THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 7 Jul 2010 16:47 On Jul 7, 1:21 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On 07 Jul 2010 11:38:22 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > > >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > > >> Factcheck ain't that factual... > > >When it appears to oppose your point of view. > > Read the rebuttal, see what YOU think. I mean, when FactCheck uses > studies that don't actually represent the Fair Tax, and that study > doesn't even take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes that > the Fair Tax calls for, and for which are some of the largest tax > bites for low to middle income people, then how credible are they? > > That's in the rebuttal, and more. > > > BTW have you found those Socialists and/or Communists yet? > > Not looking for them. Know they are there, nobody that proposes and > gets legislation as harmful to the country as they have can be doing > that by accident. They're attacking the country, plain and simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
From: Dave Head on 7 Jul 2010 19:29 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 13:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 7, 1:21�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On 07 Jul 2010 11:38:22 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: >> >> >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >> >> Factcheck ain't that factual... >> >> >When it appears to oppose your point of view. >> >> Read the rebuttal, see what YOU think. �I mean, when FactCheck uses >> studies that don't actually represent the Fair Tax, and that study >> doesn't even take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes that >> the Fair Tax calls for, and for which are some of the largest tax >> bites for low to middle income people, then how credible are they? >> >> That's in the rebuttal, and more. >> >> > BTW have you found those Socialists and/or Communists yet? >> >> Not looking for them. �Know they are there, nobody that proposes and >> gets legislation as harmful to the country as they have can be doing >> that by accident. �They're attacking the country, plain and simple. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax That ought to cover it. Stuff on there I didn't know too. Had been wanting to see what an independent source said that the lowering of retail prices of American goods would really be. The Fair Tax book said 22%. I didn't believe that after I found out the research that it was based on included the rather unlikely event that workers would give up the part of their base pay that was going to taxes. Not gonna happen. But the independent study says 11.55% less retail price due to elimination of the income taxes. The best thing to note about that is that foreign manufacturing doesn't get that advantage. So, if there are two SUVs, both $25,000 and one manufactured here and the other manufactured overseas, the one manufactured here will instead cost $22,112.50 before they both get Fair Taxed. Afterwards, the American SUV will cost $28,746.25 and the foreign SUV will cost $32,500. Yes, American goods would gain an advantage in the marketplace.
From: Dave Head on 7 Jul 2010 20:17 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 7, 7:08�am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 03:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other >> >people in the world while complaining about the consequences of such >> >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty >> >hypocritical. >> >> Is that what we should be aiming for? �We use a whale of a lot more >> energy than people living in grass or mud huts and farming with hand >> tools. �We supposed to do that too? >> >> We use more that the Europeans because they've been taxing their >> energy and everything else in sight to pay for their rampant socialism >> which is about to break their little toy economic systems "after a >> long illness", as they about some people who have died. >> >> >Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in >> >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such >> >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish? >> >> That's one of the other components of this scam - the envirowackos are >> using GW to promote their extremist environmentalism with this huge >> scarecrow which is the global warming nonsense. �Yet they say we: >> >> Can't build nuclear >> Can't build natural gas ports on the west coast. >> Can't run power lines from a solar farm thru the Forest in California >> Can't build drilling platforms in view of the Kennedys. >> Can't have the fuel efficient diesel cars they've been using in Europe >> for years. >> Can't, Can't, Can't. >> >> "Can't" died in the poorhouse, my Mom always used to say, and that's >> exactly where we're headed. >> >> The envirowackos have been infiltrated by the communists, and are >> attacking our country with all sorts of things that impede our >> progress and actually help ourselves do things cleaner. �The nonsense >> of being against a power line going thru a forest is so over the top >> that it's ridiculous - power lines don't hurt anything. �What utter >> buffoonery. >> >> >There are consequences to energy use. It does not come without >> >impacts. If you know this - should it have _some_ effect on how much >> >you use? >> >> >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it >> >being a "sin" to use _any_ ? >> >> Who's determining what I "need?" �There's a whole bunch of people >> that, not so long ago, were determined that I didn't "need" a gun, >> either. �The NRA finally won that nonsense, but this is more nonsense >> that just has to be beaten back. >> >> Do I need a 2 week vacation to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, an 1800 >> mile drive in each direction? �These envirowackos will tell you I >> don't need a vacation that involves leaving my property. �They want us >> to become economic slaves, going to work, coming back, and nowhere >> else. �They won't say it in so many