Debunking the Reagan Myth

[Sweet Willy]

As far as measuring ethanol MPG against gasoline, that's bullshit.

It's a fact:

Consumer Reports may irritate a lot of hybrid SUV owners with a new report that was just released. Their study focused on the new flex fuel, 2007 Chevy Tahoe SUV. The Tahoe can either run on gasoline or e85 ethanol, which is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The report found that the Tahoe averaged 14 mpg on gasoline, and only 10 mpg on ethanol. This decrease in mpg is expected because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline.

Ethanol e85 mpg​

​

I am not disputing that ethanol yields less MPG. I would think you understood that when I asked if you would balk at a water powered engine that gets 5 MPG. Measuring this by gallons is irrelevant. Availability of fuel, ease of procurement, politics of procurement, all of those things should be considered. I'm sure a "gallon" of uranium will yield phenomenal MPGs. Do you think that is a relevant comparison to gasoline?

And as I stated before, I'm not endorsing ethanol. It does show promise. The food argument is valid. Equally valid is the argument for sources like switch grass, not to mention the Brazillian model where the entire country runs on ethanol from sugar beets and somehow, we still get to eat sugar too.

If every innovator and visionary in history listened to to this crap we'd still be chasing wild game with spears and fishing by hand.

 

[Soaring]

And, one of the downfalls using ethanol is that it is not available everywhere. I wouldn't buy it if it was, but I have never seen any E85 pumps in Texas. Sugar is made from other sources than sugar beets from Brazil. That statement is laughable.

 

[Missourian]

You're wrong about the diesel locomotive. The government was heavily invested in the switch from steam to diesel. The War Production Board and the US Navy had everything to do with the advent of the diesel locomotive as the standard. GE received Federal Research Grants in order to develop and perfect the diesel locomotive. In addition, not unlike fuel mileage standards and safety standards of today, state and local governments outlawed steam locomotives in favor of electric and diesel.

I'm not the least bit wrong about diesel locomotives. Diesel-electric was far superior to steam...and so steam powered locomotives became obsolete.

Diesel engines slowly eclipsed those powered by steam as the manufacturing and operational efficiencies of the former made them cheaper to own and operate. While initial costs of diesel engines were high, steam locomotives were custom made for specific railway routes and lines, and as such economies of scale were difficult to achieve.[11] Though more complex to produce with exacting manufacturing tolerances (1/10,000th of an inch (0.0025 mm) vs. 1/100th of an inch (0.25 mm) for steam), diesel locomotive parts were more conducive to mass production. As such, while the steam engine manufacturer Baldwin offered almost five hundred steam models in its heyday, EMD offered fewer than ten diesel varieties. [12]
Diesel locomotives offer significant operating advantages over steam locomotives. They can safely be operated by one person, making them ideal for switching/shunting duties in yards (although for safety reasons many main-line diesel locomotives continue to have 2-man crews), and the operating environment is much more attractive, being much quieter, fully weatherproof and without the dirt and heat that is an inevitable part of operating a steam locomotive. Diesel engines can be started and stopped almost instantly, meaning that a diesel locomotive has the potential to incur no costs when not being used. Steam locomotives require intensive maintenance, lubrication and cleaning before, during and after use. Preparing a steam locomotive for use can take many hours, especially if the locomotive is being fired from cold. However it is still the practice of large North American railroads to use straight water as a coolant in diesel engines instead of coolants that incorporate anti-freezing properties. This results in diesel locomotives being left idling when parked in cold climates instead of being completely shut down. Still, a diesel engine can be left idling unattended for hours or even days, especially since practically every diesel engine used in locomotives has systems that automatically shut the engine down if a problem such a loss of oil pressure or coolant loss occur. A steam locomotive, by comparison, may be kept in readiness between uses with a small fire to maintain a slight heat in the boiler, but requires regular and frequent attention to maintain the fire and the level of water in the boiler.
Moreover, maintenance and operational costs of steam locomotives were much higher than diesel counterparts even though it would take diesel locomotives almost 50 years to reach the same horsepower output that steam locomotives could achieve at their technological height.[13] Annual maintenance costs for steam locomotives accounted for 25% of the initial purchase price. Spare parts were machined from wooden masters for specific locomotives. The sheer amount of unique steam locomotives meant that there was no feasible way for spare part inventories to be maintained. [14] Steam engines also required large quantities of coal and water, which were expensive variable operating costs. [15] Further, the thermal efficiency of steam was considerably less than that of Diesel engines. Diesel’s theoretical studies demonstrated potential thermal efficiencies for a compression ignition engine of 73% (compared with 6-10% for steam), and an 1897 one-cylinder prototype operated at a remarkable 26% efficiency. [16] By the middle of the twentieth century, Diesel locomotives had effectively replaced steam engines. [15]

