On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:16:15 -0500, L G wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:04:24 GMT, Gene
wrote:


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


In ,
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....

Only thing that's increasing is oil company profits.

So go buy some of their stock and STFU.

If Bush and Cheney were pocketing all the oil money when in office, is the same
thing true of this new guy and his dumbass sidekick?

I keep wondering when the liberals (especially the 'unbiased' media) will start
blaming *this* administration for high oil prices.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

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

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

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

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.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Besides, it doesn't have to be a relatively slow process. We damn sure moved out
a corps and a half to Kuwait in very little time.

I know, I was there.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:31:08 -0500, Ziggy® wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:47:52 -0800, wrote:

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.

Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones
we live in.


I'll bet there are a lot of uninsured Mexicans driving their wrecks in
Florida, Texas, Arizona, And The People's Republic of Kalifonia. Can't get
rid of em either. Washington will come down hard on anyone who tries.

Very true, but you're opening yourself up for a charge of severe racism with
some of the libs in this group.

In article ,
says...

Harryk wrote:
On 2/26/11 12:46 PM, True North wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


Besides eye glasses I didn't need medical care until I got married and
started having children. I did break my thumb when I was 27 which
required out patient surgery but that was only a couple of grand.

***********************

I thought you were crying about breaking your back when you froze up &
forgot to open your parachute??


No, no, no...he landed on his head. Nothing to break.
Funny stuff, writer. Nothing to do all day today, WAFA?

It's impossible for Harry to stop lying about everything.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:31:08 -0500, Ziggy® wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:47:52 -0800, wrote:

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


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.

Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones
we live in.


I'll bet there are a lot of uninsured Mexicans driving their wrecks in
Florida, Texas, Arizona, And The People's Republic of Kalifonia. Can't
get
rid of em either. Washington will come down hard on anyone who tries.


That is really getting a lot harder to do here. The cops have lap tops
in their cars, insurance coverage is available in real time and that
is probable cause for a stop, a ticket and that immigration check
everyone on the left is so ****ed about. Driving a junker without
insurance is the express lane to Krome Avenue (the ICE detention
center)


There is reason for hope then. Stop em in the border states and send em
home. That will surely impact most all of our entitlement programs.

On 2/27/11 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:42:29 -0500, wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:31:08 -0500, wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:47:52 -0800, wrote:

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


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.

Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones
we live in.


I'll bet there are a lot of uninsured Mexicans driving their wrecks in
Florida, Texas, Arizona, And The People's Republic of Kalifonia. Can't
get
rid of em either. Washington will come down hard on anyone who tries.


That is really getting a lot harder to do here. The cops have lap tops
in their cars, insurance coverage is available in real time and that
is probable cause for a stop, a ticket and that immigration check
everyone on the left is so ****ed about. Driving a junker without
insurance is the express lane to Krome Avenue (the ICE detention
center)


There is reason for hope then. Stop em in the border states and send em
home. That will surely impact most all of our entitlement programs.

Florida is not really a border state unless you are Cuban or Haitian.


flajim is a retired navy boy...he gets an entitlement check every month.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:42:29 -0500, Ziggy® wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:31:08 -0500, Ziggy® wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:47:52 -0800, wrote:

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


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.

Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones
we live in.


I'll bet there are a lot of uninsured Mexicans driving their wrecks in
Florida, Texas, Arizona, And The People's Republic of Kalifonia. Can't
get
rid of em either. Washington will come down hard on anyone who tries.


That is really getting a lot harder to do here. The cops have lap tops
in their cars, insurance coverage is available in real time and that
is probable cause for a stop, a ticket and that immigration check
everyone on the left is so ****ed about. Driving a junker without
insurance is the express lane to Krome Avenue (the ICE detention
center)


There is reason for hope then. Stop em in the border states and send em
home. That will surely impact most all of our entitlement programs.

Florida is not really a border state unless you are Cuban or Haitian.


My mistake. You don't have an illegal problem?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:42:31 -0800, wrote:

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


There are tens of thousands of "fracked" wells operating with
absolutely zero problems. This is a made for TV problem.

How many more wells do you think we should drill?

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/f...ylvania-201006

http://dmaview.newsvine.com/_news/20...ing-denouement

You don't want the EPA to even exist, so of course you don't want to
wait for their determination.


You can find problems with every form of energy production. You are
the one who gave me the list of nuclear accidents.
Compare the number of accidents to the number of reactors, the danger
posed by those accidents and get back to me about a few fracked wells
that cause a problem.

So, read again where I said standardization and regulation.

Then we can start comparing that to Exxon Valdez and BP or the never
ending wars in the middl;e east.

I thought 9/11 only cost $500M?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

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

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

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?


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.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

You're going to compare the US with the soviets????

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

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.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.