John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:35:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.
Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.

It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When Florida is inundated because liberals don't want to solve
problems. If they did, we wouldn't have these situations:

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


The po folk just love those liberal cities and states. They come from
far and wide to find some teat to suck on.