Diesel locomotive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

​

The gasoline power internal combustion engine will become obsolete ONLY if a a technology is produced that is vastly superior...not before.

I'm not anti federal research grants, in fact, that is one area the federal government has a necessary role.

Where the government oversteps it's mandate is by forcing a substandard technology on consumers.

 

[Sweet Willy]

And, one of the downfalls using ethanol is that it is not available everywhere. I wouldn't buy it if it was, but I have never seen any E85 pumps in Texas.

And that is the specific that I outlined earlier about government incetives to provide infrastructure. There aren't many ethanol vehicles because we haven't the infrastructure to fuel them. If there is no fuel, why buy the car? If there is no car, why provide fuel? These are the arguments from BOTH parties in prevate enterprise. These seperate industries will not go ahead with cars or fuel supply on their own. No reason to.

As far as "I wouldn't buy it", that is what so many people have said about so many things that are now common. If ethanol became the most readily available option, most people would readily use it. It's that simple. If the cars were available and the fuel was available, the next time petroleum goes to $5 a gallon, it's a done deal.

Ethanol Demand Driving the Expansion of Brazil's Sugar Industry

Ethanol production has been a winner for Brazil. The sugar industry is wide open with no dire shortage of sugar, only more opportunity and employment in sugar production and ethanol production. Domestic fuel that feeds their own economy, not ME coutriee, not Venezuela or Mexico.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You're wrong about the diesel locomotive. The government was heavily invested in the switch from steam to diesel. The War Production Board and the US Navy had everything to do with the advent of the diesel locomotive as the standard. GE received Federal Research Grants in order to develop and perfect the diesel locomotive. In addition, not unlike fuel mileage standards and safety standards of today, state and local governments outlawed steam locomotives in favor of electric and diesel.

I'm not the least bit wrong about diesel locomotives. Diesel-electric was far superior to steam...and so steam powered locomotives became obsolete.

Diesel engines slowly eclipsed those powered by steam as the manufacturing and operational efficiencies of the former made them cheaper to own and operate. While initial costs of diesel engines were high, steam locomotives were custom made for specific railway routes and lines, and as such economies of scale were difficult to achieve.[11] Though more complex to produce with exacting manufacturing tolerances (1/10,000th of an inch (0.0025 mm) vs. 1/100th of an inch (0.25 mm) for steam), diesel locomotive parts were more conducive to mass production. As such, while the steam engine manufacturer Baldwin offered almost five hundred steam models in its heyday, EMD offered fewer than ten diesel varieties. [12]
Diesel locomotives offer significant operating advantages over steam locomotives. They can safely be operated by one person, making them ideal for switching/shunting duties in yards (although for safety reasons many main-line diesel locomotives continue to have 2-man crews), and the operating environment is much more attractive, being much quieter, fully weatherproof and without the dirt and heat that is an inevitable part of operating a steam locomotive. Diesel engines can be started and stopped almost instantly, meaning that a diesel locomotive has the potential to incur no costs when not being used. Steam locomotives require intensive maintenance, lubrication and cleaning before, during and after use. Preparing a steam locomotive for use can take many hours, especially if the locomotive is being fired from cold. However it is still the practice of large North American railroads to use straight water as a coolant in diesel engines instead of coolants that incorporate anti-freezing properties. This results in diesel locomotives being left idling when parked in cold climates instead of being completely shut down. Still, a diesel engine can be left idling unattended for hours or even days, especially since practically every diesel engine used in locomotives has systems that automatically shut the engine down if a problem such a loss of oil pressure or coolant loss occur. A steam locomotive, by comparison, may be kept in readiness between uses with a small fire to maintain a slight heat in the boiler, but requires regular and frequent attention to maintain the fire and the level of water in the boiler.
Moreover, maintenance and operational costs of steam locomotives were much higher than diesel counterparts even though it would take diesel locomotives almost 50 years to reach the same horsepower output that steam locomotives could achieve at their technological height.[13] Annual maintenance costs for steam locomotives accounted for 25% of the initial purchase price. Spare parts were machined from wooden masters for specific locomotives. The sheer amount of unique steam locomotives meant that there was no feasible way for spare part inventories to be maintained. [14] Steam engines also required large quantities of coal and water, which were expensive variable operating costs. [15] Further, the thermal efficiency of steam was considerably less than that of Diesel engines. Diesel’s theoretical studies demonstrated potential thermal efficiencies for a compression ignition engine of 73% (compared with 6-10% for steam), and an 1897 one-cylinder prototype operated at a remarkable 26% efficiency. [16] By the middle of the twentieth century, Diesel locomotives had effectively replaced steam engines. [15]

