you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...


Anything that gives the "cons" apoplexy is worth doing.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:42:19 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

Isn't math great?

"For instance, the president's proposal to raise taxes only on
high-income families would raise an additional $600 billion over 10
years, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax
Policy Center.

That's not a lot when the government is staring at a 10-year deficit
of $9 trillion. A 10-year deficit of that magnitude means the debt
held by the public -- the accumulation of all annual deficits over the
decades -- would reach 82% of gross domestic product come 2019. That's
double the 41% recorded in 2008."
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:42:19 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

Isn't math great?

"For instance, the president's proposal to raise taxes only on
high-income families would raise an additional $600 billion over 10
years, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax
Policy Center.

That's not a lot when the government is staring at a 10-year deficit
of $9 trillion. A 10-year deficit of that magnitude means the debt
held by the public -- the accumulation of all annual deficits over the
decades -- would reach 82% of gross domestic product come 2019. That's
double the 41% recorded in 2008."
--
John H


Here, John, I'll say it for you, so that you won't ever have to post
again. Anything and everything that a liberal has done or will do is
bad, evil, unpatriotic, myopic, and dumb.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

Math is not a requirement for a BA in liberal arts. If you attend class,
feel good about yourself, and compliment the professor (slightly more for
girls), you will get at least a C. Any better treatment of the prof gets
you a better grade. Even if you never ever get a grasp on math.

Steve

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

The old conservative bugaboo, starting wars and funding special interest
projects and not paying for them, ignoring the math, so they can yell,
LIBERAL in response.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:53:36 -0700, Jim wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713

That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

The old conservative bugaboo, starting wars and funding special interest
projects and not paying for them, ignoring the math, so they can yell,
LIBERAL in response.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Keep to the subject will you? I know it's hard what with ADD being so
prevelant in today's world.

Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713


That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

The old conservative bugaboo, starting wars and funding special interest
projects and not paying for them, ignoring the math, so they can yell,
LIBERAL in response.

Most of them are very good at ignoring science, also.

In article ,
says...

Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713


That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

The old conservative bugaboo, starting wars and funding special interest
projects and not paying for them, ignoring the math, so they can yell,
LIBERAL in response.

Most of them are very good at ignoring science, also.

We would say, "picking out snake oil merchants like Al Gore and his
boutht and paid for minority of scientists...

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:10:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
you know you are in trouble.

"Taxes are going up and they're going up for a lot more people than
those making more than $250,000. Why? Math. The numbers don't come
close to working," Walker said."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news...ion=2009082713


That old Liberal bugaboo - math.

Heh...

The old conservative bugaboo, starting wars and funding special interest
projects and not paying for them, ignoring the math, so they can yell,
LIBERAL in response.

Most of them are very good at ignoring science, also.

Here's some science for you my good and long time friend.

1 - There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise
of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the
past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not
resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that
the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in
atmospheric CO2.

2 - As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more
important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based
almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not
accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water
vapor is not within our control.

3 - The project that I'm currently involved in is demonstrating tat
computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the
past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming.

4 - The Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where
the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the
surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

5 - The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature
fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly
with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is
likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s
been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval
Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and
grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D.,
which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed
harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery.

6 - Why do we assume that the current climate is the optimum climate?
No one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts
overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on
short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has
been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. Assuming that
Global Warming actually exists, economists argue that warming produces
a net benefit - that it increases incomes and standards of living.

But, but, but you say - what about sea levels?

Well, funny you should ask.

Basic physics - the more a radius increases, the slower the rotation.
Meaning that if the seas are really rising, then the Earth much be
slowing down - right? Makes sense.

Guess what - it ain't. There has been a .1 millimeter rise/yr since
1850 to about 1940 and, curiously enough, a reverse trend since 1940
to now at, get this, the exact same rate. Oddly, the Earth's observed
rotation period exactly matches this rise and fall.

So, what are we to believe? Well, how about science?

Er..the "science" can be fudged unfortunately.

In the IPCC report, they used Hong Kong and a little place called
Tuvalu - a Japanese island for their "sea level" science. In the case
of Hong Kong, there are six areas where tide gauges are located. The
IPCC chose one gauge that showed a 2.3 millimeter rise in "sea level"
over the past ten years.

One little bitty problem - the other gauges don't correspond to this
single gauge - they have remained in perfect synch with each other
except for this one singular gauge. Ah, well - no worries - the other
five must be needed calibration.

He - turns out that the single outrider the IPCC used is in a
geological subduction zone - whoopsie. The land is sinking. Hoo boy -
are their faces red or what?

Even more interesting is Tuvalu. The IPCC claimed that the sea level
rise was responsible for the destruction of the island's pineapple
industry because the available fresh water table was replaced by sea
water. Er...um...no? What actually happened was over production of
pineapples which drained the fresh water aquifer to a level where sea
water replaced it. This island has a very low precipitation level and
the lack of rain to replace the fresh water aquifer in adequate levels
meant that there was an annual deficit which created the problem - had
nothing to do with sea level rise.

But, but, but - what about the Artic ice melting? Surely that will
affect sea levels.

Um...ever hear of a little term called displacement? The Arctic ice is
already floating - it don't matter is if melts or not and there is
considerable debate about whether or not the ice actually is melting
at the rate the IPCC is claiming.

And the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, not retreating as some
would have you believe.

But, but, but- what about Greenland?

Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the Disco Bay is
melting, but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate
of melting decreased in the last 50-100 years.

If you've read this far, I would encourage you to read up on something
called the Holocene Warm Optimum - might give you a little
perspective.

So, there's some science for you to chew on. Have fun.

Ah yes - nothing like a rainy Saturday afternoon. Do you have any idea
how many streamers and teasers I've tied this afternoon? Hell, I'm so
bored, I'm thinking about making a new fly rod.

Damn rain. :)