Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.

What are those other forms of energy? Electric? Where does the
electricity come from? In the US 90% of our power comes from coal,
natural gas, and oil.

Wind? What do you do when the wind dies off? Do you have enough
batteries to store the power for several days worth of use?

Solar? What happens at night? Again, you still need batteries? And, the
process of creating photo-voltaic cells is a very dirty one
environmentally speaking.

Fuel Cell? Let's go with hydrogen fuel cells. How doe you get the
hydrogen into the fuel cell? You need electricity to crack the hydrogen.

Nuclear? Excellent choice. Let's start building them now so that they
can be in operation 10 years from now when you say the oil runs out.
Then maybe we will have the capacity to charge up all of those hundreds
of thousands or millions of electric cars.

What happens if we outlaw gasoline powered cars and only allow electric
powered cars. Can our electric grid handle the increased capacity?
People will need to top off their batteries during the day while they
are at work so that they can get home. The fallacy of only needed to
plug in over night is a denial of how people use their vehicles. Will
there be charging stations at the mall, grocery store, restaurant,
opera, movie theater? What type of strain will that place on the
electrical grid? How will people pay for these electrical top offs of
their batteries?

Is there a common charging system for electric cars? Is there a standard
voltage? Standard internal electronics in the wall mounted unit or do
you just hook up the 240V to the car directly? What happens if Toyota's
charging system is different from Ford's? Is Ford's codified into law
and Toyota forced to change in the USA? Will Toyota abandon the US
market for the Indian and Chinese markets where there is a potential for
greater profitability? Why would Toyota care about selling a couple of
million cars in the US when they can sell hundreds of millions of cars
in India and China?

What are these other forms of energy that we need to be encouraged to
move to?

Will the US be in a position to dictate or encourage one form of energy
vs. another form of energy.

I said it before and I'll say it again the governments are becoming less
and less important. It is the companies who will be deciding what is and
what is not happening.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/26/11 12:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.



Perhaps Bertie-Birther will be willing to kick in another $2 a gallon
for a special fund to pay for the clean-ups required if we adopt his
policy of "Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf
of Mexico and the Eastern Seaboard..."

Of course, the clean-ups many times do not really clean up the messes.

But, Bertie-Birther doesn't give a crap about that. He doesn't live in
Alaska, off the coast of California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern
Seaboard."

And he doesn't have a boat.

There is no reason to kick in another $2 per gallon. If the US becomes
independent of foreign oil sources then we have achieved the liberals
dream we have stopped causing problem around the world by funding
dictators and despots by filling the coffers with oil profits.

Who will clean up an oil spill from a Chinese drilled well near Cuba? Do
the Chinese care if there is an ecological disaster in the US? Can the
US stop the Chinese from drilling near Cuba.

Why are we going to let the Chinese pump the oil out of our oil fields?
Why shouldn't we pump it out our selves?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/24/2011 11:04 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:43:19 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/24/2011 4:22 PM, True North wrote:

$1.17 per liter today...expect it to be around $1.20 or 1.21
tomorrow.
A liter is what? About a quart? You're close to the predicted $5 a
gallon already.
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 3.785 411 784 liter
That would be 4.58 per gal. Looks like canada will win the race to $5.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

Not a chance in hell that will affect prices; supply, maybe, but
prices.... nope. Stocks have been increasing since the first of the year,
so has the price....

If I find that there are diamonds at the south pole my biggest problem
is getting them to market. If I have to run a gauntlet of pirates and
through canals of unstable countries then my getting to market problem
rises which has an effect on price.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

I guarantee you, if you take one of those people who are not paying
any income tax now and show them what their Canadian tax bill would be
(the templates are on the web if you want to try it)
those people would rather keep their extra $15-20,000 and buy
insurance on the open market. Kids being who they are, they would
probably buy a car and just hope they never have to go to the doctor
tho.

Your "guarantee" wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.
No logic there.
Those not paying taxes now couldn't come up with $15-20k.
That's why they call it "socialist" health care.
Besides, all these so-called "socialist" countries with universal health
care are democracies last I knew.
They can vote in politicians who would pass law to mimic the U.S.
atrocity health system.
Ever wonder why that doesn't happen?

