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: Beam Me Up Scotty on 25 Jul 2010 22:26 > In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >> wrote: >>> >>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he >>> puts it. >> >> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level. >> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog >> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. > > At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living. > >> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that >> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 >> what we do. > > A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. > >> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a >> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on >> the house and transportation. > Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. > >> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without >> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to >> start with. > > Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts > in energy use. > >> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. >> >> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually >> had money for other things.. Other things like higher taxes?
From: Free Lunch on 25 Jul 2010 22:34 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in misc.transport.road: > >> In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >> Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he >>>> puts it. >>> >>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level. >>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog >>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. >> >> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living. >> >>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that >>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 >>> what we do. >> >> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. >> >>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a >>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on >>> the house and transportation. >> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. >> >>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without >>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to >>> start with. >> >> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts >> in energy use. >> >>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. >>> >>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually >>> had money for other things.. > >Other things like higher taxes? Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century. Facts are stubborn things.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 26 Jul 2010 13:12 On 7/25/2010 10:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty > <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in > misc.transport.road: > >> >>> In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >>> Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he >>>>> puts it. >>>> >>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level. >>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog >>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. >>> >>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living. >>> >>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that >>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 >>>> what we do. >>> >>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. >>> >>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a >>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on >>>> the house and transportation. >>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. >>> >>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without >>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to >>>> start with. >>> >>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts >>> in energy use. >>> >>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. >>>> >>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually >>>> had money for other things.. >> >> Other things like higher taxes? > > Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century. > > Facts are stubborn things. And going up in January. And the Federal government has more TAX LAWS than it has had in half a century. 17% medicare / medicade / Social security 39% Federal income tax == 56% The Feds are taking in
From: Larry G on 26 Jul 2010 18:24 On Jul 25, 9:31 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb9...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups..com>, > Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) > >wrote: > > >> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he > >> puts it. > > >with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level. > >There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog > >as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. > > At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living. > > >I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that > >people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 > >what we do. > > A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. > > >they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a > >standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on > >the house and transportation. > > Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. > > >Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without > >even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to > >start with. > > Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts > in energy use. > > >I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. > > >my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually > >had money for other things.. > > So adjusting your schedule to match the schedule of other people in > your carpool was of no consequence? not or 80% of the trips... basically involved finding folks who had schedules within 15-30 minutes of your own... an easy transition most days. this is the problem with the narrative in general.. it's cast as an all or nothing proposition and it's simply not and never has to be. you make adjustments in life all the time... anyhow..
From: Jim Yanik on 26 Jul 2010 19:39
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in news:4c4dc25f$0$11704$ec3e2dad(a)unlimited.usenetmonster.com: > On 7/25/2010 10:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty >> <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in >> misc.transport.road: >> >>> >>>> In article >>>> <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >>>>> Russotto) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" >>>>>> has he puts it. >>>>> >>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income >>>>> level. There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high >>>>> on the hog as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. >>>> >>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard >>>> of living. >>>> >>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that >>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 >>>>> what we do. >>>> >>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. >>>> >>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and >>>>> have a standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more >>>>> modest on the house and transportation. >>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. >>>> >>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it >>>>> without even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so >>>>> prolifigate to start with. >>>> >>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make >>>> significant cuts in energy use. >>>> >>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. >>>>> >>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I >>>>> actually had money for other things.. >>> >>> Other things like higher taxes? >> >> Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century. then why is the average American's tax load only paid up in the end of May(Tax Freedon Day),when it used to be earlier in the year? also,"taxes" are now accompanied by "fees" charged by gov't for their services. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/ >> >> Facts are stubborn things. > > And going up in January. > > And the Federal government has more TAX LAWS than it has had in half a > century. > > 17% medicare / medicade / Social security > > 39% Federal income tax >== > 56% The Feds are taking in > > > -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |