From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <n1tp46d46jla0ial53eoun6rjj4103n6n7(a)4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> 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.
Lie.

>Facts are stubborn things.
Indeed.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <aaa0f729-b5ae-4cce-bfad-96aa24c1fff2(a)d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jul 25, 9:31=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb9...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Larry G =A0<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 25, 5:33=3DA0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has h=
>e
>> >> 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 liv=
>ing.
>>
>> >I'm =A0not 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 c=
>uts
>> 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.

I've worked many places, both large and small, and I've never had
co-workers who lived near me and had schedules within 15-30 minutes of
my own. Never.

>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're claiming no effect, or no significant effect. Dave and I are
claiming there is a significant effect. There is no "all"; it's
"nothing" versus "something".
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Larry G on
On Jul 26, 9:23 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <aaa0f729-b5ae-4cce-bfad-96aa24c1f...(a)d17g2000yqb.googlegroups..com>,
> Larry G  <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 25, 9:31=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb9...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Larry G =A0<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 25, 5:33=3DA0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has h=
> >e
> >> >> 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 liv=
> >ing.
>
> >> >I'm =A0not 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 c=
> >uts
> >> 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.
>
> I've worked many places, both large and small, and I've never had
> co-workers who lived near me and had schedules within 15-30 minutes of
> my own.  Never.
>
> >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're claiming no effect, or no significant effect.  Dave and I are
> claiming there is a significant effect.  There is no "all"; it's
> "nothing" versus "something".
> --
> The problem with socialism is there's always
> someone with less ability and more need.

I guess it's a value judgement. I did have the benefit of staying at
one job and there were 2000 of us but the "not having anyone live near
you" is bogus. We picked a central meeting place on the way to work
and I lived miles from the others but we still shaved 50 miles off a
60 mile commute.
From: Free Lunch on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:12:42 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>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
>
NO, they are not. Your ignorance is your own undoing.
From: Free Lunch on
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:09:23 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article <n1tp46d46jla0ial53eoun6rjj4103n6n7(a)4ax.com>,
>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> 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.
>Lie.

Look at the revenue as a percent of GDP.
>
>>Facts are stubborn things.
>Indeed.

But they don't support the reactionaries who lie about taxes and only
complain about deficits when the Democrats are in power.