If you had to write a check to the IRS, state, and local government each
year to pay your taxes you would think a little differently.

Especially when you have to write that check to social security and
medicare, 7.5% of each dollar you earn gone.

Have you ever wondered why the government invented withholding taxes
from your paycheck?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.

What are those other forms of energy? Electric? Where does the
electricity come from? In the US 90% of our power comes from coal,
natural gas, and oil.

Wind? What do you do when the wind dies off? Do you have enough
batteries to store the power for several days worth of use?

Solar? What happens at night? Again, you still need batteries? And, the
process of creating photo-voltaic cells is a very dirty one
environmentally speaking.

Fuel Cell? Let's go with hydrogen fuel cells. How doe you get the
hydrogen into the fuel cell? You need electricity to crack the hydrogen.

Nuclear? Excellent choice. Let's start building them now so that they
can be in operation 10 years from now when you say the oil runs out.
Then maybe we will have the capacity to charge up all of those hundreds
of thousands or millions of electric cars.


Nobody has the guts or leadership ability to get the ball rolling.
Or maybe the Obama admin really believes that solar and wind are the
answer. They don't seem to be too smart in this area.
Either way, one side will whine like babies no matter what the other
side proposes.

What happens if we outlaw gasoline powered cars and only allow electric
powered cars. Can our electric grid handle the increased capacity?
People will need to top off their batteries during the day while they
are at work so that they can get home. The fallacy of only needed to
plug in over night is a denial of how people use their vehicles. Will
there be charging stations at the mall, grocery store, restaurant,
opera, movie theater? What type of strain will that place on the
electrical grid? How will people pay for these electrical top offs of
their batteries?

Is there a common charging system for electric cars? Is there a standard
voltage? Standard internal electronics in the wall mounted unit or do
you just hook up the 240V to the car directly? What happens if Toyota's
charging system is different from Ford's? Is Ford's codified into law
and Toyota forced to change in the USA? Will Toyota abandon the US
market for the Indian and Chinese markets where there is a potential for
greater profitability? Why would Toyota care about selling a couple of
million cars in the US when they can sell hundreds of millions of cars
in India and China?


Uniform charging standards and grid infrastructure improvements should
already be happening with the Energy Department taking the lead.
The charging standards will elicit cries of "government commies setting
rules" and the infrastructure improvements will elicit cries of "Obama
socialist takeover of the grid."
Would you be one of the babies leading the crying chorus?

What are these other forms of energy that we need to be encouraged to
move to?

Will the US be in a position to dictate or encourage one form of energy
vs. another form of energy.

I said it before and I'll say it again the governments are becoming less
and less important. It is the companies who will be deciding what is and
what is not happening.

You're right.
The oil "companies" will be deciding in far less than 10 years that
you'll pay +$5 a gallon for gas.
And that no progress on non-oil energy has been made.
Might even hit $5 a gallon this year.
They'll take those profits from you and spend some for agitprop Tea
Party demonstrations to tell the government to butt out.
Then either you'll cry that it's all Obama's fault for not doing
anything, or join the local Tea Party while the "companies" rape you.
Com - panies.
Com - munism.
Have you noticed that?
Ever wonder about that?
Can you make the connection?
On my next show I'll explain it to you on the blackboard.
You will be shocked.

Sincerely, Glen Beck.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

I guarantee you, if you take one of those people who are not paying
any income tax now and show them what their Canadian tax bill would be
(the templates are on the web if you want to try it)
those people would rather keep their extra $15-20,000 and buy
insurance on the open market. Kids being who they are, they would
probably buy a car and just hope they never have to go to the doctor
tho.

Your "guarantee" wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.
No logic there.
Those not paying taxes now couldn't come up with $15-20k.
That's why they call it "socialist" health care.
Besides, all these so-called "socialist" countries with universal health
care are democracies last I knew.
They can vote in politicians who would pass law to mimic the U.S.
atrocity health system.
Ever wonder why that doesn't happen?

If you had to write a check to the IRS, state, and local government each
year to pay your taxes you would think a little differently.

Especially when you have to write that check to social security and
medicare, 7.5% of each dollar you earn gone.


