|
Winning elections is not good enough
|
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... 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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
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? |
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... 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. 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... |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... 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 The issues is that the government requires too much money from the citizens. If the citizens really knew how much of their money was being confiscated from them each year they surely would think twice about who the voted into office and who they re-elected. From me personally I could use the tax money I am forced to pay to purchase a luxury vehicle in the MB category for cash each year. |
Winning elections is not good enough
wrote in message
... 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. Dollars to donuts the soldier is better trained than the union slug too. What a bargain it would be to have the idle GI repairing some of our infrastructure. Want bridges that don't collapse and multi billion dollar tunnels that don't crumble and leak? Don't contract with union contractors. |
Winning elections is not good enough
wrote in message
... 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. It must be frustrating trying to win points from someone who doesn't even acknowledge the facts you present. |
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
"True North" wrote in message
... They would have to pry our universal medical care from our cold dead fingers. See.... believe it or not, our medical care is as important to us as guns to a lot of 'mericans. Hoo boy! Is psychiatric care free up there? |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:55:19 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , payer3389 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? I hope he noticed that it's possible to respond to a post without all the childish name-calling. Oh, and quit being so rational. |
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
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. |
Winning elections is not good enough
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? |
Winning elections is not good enough
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? |
Winning elections is not good enough
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???? |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500, John H
wrote: 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. It absolutely must be a slow process. You, I'm sure, are fine with devastating the economies of two countries (Germany for example, and ours), but most people have half a brain. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:15:26 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500, John H wrote: 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. I think he's a liar, so why would I believe this? Perhaps he's got some pictures of himself standing next to a burning oil well... I doubt it. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:00:34 -0500, wrote:
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. You believe you have to have car insurance in order to buy a car? Do you think some kid is going to rush right out and buy that expensive insurance? |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:03:36 -0500, wrote:
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) I'm just wondering... if an illegal and perhaps illiterate (in English) Mexican can buy a car and not have insurance, why would it be difficult for a presumably English speaking/reading teen to do the same thing? Why do you presume that the police are going to be randomly stopping teens to get them to prove they have said insurance? So, basically the kid will spend the money and buy the car, and not get any insurance unless forced to by a parent, or he'll just get in a wreck at some point. If we're LUCKY he'll get stopped, but even not having insurance is just a fine/fix-it-like ticket, so they don't take away the car on the spot. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:11:45 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:50:17 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:33:35 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:10:55 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: 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? Everyone likes voting themselves generous gifts from the government. It is when they have to actually pay the bill that they are in the street burning tires and carrying signs. Lets see how all of those socialist countries are doing when their boomers hit their system. They average age of Europeans is older and out-pacing our average age. Don't believe me? Look it up. I know it, that is why some of them are burning tires and carrying signs. Greece was first of the PIIGS to blow up but they are all in trouble. It has already started in UK. You just can't fight demographics. 2 or 3 kids can not support a retired person and maintain their own lifestyle, especially when that retired person expects the same lifestyle he had when he was working. Before you ask, I live on about a third of my working salary. Good for you, but as I've said, we aren't Greece. People want to come here, do business, protect their money. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... 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. So somehow that's bad, but Don getting a govt check each month is good? |
Winning elections is not good enough
"HarryisPaul" wrote in message
... In article , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. So somehow that's bad, but Don getting a govt check each month is good? Krause is just a tool. He's working hard for the Republican party to insure there is no one left on the planet who would vote Democrat this next election. I'm sure he is also partly responsible for the weak showing the unions are making in recent years. If Flajim is retired military, he deserves all the pension money he can get his hands on, It's not entitlement, it's earned. Same for Social Security. Call that return on investment. Entitlements are what illegals, certain minorities, slackers and liberals think they are owed just because they are standing on American soil. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:45:32 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:56:31 -0800, wrote: 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. Maybe there is something on Pennsylvania that makes fracking a problem there or it could just be the particular operator but compared to a nuke accident or an oil spill this is trivial. Or, maybe it's an industry-wide problem about to happen elsewhere. Do you object to some research to find out or should we just drill baby drill? 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? It cost Bin Laden less than a half million to do $2 trillion (your number, probably low) in damage. That is a pretty good return on investment. Imagine what they could do with a couple million (a small ransom these days) Imagine if you were a poor, illiterate fisherman, and suddenly came into $10000... I bet the first thing you would do would be to plan a sophisticated attack on the US. NOT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com