words right now, but that's where >> they're going. �Well, F them. �I oppose all new >> environmentally-initiated legislation, because we achieved all we >> needed to about 20 years ago. �Further nonsense along these lines are >> just attacks upon our country by its enemies in the disguise of >> "environmentalists." > >I'm actually not in heavy disagreement about the "no" enviro-weenies >agenda but I AM in favor of RECOGNIZING realities. > >How much energy should you use? You should use no more than the >average amount of industrialized countries average per capita use - >about 1/2 what you use now. So, when they want to go on vacation and their own country is 300 - 600 miles in rough diameter, and they can get there by going halfway across it, I have to limit myself to 150 - 300 miles? Germany's area is equivalent to a circle of 418 miles in diameter. Our country is almost 3000 miles E-W and 1500 N-S. I'm in Virginia. Sooo... I can never see the Grand Canyon, Half Dome, Las Vegas, the Denver Mint, Mt. Rushmore, etc. etc. I drive about 30,000 miles a year. Work is 15 X twice a workday X 20 workdays / month X 12 months = 7200. Knocking 30,000 down to 15,000, I get to drive 7800 miles for "pleasure." Naw, not really - I have errands to run just to live, plus, lately, doctor's appointments since I'm 63 years old. (One more set of surgeries after successful cataract surgeries and... no more glasses. Back and forth to the doctors, all about 20 miles one way. Before that it was shoulder therapy and hand surgery. LOTS and lots of running back and forth, 40 mile round trip every time...) Lets say errands and day-to-day social travel (my best friend is 38 miles one way), and I'm probably up to maybe the other 7800 miles. If not, my main hobby is Road Rallying with the Sports Car Club of America. I run maybe 10 rallies a year "locally", and "locally" is about 200 miles one way to southern New Jersey each time they have one, about 6 times a year for another 2800 miles when you figure the rallies themselves at 100 miles. There are 4 or 5 "local" rallies that are not in southern New Jersey, and they are about 130 - 170 miles each way. Then there's the trip to the Dayton Hamvention every year, 550 miles one way, plus the side-trip to Cedar Point Amusement Park, another 200 miles or so. I don't go there, and I don't get to see my good friend that flies in from San Diego. Might never get to see him again. Oh, wait, the National, or non-local rallying I do all over the nation I sometimes drive to. This year I'm hitting 2 weekends at once, although they are 2 weeks apart so I have to fly back and work for a bit in between (more travel), and the rallies are on Tucson and Lacrosse. Will hit Vegas 1st, then down to Tucson, then to Lacrosse, then home. Maybe 5000 miles - 6000 miles just for that one vacation. This weekend is rallies in St. Louis, 1100 miles each way plus maybe 400 for both rallies. In short, you see I'd practically have to give up all my recreation, and just go back and forth to work and take care of local errands and that'd be about it. All those motels, restaurants, etc. that I will have slept in and eaten at would lose my business, plus others that do the same thing. Half of what I use now? Not happening. Either I pretty much wreck my recreation, or I keep driving. > >That's a fair and equitable "share" that is way more than those in mud >huts. Its way more than those in mud huts, but would ruin a competitive hobby I've spent 34 years getting good at. There is no equal, I would just be deprived of my hobby. >You should pay for the damage you do to mountain-tops or be prepared >to pay more for non-mountaintop removal energy.. ditto with mercury- >laden electricity.. The electricity is mercury laden because envirowackos have spent decades blocking the really clean ways of generating power. Nuclear is it, no question. No, you can't make solar do that, not yet. Neither can you do it with wind nor geothermal. I'm all for developing those, but they are decades away on the scale required to be effective for a large portion of our energy requirements. >you should pay for the true cost of Nuke Power - which will include >the actual insurance costs associated with that power - as opposed to >those costs being subsidized. How about we treat nuclear like a flood risk, and just get the gov't to do a cheap insurance program? Flood insurance is cheap even in flood zones. But of course we don't do that, because the objective of all the whining about the supposed nuclear risks are to stop nuclear power completely. >The fact is - that if you had to actually pay the true cost of energy >and it was not subsidized, Subsidized from where? Where does the money come from that subsidizes anything? Are the Australians paying for our subsidy? The Brits? Maybe Isreal is footing the bill! NO, the "subsidy" is coming from the US gov't, so the people are paying it anyway, because the US gov't gets all its money from the people. Even if they get it from corporate taxes, those corporations get their money from sales of their products, so that ultimately, WE still pay those taxes. The corporations just collect them. >it would cost you what it cost those in >Europe - about twice a much - No, those energy prices are the way they are because of European taxes that are the way they are to try to pay for all their socialism, as well as pointedly discouraging people from using gasoline or any energy. They have to use some, but its good that their countries are about the size of a 418 mile circle, 'cuz they'd go broke trying to do things in the USA. Here, its drive, drive, drive and there's just not a D thing you can do about it except sit home and watch TV. >and then you would find a way (like they >did) to cut your use... Just told you how I would have to cut my energy usage - I would have to give up a lifeltime hobby. >that's not communism... that's paying your fair share of the costs.. >the actual costs. I'm paying them already. The costs of all this stuff is either paid in their purchase price, or the taxes for the "subsidies."
