Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Matthew Russotto on 26 Jul 2010 21:09 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 26 Jul 2010 21:23 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 27 Jul 2010 07:24 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 29 Jul 2010 19:16 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 29 Jul 2010 19:17
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. |