Diesel locomotive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

​

The gasoline power internal combustion engine will become obsolete ONLY if a a technology is produced that is vastly superior...not before.

I'm not anti federal research grants, in fact, that is one area the federal government has a necessary role.

Where the government oversteps it's mandate is by forcing a substandard technology on consumers.

What you are missing is that it was THE GOVERNMENT that recognized the superiority of the diesel locomotive and pushed it. Private railroads were divided on the matter, the most stubborn electing to stay with steam. The steam manufacturers stayed with steam too long also, citing economic reasons. The producution methods were already in place, the factories were already producing working steam engines. Without the Federal $$ poured into GE, steam would have held on for God knows how long. The government led us to diesel by funding it's development and regulating steam out of business.

 

[Missourian]

I am not disputing that ethanol yields less MPG. I would think you understood that when I asked if you would balk at a water powered engine that gets 5 MPG.

If it ran on tapwater, no...if it only ran on Perrier, I'd have the same objections.

 

[Missourian]

What you are missing is that it was THE GOVERNMENT that recognized the superiority of the diesel locomotive and pushed it. Private railroads were divided on the matter, the most stubborn electing to stay with steam. The steam manufacturers stayed with steam too long also, citing economic reasons. The producution methods were already in place, the factories were already producing working steam engines. Without the Federal $$ poured into GE, steam would have held on for God knows how long. The government led us to diesel by funding it's development and regulating steam out of business.

From The National Park Service:

Just as the steam locomotive had been developed, in a sense, as an alternative to animal power--horses and mules that pulled single cars on little tramway tracks--on railroads, the electric locomotives were developed as an alternative to the steam locomotive. Smoke-spewing, cinder-spitting steam locomotives did not work well in certain places, such as long tunnels where the accumulation of smoke and fumes could and did asphyxiate engine crews. Coal-burning, soot-spreading steam locomotives became unwelcome when their large numbers in and around a major terminal in a large city such as New York or Chicago so fouled the air that air pollution had become a major public issue by the 1890s. Then, too, in cities like New York and Chicago where downtown real estate values climbed out of sight, city governments and the railroads themselves wanted to place tracks underground in tunnels to free valuable real estate overhead, but steam engines could not work in such tunnels because of the exhaust gases and smoke. Thus though steam remained dominant overall on most American railroads for another half century or more, a place still existed for some alternative form of motive power that did not create noxious fumes, did not need combustion (either external or internal) and could do the same job as steam locomotives.

Read the entire article here:
Steamtown NHS: Special History Study
​

​

 

[Sweet Willy]

What you are missing is that it was THE GOVERNMENT that recognized the superiority of the diesel locomotive and pushed it. Private railroads were divided on the matter, the most stubborn electing to stay with steam. The steam manufacturers stayed with steam too long also, citing economic reasons. The producution methods were already in place, the factories were already producing working steam engines. Without the Federal $$ poured into GE, steam would have held on for God knows how long. The government led us to diesel by funding it's development and regulating steam out of business.

