Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Dave Head on 30 Jul 2010 21:06 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 30 Jul 2010 22:02 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 30 Jul 2010 22:07 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 30 Jul 2010 22:09 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 30 Jul 2010 22:19
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. |