|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed congressmen. Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA. Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he received while in high school and the marins. er, marines. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article , dump-on-
says... On 7/18/12 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed congressmen. Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA. Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he received while in high school and the marins. er, marines. Don will surely chastise you for that. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote: If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The German system is not single payer. True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions. Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 7:13 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote: If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The German system is not single payer. True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions. Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes. Lots of countries have universal health care, but we don't. Further, for a number of illnesses and for the indigent, the waiting periods to get into a publicly funded facility can run a half year or more. In the Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the indigent facing serious mental health issues. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote: If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The German system is not single payer. True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions. Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes. They may be exempted from paying it but it is part of their total compensation. If they were exempted the employers would have to pay them more so that they could pay the "tax." |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: In the Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the indigent facing serious mental health issues. ======== That appears to be true in Maryland also. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 11:28 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man wrote: In the Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the indigent facing serious mental health issues. ======== That appears to be true in Maryland also. Next time you are in Maryland, I'm sure my wife can find you a therapist who charges on a sliding scale. It's always "the right" that pokes fun at the indigent population, like that in Seattle, who can't get medical services. Assholes, all of you. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com