From The National Park Service:

Just as the steam locomotive had been developed, in a sense, as an alternative to animal power--horses and mules that pulled single cars on little tramway tracks--on railroads, the electric locomotives were developed as an alternative to the steam locomotive. Smoke-spewing, cinder-spitting steam locomotives did not work well in certain places, such as long tunnels where the accumulation of smoke and fumes could and did asphyxiate engine crews. Coal-burning, soot-spreading steam locomotives became unwelcome when their large numbers in and around a major terminal in a large city such as New York or Chicago so fouled the air that air pollution had become a major public issue by the 1890s. Then, too, in cities like New York and Chicago where downtown real estate values climbed out of sight, city governments and the railroads themselves wanted to place tracks underground in tunnels to free valuable real estate overhead, but steam engines could not work in such tunnels because of the exhaust gases and smoke. Thus though steam remained dominant overall on most American railroads for another half century or more, a place still existed for some alternative form of motive power that did not create noxious fumes, did not need combustion (either external or internal) and could do the same job as steam locomotives.

Read the entire article here:
Steamtown NHS: Special History Study
​

​

Yes, and these governments were the first to OUTLAW steam engines in facor of diesel and electric.


How about nuclear? You want to talk about leaving this all up to private industry. That stuff is cheap and effective. There is a company in the former USSR that will put a nuclear propulsion system in your sailboat. It runs for 10 years on piece of fuel the size of a pea. But the government won't take us there. Good thing. Many people would never drive a nuclear powered vehicle down the highway but rest assured, without the government, there would be private manufacturers making and selling nuclear powered vehicles to those dumb enough to drive them. And there is no shortage of dummies. The proof is in your own words. You'd only drive a water car if it ran on tap water. $$$$$ That is what you think about, in the SHORT term.

You want a cheap way to travel to globe? Go get yourself a nuclear powered boat where there is little to no government to direct industry in the matter.

Better yet, you can join the leagues of commercial vessels that want nuclear power for tankers and cargo ships.

 

[Lycurgus]

One caller on the Ed show today called up and was so incensed he waited an hour to tell the host that he was demonizing Reagan while deifying Obama.

The right has been so successful in the revisonist efforts on Ronny, they they actually believe he stopped the cold war and all other evils. Bullcrap. He was there at the right time and spoke well for an actor.

With his obscene I Am The Rich Trickle Down Theory, he began the war on destroying the middle class. I am still amazed by those in the current weakened and smaller middle class that still smile as he shoves his trickle down up your anal opening.

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

Reactions From Around the WebAnd it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

Poor Gayboy ............ as Obama tears your nation down, you are still haunted by Reagan.

Wake up boy, the devil is on the door step and the door was left unlocked.

He lied to you Gayboy, there will be no extra rights for your kind

 

[editec]

Privately owned nuclear yachts.

Yeah, I can see how they're going to become the next status symbol for corporate mafiosa.

Were I rich enough for true ostentatious display, I'd order me a nuclear powered sail-boat.

Oh, it would still move by windpower, as God intended, but the ship's stereo system and microwave would be nuclear powered.

 

[HUGGY]

The guy invaded Grenada, for chrissakes.

The guy was in charge of a major drugs(Cocaine) for missles(For Iran)scam which was specifically voted against in congress. Reagan in all his pompus bravado did it anyway and when found out admitted the same but pardoned that little rat basturd leutenant. Fuck Reagan. If I ever get the opportunity I'll piss on his grave.

Just another sad case of an actor turning into a criminal.

 

[Missourian]

Yes, and these governments were the first to OUTLAW steam engines in facor of diesel and electric.


How about nuclear? You want to talk about leaving this all up to private industry. That stuff is cheap and effective. There is a company in the former USSR that will put a nuclear propulsion system in your sailboat. It runs for 10 years on piece of fuel the size of a pea. But the government won't take us there. Good thing. Many people would never drive a nuclear powered vehicle down the highway but rest assured, without the government, there would be private manufacturers making and selling nuclear powered vehicles to those dumb enough to drive them. And there is no shortage of dummies. The proof is in your own words. You'd only drive a water car if it ran on tap water. $$$$$ That is what you think about, in the SHORT term.

You want a cheap way to travel to globe? Go get yourself a nuclear powered boat where there is little to no government to direct industry in the matter.

Better yet, you can join the leagues of commercial vessels that want nuclear power for tankers and cargo ships.

Real short term thinking has us producing fuel out of food instead of drilling our own oil here in the U.S. and your hypothetical "hydro-powered car" depleting already dwindling supplies of water.

Pot...meet kettle.

 

[DiveCon]

The guy invaded Grenada, for chrissakes.