Uh, I always considered that a simple budgeting matter.
Taxes are the dues for living in the society you choose to live in.
I like it here.

Have you ever wondered why the government invented withholding taxes
from your paycheck?

So you wouldn't cheat, you would provide constant revenue intead of once
a year revenue, you wouldn't feel the sting at tax time, and you
wouldn't have the excuse that you already spent the tax money on women,
booze and boats are tapped out right now.
Are you serious?
I never had a problem with any of that when I did quarterlies.
Simple budgeting matter.
But what's this to do with the citizens of "socialist" countries having
universal health care voting those taxes away?
They can. They don't.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:18:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:33:55 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.


CNG is a pretty attractive option that is not getting any traction at
all.

As previously described CNG has problems also... fracking.

I'd much rather see nuclear plants that are standardized (e.g.,
regulated design specs) and carefully monitored. Spent fuel is an
issue, but it's possible to do it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:44:36 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:53 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:58 -0500, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:23:38 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:46:20 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:50:30 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:15:47 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:52:36 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:50:21 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:50:53 -0500, wrote:


yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

The top 5% still pay 57% of the taxes but I would have them pay more
if they would. The problem is they also do most of the contributing to
candidates so they talk louder. If they raised the top rate, it would
be offset by more write offs rich people can take. We have a lot of
social engineering in the tax code.

So, you don't believe the tax code can be straightened out? You seem
to love absolutes.... well, if we do this, then they'll just get
around it... as though nobody else thinks this stuff through.

I guess I am just a slave to history. I have seen the tax code
"reformed" about 12 times in my life and every one ended up making it
better for the really rich.

Wow... so you're all in favor of union busting, even though unions
brought us decent working conditions, etc., but you're unwilling to at
least attempt meaningful tax reform. You're fine with throwing 1000s
out of work, and certainly you're not in favor of taxing the rich just
a few % more, but oh no, tax reform is pipe dream.

This is not the mine workers trying to get respirators down in the
mine. We are talking about government workers who make a very good
salary and have benefits unlike almost anyone out in the real world.

It is a fairly recent idea that government workers could organize in
the first place and I never actually saw the compelling need, except
to make union leaders rich and blackmail the tax payer.

As for tax reform. I would love to see it but I doubt I ever will.
That is just reality, not some dream about what politicians might do
in a perfect world.

Actually, it is about mine workers also. Unions have little or nothing
to do with the fiscal mess, but it sure is easy to condemn them.
Forget the outrageous corporate salaries... those don't count.

You have no solutions... you just want to pound your fist and claim
it's the working people who are terrible.


It always amazes me how much trouble you have staying on topic.
We were talking about taxes, You are the one who brought up union
busting.

You've been attacking unions for quite a while, claiming among other
things that they're somehow not paying their fair share.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:25:27 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:49:14 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:55:02 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:18:40 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:57:46 -0500, wrote:



The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

You keep saying that as though it has some great weight in your
argument. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't
pay income tax because they ARE POOR.

Only in America can we call someone making $45,000 a year "poor".

What do you think the tax burden is on someone making that kind of
money in one of the socialist countries?

Those "socialist" countries give a lot to people who pay those higher
percentage taxes. Thus the income side of the equation isn't as
important. Of course, you don't want social services for anyone who
"can't afford it". You're contradicting yourself.


I guarantee you, if you take one of those people who are not paying
any income tax now and show them what their Canadian tax bill would be
(the templates are on the web if you want to try it)
those people would rather keep their extra $15-20,000 and buy
insurance on the open market. Kids being who they are, they would
probably buy a car and just hope they never have to go to the doctor
tho.

You'd be wrong. Canadians actually get something for their money..
sorry if you don't like that.

I'm sure a kid probably would, and then when he gets in a wreck, he
should just "pay" for the medical help out of his own pocket, of
course he wouldn't have any money by then, but you don't care about
that.

If he "gets in a wreck" there is car insurance to cover medical
expenses. Again you are drifting.

How is he supposed to afford the insurance if he spends the money on
the car? Keep trying to put me down by claiming a bunch of nonsense.
It's not helping your cause.