From: Dave Head on
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 30, 3:12�am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:52:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Otto Yamamoto
>> ><comrade.otto.yamam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> But you wouldn't WANT a �real solution to this, right? �Interfere with
>> >>> the ability to tell everyone what to do... y'know... �I notice you
>> >>> simply ignored it. �Tells a lot.
>>
>> >>What I might 'want' is immaterial. I don't see any 'real solution'
>> >>coming down the line.
>>
>> >I knew it! �Wow, can I call 'em, or what? �Device to lower CO2 to
>> >pre-industrial levels in 10 years, and you want to ignore it. �This is
>> >just grand. �Just classic!!!! �Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>
>> And its July 30, 6 days later, and nobody wants to discuss a
>> possibility that we wouldn't have to spend 50 trillion dollars to
>> lower CO2 levels (and cart most of that money out of the USA to do it)
>> to pre-industrial levels, but instead could do so with a process that
>> would probably produce about $15 trillion dollars worth of very high
>> purity carbon that could be used as coal to generate electricity with
>> no mercury in the air, no sulphur dioxide in the air, no radioactive
>> effluents in the air, etc. etc.
>>
>> No, nobody on the "scare hell out of 'em so they'll give us trillions
>> of dollars to fix a fake problem" side of this wants to know about a
>> solution to their global warming scarecrow. �Once again, here's the
>> solution:
>>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news199005915.html
>
>thanks for the link... interesting
>
>now one for you:
>
>" Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage"
>
>" PARIS � Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean
>way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other
>alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a �historic
>crossover,� the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to
>the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new
>nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month."
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?src=busln

I'm all for it. Wonder if that includes some way to store the
electricity overnight or over a time period within the cost of solar.
That's solar's problem, it doesn't work at night. But if they get it
to be viable, that's the way to go.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <a6i5565ikirsfrqk8gdppt5c7l1871uaou(a)4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:47:18 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>>In article <5v2456h9l4lmc85j3r0i92ccvlempjv9ku(a)4ax.com>,
>>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>How about I look at tax rates as a percent of income instead? Because
>>the fact that the feds are getting less revenue because a lot more
>>people are unemployed reduces my tax burden not one iota.
>
>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years.

No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <rmt65654i7kqejtq2akdan872jos9jtsi2(a)4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
><gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 30, 3:12�am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:52:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Otto Yamamoto
>>> ><comrade.otto.yamam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> But you wouldn't WANT a �real solution to this, right? �Interfere with
>>> >>> the ability to tell everyone what to do... y'know... �I notice you
>>> >>> simply ignored it. �Tells a lot.
>>>
>>> >>What I might 'want' is immaterial. I don't see any 'real solution'
>>> >>coming down the line.
>>>
>>> >I knew it! �Wow, can I call 'em, or what? �Device to lower CO2 to
>>> >pre-industrial levels in 10 years, and you want to ignore it. �This is
>>> >just grand. �Just classic!!!! �Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>>
>>> And its July 30, 6 days later, and nobody wants to discuss a
>>> possibility that we wouldn't have to spend 50 trillion dollars to
>>> lower CO2 levels (and cart most of that money out of the USA to do it)
>>> to pre-industrial levels, but instead could do so with a process that
>>> would probably produce about $15 trillion dollars worth of very high
>>> purity carbon that could be used as coal to generate electricity with
>>> no mercury in the air, no sulphur dioxide in the air, no radioactive
>>> effluents in the air, etc. etc.
>>>
>>> No, nobody on the "scare hell out of 'em so they'll give us trillions
>>> of dollars to fix a fake problem" side of this wants to know about a
>>> solution to their global warming scarecrow. �Once again, here's the
>>> solution:
>>>
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news199005915.html
>>
>>thanks for the link... interesting
>>
>>now one for you:
>>
>>" Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage"
>>
>>" PARIS � Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean
>>way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other
>>alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a �historic
>>crossover,� the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to
>>the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new
>>nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month."
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?src=busln
>
>I'm all for it. Wonder if that includes some way to store the
>electricity overnight or over a time period within the cost of solar.
>That's solar's problem, it doesn't work at night. But if they get it
>to be viable, that's the way to go.

Solar PV doesn't scale well, and any cost estimates for solar PV of
the scale of a nuclear plant are pure fantasy.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Free Lunch on
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article <a6i5565ikirsfrqk8gdppt5c7l1871uaou(a)4ax.com>,
>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:47:18 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>>Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>In article <5v2456h9l4lmc85j3r0i92ccvlempjv9ku(a)4ax.com>,
>>>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>How about I look at tax rates as a percent of income instead? Because
>>>the fact that the feds are getting less revenue because a lot more
>>>people are unemployed reduces my tax burden not one iota.
>>
>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years.
>
>No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986.

The amount that is collected is what matters.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <ge1756ld7rcsnq220fj1pn50qkqv15rh8o(a)4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>>In article <a6i5565ikirsfrqk8gdppt5c7l1871uaou(a)4ax.com>,
>>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:47:18 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>>>Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>>
>>>>In article <5v2456h9l4lmc85j3r0i92ccvlempjv9ku(a)4ax.com>,
>>>>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>How about I look at tax rates as a percent of income instead? Because
>>>>the fact that the feds are getting less revenue because a lot more
>>>>people are unemployed reduces my tax burden not one iota.
>>>
>>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years.
>>
>>No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986.
>
>The amount that is collected is what matters.

Amounts collected are lower because the tax is progressive and income
is down due to the recession.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.