The guy was in charge of a major drugs(Cocaine) for missles(For Iran)scam which was specifically voted against in congress. Reagan in all his pompus bravado did it anyway and when found out admitted the same but pardoned that little rat basturd leutenant. Fuck Reagan. If I ever get the opportunity I'll piss on his grave.

Just another sad case of an actor turning into a criminal.

uh, which "rat bastard" got pardoned?
name him

 

[garyd]

Sorry Huggy you idiot it wasn't drugs for guns you idiot it was basically antiquated US Hawk AA batteries for small arms to be sent to the contras. And it doesn't happen if the US congress doesn't start trying unconstitutionally I might add to micomange foreign policy via the Boland amendment.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry Huggy you idiot it wasn't drugs for guns you idiot it was basically antiquated US Hawk AA batteries for small arms to be sent to the contras. And it doesn't happen if the US congress doesn't start trying unconstitutionally I might add to micomange foreign policy via the Boland amendment.

not to mention they were Isreali Hawk missiles that were about to be scrapped because they were too old

huggy is a fucking moron that doesnt even know the basics of the situation
yet he tries so hard to pretend he knows anything

 

[Sweet Willy]

There were over 1,000 Tow missiles in the deal. And yes, cocaine smuggling was a part of the operation. The pilots and the planes used to smuggle weapons in was also being used to smuggle drugs out. North's knowledge of this was evident in his personal notebooks on the matter. The trials were highly politicized and questions regarding drug transactions were barred by the judge. North later leaked information regarding Barry Seal, a DEA infromant and pilot who had infiltrated the drug trafficking ring in Panama. Seal was subsequently executed in the parking lot of a Salvation Army building where he was performing community service.

In the time since the scandal, more people came forward and testified to the drug smuggling.

On October 31, 1996, the Washington Post ran a follow up story to the San Jose Mercury News series titled "CIA, Contras and Drugs: Questions on Links Linger." The story drew on court testimony in 1990 of Fabio Ernesto Carrasco, a pilot for a major Columbian drug smuggler named George Morales. As a witness in a drug trial, Carrasco testified that in 1984 and 1985, he piloted planes loaded with weapons for contras operating in Costa Rica. The weapons were offloaded, and then drugs stored in military bags were put on the planes which flew to the United States. "I participated in two [flights] which involved weapons and cocaine at the same time," he told the court.
Carrasco also testified that Morales provided "several million dollars" to Octaviano Cesar and Adolfo "Popo" Chamorro, two rebel leaders working with the head of the contras' southern front, Eden Pastora. The Washington Post reported that Chamorro said he had called his CIA control officer to ask if the contras could accept money and arms from Morales, who was at the time under indictment for cocaine smuggling. "They said [Morales] was fine," Chamorro told the Post.

The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations


Reagan accepted responsibility for all of it. I seriously doubt that he kn ew about the drugs though. Although, if you will trade weapons with the enemy, anyhting is possible, I guess. But North knew. We have his notebooks. He wrote about it. He knew the planes he was using were bringing drugs into the US to fund the rebels.

 

[Yurt]

obama would approve...he "used" to like cocaine/blow....

 

[DiveCon]

According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:[22]

• August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
• September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
• November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
• February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
• February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
• May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
• August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
• October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

all of which was OLD and due to be scrapped

 

[Sweet Willy]

According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:[22]

• August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
• September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
• November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
• February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
• February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
• May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
• August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
• October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

all of which was OLD and due to be scrapped

I'm just not sure how "old and due to be scrapped" figures in any of this. The weapons were sold to an enemy of the state, Iran. There was an arms embargo imposed on them. It made no exception for old weapons or missiles.

Was the cocaine old and about to spoil too?

 

[DiveCon]

According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:[22]

• August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
• September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
• November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
• February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
• February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
• May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
• August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
• October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

all of which was OLD and due to be scrapped

I'm just not sure how "old and due to be scrapped" figures in any of this. The weapons were sold to an enemy of the state, Iran. There was an arms embargo imposed on them. It made no exception for old weapons or missiles.

Was the cocaine old and about to spoil too?

LOL
we allowed Isreal to sell weapons they were about to scrap
and the profits of it went to the contras
sounds like a win/win to me


btw, there may have been drugs in the scandal somewhere, but it had NOTHING to do with the weapons sale