From: Dave Head on
On 07 Jul 2010 04:21:42 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote:

>http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
>
>Having Tom Tancredo, Boortz and Duncan Hunter glomming onto this doesn't
>do much for it's credibility.

If you're going to look at the factcheck website, then don't forget to
look here:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8249

Factcheck ain't that factual...
From: Larry G on
On Jul 7, 12:45 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-07-06, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 11:42 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2010-07-06, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 5, 9:53 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none
> >> >> > of these countries went broke:
>
> >> >> > Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
> >> >> > Norway Oslo $6.27
> >> >> > Italy Milan $5.96
> >> >> > Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
> >> >> > Belgium Brussels $5.91
> >> >> > Sweden Stockholm $5.80
> >> >> > United Kingdom London $5.79
> >> >> > Germany Frankfurt $5.57
> >> >> > France Paris $5.54
> >> >> > Portugal Lisbon $5.35
> >> >> > Hungary Budapest $4.94
> >> >> I don't think you would like the standard of living in many of those
> >> >> countries. A standard of living that is what it is thanks to a very high
> >> >> tax rate. The standard of living based on material goods, home size, etc
> >> >> is probably about equal or below to that of the USA's 'poor'.
> >> > well.. everyone in those countries has health care.
>
> >> Um, government provided/controlled health care is nothing more than the
> >> control freaks manipulating/shaping society here or there.
>
> >> > They have a longer life expectancy and less infant deaths,
>
> >> That's a question of diet and taking care of themselves. Plus foods in
> >> europe aren't as poisoned with things like HFCS and various chemicals
> >> (thanks to the FDA, tax laws, etc) and GMO is essentially banned. Why?
> >> Because the people didn't rely on an FDA like government entity. They
> >> rejected them in the market.
>
> >> > they usually have shorter work weeks and longer vacations...
>
> >> The reason France has shorter work weeks is so that more people would be
> >> employed. Or that's the logic behind it. Trying to limit what any one
> >> person can do productivity wise so others can get jobs.
>
> >> Now the US is backwards in that it culturally demands a 40+ hour work
> >> week (and often little vacation) regardless of a person's productivity..
> >> It's a slowest-ship-in-the-fleet approach where people are measured
> >> by time present instead of their output that is destructive for both
> >> workers and the economy but good for those who aren't very productive.
>
> >> > almost no gun deaths...
>
> >> The US would have far fewer too if certain things were attended to. Like
> >> the war on some drugs.
>
> >> > they don't starve to death or freeze to death either.
>
> >> Neither do americans. Both have underclasses of people who for whatever
> >> reason choose to live on the streets. The rest is the difference in
> >> climate.
>
> >> > I think it is us that is living above our means as recent events are
> >> > showing.
>
> >> Which is irrelevant because it is possible to live far under one's means
> >> in the USA and still have more than a european working the same job
> >> could have.
>
> > They don't do badly in comparisons at all and all your "explanations"
> > don't change those facts.    They are among the most happiest and
> > healthiest populations on Earth compared to most other nations...
>
> I'm sorry, being limited to a tiny apartment without modern appliances
> like clothes washer/dryer and numerous other limitations doesn't sound
> very 'happy' to me.
>
> > and
> > they are better off because they are not the wanton prolifigate
> > consumers of energy that we are.
>
> Consuming 'energy' is not a sin. Yes, I know our rulers tell us it is,
> but it is just a tool they use for their own ends.

they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water
heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than
twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated
when used.

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. 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?

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_ ?

From: Larry G on
On Jul 7, 6:20 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On 07 Jul 2010 04:21:42 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote:
>
> >http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
>
> >Having Tom Tancredo, Boortz and Duncan Hunter glomming onto this doesn't
> >do much for it's credibility.
>
> If you're going to look at the factcheck website, then don't forget to
> look here:
>
> http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8249
>
> Factcheck ain't that factual...

huh? do you think a pro-fair-tax website is "factual" ? How would
you verify ?
From: Dave Head on
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 03:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 7, 6:20�am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> On 07 Jul 2010 04:21:42 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
>>
>> >Having Tom Tancredo, Boortz and Duncan Hunter glomming onto this doesn't
>> >do much for it's credibility.
>>
>> If you're going to look at the factcheck website, then don't forget to
>> look here:
>>
>> http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8249
>>
>> Factcheck ain't that factual...

>huh? do you think a pro-fair-tax website is "factual" ? How would
>you verify ?

Read it - see if you think factcheck is distorting the Fair Tax.
From: Dave Head on
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:

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."