From: Dave Head on 7 Jul 2010 20:23 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:20:29 -0300, Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:08:19 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 03:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >><gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other >>>people in the world while complaining about the consequences of such >>>prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty >>>hypocritical. >> >>Is that what we should be aiming for? We use a whale of a lot more >>energy than people living in grass or mud huts and farming with hand >>tools. We supposed to do that too? >> >>We use more that the Europeans because they've been taxing their >>energy and everything else in sight to pay for their rampant socialism >>which is about to break their little toy economic systems "after a >>long illness", as they about some people who have died. >> >>>Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in >>>mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such >>>levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish? >> >>That's one of the other components of this scam - the envirowackos are >>using GW to promote their extremist environmentalism with this huge >>scarecrow which is the global warming nonsense. Yet they say we: > >While I agree with some of your points below, mountain top removal has >measurable and significant impacts. A high voltage (200KV or higher) >power line through anywhere means a swath is clear cut that is at >least as wide as a two lane road and probably much wider. This may be >acceptable in many/most cases but it is not trivial. If energy is >subsidized it may be wasted. Right now we subsidize most modes of >transportation including automobiles (remember the sales taxes to >build freeways in Phoenix). Freight rail is subsidized in many parts >of the world. Barge definitely is. Air is (tax free land for >airports, traffic control systems, etc.). Does this make sense? > >Clark Morris I don't think it makes sense. Mountaintops? I understand they are taking the coal and putting back what was on top of it, and have been doing that for a long time. Tax free airports, etc? Yeah, that's the way it should be. No business should be taxed at all in my opinion, because when it is, it just raises the price of an American good or service. Let the businesses run tax-free, let them grow as quickly and as large as they can, and then tax the people who buy those goods at the retail counter with a sales tax. That's the way to prosperity. As for the swath down thru the forest, so what? The trees don't know, the critter don't care. If they did care, they wouldn't be running out in the cuttings for the roads that run thru forests and getting flattened by the 1st car, truck, or 18 wheeler that comes along.
From: Larry G on 8 Jul 2010 08:04
On Jul 7, 8:17 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > So, when they want to go on vacation and their own country is 300 - > 600 miles in rough diameter, and they can get there by going halfway > across it, I have to limit myself to 150 - 300 miles? Germany's area > is equivalent to a circle of 418 miles in diameter. Our country is > almost 3000 miles E-W and 1500 N-S. I'm in Virginia. Sooo... I can > never see the Grand Canyon, Half Dome, Las Vegas, the Denver Mint, Mt. > Rushmore, etc. etc. your energy usage - on average - guy. Even Europeans use energy to go on vacation - they just don't use a 15mpg behemoth... like many of us do.... > > I drive about 30,000 miles a year. Work is 15 X twice a workday X 20 > workdays / month X 12 months = 7200. Knocking 30,000 down to 15,000, > I get to drive 7800 miles for "pleasure." Naw, not really - I have > errands to run just to live, plus, lately, doctor's appointments since > I'm 63 years old. (One more set of surgeries after successful > cataract surgeries and... no more glasses. Back and forth to the > doctors, all about 20 miles one way. Before that it was shoulder > therapy and hand surgery. LOTS and lots of running back and forth, 40 > mile round trip every time...) Lets say errands and day-to-day > social travel (my best friend is 38 miles one way), and I'm probably > up to maybe the other 7800 miles. again... how much weight are you moving around to carry your 150-200 lb body? Most of us are pushing 3000-4000 lbs worth of metal while they push about half that about on average - and they tend to NOT drive SOLO to/ from work. > > If not, my main hobby is Road Rallying with the Sports Car Club of > America. I run maybe 10 rallies a year "locally", and "locally" is > about 200 miles one way to southern New Jersey each time they have > one, about 6 times a year for another 2800 miles when you figure the > rallies themselves at 100 miles. There are 4 or 5 "local" rallies > that are not in southern New Jersey, and they are about 130 - 170 > miles each way. again you are not look at average use. it's average per-capita use... and recognizing that there is a difference between the activities you do - and your overall use that comes not from vacations or road rallies or boundary water canoeing but from daily to/from work driving and the size of house that you are heating/cooling. Those two are the two that we as a country on average use more energy on. > > Then there's the trip to the Dayton Hamvention every year, 550 miles > one way, plus the side-trip to Cedar Point Amusement Park, another 200 > miles or so. I don't go there, and I don't get to see my good friend > that flies in from San Diego. Might never get to see him again. how you got to see your good friend might vary depending on how much you had to pay for fuel, eh? > > Oh, wait, the National, or non-local rallying I do all over the nation > I sometimes drive to. This year I'm hitting 2 weekends at once, > although they are 2 weeks apart so I have to fly back and work for a > bit in between (more travel), and the rallies are on Tucson and > Lacrosse. Will hit Vegas 1st, then down to Tucson, then to Lacrosse, > then home. Maybe 5000 miles - 6000 miles just for that one vacation. > This weekend is rallies in St. Louis, 1100 miles each way plus maybe > 400 for both rallies. > > In short, you see I'd practically have to give up all my recreation, > and just go back and forth to work and take care of local errands and > that'd be about it. All those motels, restaurants, etc. that I will > have slept in and eaten at would lose my business, plus others that do > the same thing. > > Half of what I use now? Not happening. Either I pretty much wreck my > recreation, or I keep driving. you can do everything you do now and use less energy..... > > > >That's a fair and equitable "share" that is way more than those in mud > >huts. > > Its way more than those in mud huts, but would ruin a competitive > hobby I've spent 34 years getting good at. There is no equal, I would > just be deprived of my hobby. > > >You should pay for the damage you do to mountain-tops or be prepared > >to pay more for non-mountaintop removal energy.. ditto with mercury- > >laden electricity.. > > The electricity is mercury laden because envirowackos have spent > decades blocking the really clean ways of generating power. Nuclear > is it, no question. No, you can't make solar do that, not yet. > Neither can you do it with wind nor geothermal. I'm all for > developing those, but they are decades away on the scale required to > be effective for a large portion of our energy requirements. the electricity is mercury laden because the mercury is embedded in the coal and to remove more of it would require more expensive processes to capture it, which in turn would make electricity more expensive. In other words, you would have to pay to have the mercury removed at the point it is generated rather than have it released and filter down from the atmosphere. all I'm asking you to do here - is to recognize the reality of this instead of blowing it off and pretending it's not a problem and/or blaming enviro-weenies. The truth is that you and I get "cheaper" electricity because we don't remove the mercury and it, in turn, rains down on the landscape and pollutes the rivers with bio-persistent forms that get into the food web which then makes the food dangerous to eat. That's a reality - not a communist prank. > > >you should pay for the true cost of Nuke Power - which will include > >the actual insurance costs associated with that power - as opposed to > >those costs being subsidized. > > How about we treat nuclear like a flood risk, and just get the gov't > to do a cheap insurance program? Flood insurance is cheap even in > flood zones. But of course we don't do that, because the objective of > all the whining about the supposed nuclear risks are to stop nuclear > power completely. Nuke Power would cost as much as solar if we did not subsidize the insurance costs. In other words we would build solar for the same price - which would be substantially higher. I'm loving your diatribe against communism as you talk about why we should subsidize for the "good of the people". eh? > > >The fact is - that if you had to actually pay the true cost of energy > >and it was not subsidized, > > Subsidized from where? Where does the money come from that subsidizes > anything? Are the Australians paying for our subsidy? The Brits? > Maybe Isreal is footing the bill! NO, the "subsidy" is coming from > the US gov't, so the people are paying it anyway, because the US gov't > gets all its money from the people. Even if they get it from > corporate taxes, those corporations get their money from sales of > their products, so that ultimately, WE still pay those taxes. The > corporations just collect them. you're subsidizing coal and nukes but not solar - why? > > >it would cost you what it cost those in > >Europe - about twice a much - > > No, those energy prices are the way they are because of European taxes > that are the way they are to try to pay for all their socialism, as > well as pointedly discouraging people from using gasoline or any > energy. They have to use some, but its good that their countries are > about the size of a 418 mile circle, 'cuz they'd go broke trying to do > things in the USA. Here, its drive, drive, drive and there's just not > a D thing you can do about it except sit home and watch TV. Europe has stricter pollution restrictions and do not subsidize nukes - that's why their power costs more. and because it costs more, people find ways to use less. > > >and then you would find a way (like they > >did) to cut your use... > > Just told you how I would have to cut my energy usage - I would have > to give up a lifeltime hobby. bullfeathers and a flimsy excuse to boot > > >that's not communism... that's paying your fair share of the costs.. > >the actual costs. > > I'm paying them already. The costs of all this stuff is either paid > in their purchase price, or the taxes for the "subsidies." if each power source had to meet a general standard for pollution and insurance, coal and nukes might well cost as much as solar/wind. The subsidy essentially hides the true cost of the energy. In a free country, you are always free to use as much energy - as you are willing to pay for but you are not entitled to a subsidy so that your use is less costly than it would be. And if energy cost you more - you'd find ways to use less. |