently learned that Honda is now ready to introduce its new Insight hybrid at a cost of about $20,000. That is $3,000 less then the Prius. Let the price wars finally commence and may the buying public, our environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil be the winners. It is unfortunate that the big 3 are still behind the eight ball and are now beginning to try to play catch up, (see last weeks blog).
Although I agree that hybrid vehicles are a good start, they still use gasoline and the batteries do not last as long as the car itself. In addition, the electric only cars are also a good start, but you need to plug them in to recharge their batteries. There are still an abundance of power plants that use fossil fuels to produce electricity. I personally believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be the wave of the future. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don't use any fossil fuels and produce no harmful emissions, which is called zero emissions. All in all, we are in the infancy of beginning to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, thank goodness!
Now getting back to what Rush Limbaugh said. I am a firm believer that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but the listening public must use common sense to distinguish between what people say as fact and what they say as entertainment. If what he said about hybrid vehicles was meant for entertainment purposes and he said so, then that is fine. Sometimes even saying something as a joke (without using any common sense) on the radio for entertainment purposes can backfire and get you fired, remember Don Imus? But, if what he said was intended as a statement of fact, then Mr. Limbaugh was dead wrong, because the facts don't support him. People in a position of being able to speak to a large audience of people should and must use common sense before opening their mouths.
Thanks for reading. I will be back April 19th. Talk to you then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)