The real numbers ...
 

On 5/15/14, 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 15:29:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Fret not, Bill: the GOPers are blocking infrastructure improvement, too.

They are simply saying we should be paying for it. I agree they are
not willing to actually raise the taxes to do it tho.
That is where I part with all of those guys. We should ALL be paying
higher taxes and THAT money should be put into infrastructure.
The best way to do it is through user taxes like the gas tax. The
problem is our government steals that money and spends it in other
places so we are skeptical when they want to raise the tax.

Exactly. California has for years stolen the gas tax money, and given
an IOU, and transferred the money to the general fund. We passed a law
that said gas tax money had to be be spent on roads except in a fiscal
crises. We are still not out of a fiscal crises here in Calif. And as
to building infrastructure. We are not! We are sort of doing
maintenance on aging infrastructure. And with no real jobs, how are we
going to pay for that work? Government can not pay for the work. They
can only pass on money collected via taxes, or now by creating faux
money. Which means we have to pay those bills again, but with inflated
dollars. Ask Hillary how are we going to create jobs? Ask all the
candidates. We have let a group of "environmentalists" who figure any
mining or manufacturing is bad for the environment. With that group
pretty much in control, we are not go to survive as a nation. We are
going to be a bankrupt, as Harry how that works out, nation, and the
environment will really go to hell. Burning wood for heat, etc.
Rusting vehicles littering the landscape, and no knowledge how to
actually manufacture stuff by those young enough to work.

The real numbers ...
 

On 5/19/14, 7:04 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 5/15/14, 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 15:29:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Fret not, Bill: the GOPers are blocking infrastructure improvement, too.

They are simply saying we should be paying for it. I agree they are
not willing to actually raise the taxes to do it tho.
That is where I part with all of those guys. We should ALL be paying
higher taxes and THAT money should be put into infrastructure.
The best way to do it is through user taxes like the gas tax. The
problem is our government steals that money and spends it in other
places so we are skeptical when they want to raise the tax.

Exactly. California has for years stolen the gas tax money, and given
an IOU, and transferred the money to the general fund. We passed a law
that said gas tax money had to be be spent on roads except in a fiscal
crises. We are still not out of a fiscal crises here in Calif. And as
to building infrastructure. We are not! We are sort of doing
maintenance on aging infrastructure. And with no real jobs, how are we
going to pay for that work? Government can not pay for the work. They
can only pass on money collected via taxes, or now by creating faux
money. Which means we have to pay those bills again, but with inflated
dollars. Ask Hillary how are we going to create jobs? Ask all the
candidates. We have let a group of "environmentalists" who figure any
mining or manufacturing is bad for the environment. With that group
pretty much in control, we are not go to survive as a nation. We are
going to be a bankrupt, as Harry how that works out, nation, and the
environment will really go to hell. Burning wood for heat, etc. Rusting
vehicles littering the landscape, and no knowledge how to actually
manufacture stuff by those young enough to work.

Yeah, what good is the environment, anyway?
From Salon:

Just when we thought we were making the first steps toward transparency
in fracking — in the form of EPA indicating it might require frackers,
at long last, to reveal the names of the chemicals they blast into the
ground in order to extract oil and gas — three GOP state senators in
North Carolina stepped in to put a stop to all that.

The senators, who seemed to have taken a page out of the ag-gag book,
last week introduced a bill that would slap any individual who disclosed
information about confidential chemicals with a felony charge. Such
individuals could include fire chiefs and health care providers, who
might require access to the information in order to respond to
emergencies. Environmental groups see the provision allowing for easy
access to that information as a good thing, but worry about the bill’s
harsh terms for making sure those in-the-know keep it to themselves.
Here’s more from Mother Jones:

“The felony provision is far stricter than most states’ provisions
in terms of the penalty for violating trade secrets,” says Hannah
Wiseman, a Florida State University assistant law professor who studies
fracking regulations.

The bill also allows companies that own the chemical information to
require emergency responders to sign a confidentiality agreement. And
it’s not clear what the penalty would be for a health care worker or
fire chief who spoke about their experiences with chemical accidents to
colleagues.

“I think the only penalties to fire chiefs and doctors, if they
talked about it at their annual conference, would be the penalties
contained in the confidentiality agreement,” says Wiseman. “But [the
bill] is so poorly worded, I cannot confirm that if an emergency
responder or fire chief discloses that confidential information, they
too would not be subject to a felony.” In some sections, she says, “That
appears to be the case.”

While 20 states have passed some sort of regulation requiring disclose
of chemicals to the public, many have made like North Carolina intends
to and protected the information as a “trade secret.” What makes this
newest effort different — and more worrisome — Wiseman told Mother
Jones, is how far it takes the penalty. As EnergyWire reports,
individuals who leak information about those potentially leaking
chemicals face both fine and prison time.

http://tinyurl.com/l44lbpc

The real numbers ...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/19/14, 7:04 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 5/15/14, 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 15:29:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Fret not, Bill: the GOPers are blocking infrastructure improvement, too.

They are simply saying we should be paying for it. I agree they are
not willing to actually raise the taxes to do it tho.
That is where I part with all of those guys. We should ALL be paying
higher taxes and THAT money should be put into infrastructure.
The best way to do it is through user taxes like the gas tax. The
problem is our government steals that money and spends it in other
places so we are skeptical when they want to raise the tax.

Exactly. California has for years stolen the gas tax money, and given
an IOU, and transferred the money to the general fund. We passed a law
that said gas tax money had to be be spent on roads except in a fiscal
crises. We are still not out of a fiscal crises here in Calif. And as
to building infrastructure. We are not! We are sort of doing
maintenance on aging infrastructure. And with no real jobs, how are we
going to pay for that work? Government can not pay for the work. They
can only pass on money collected via taxes, or now by creating faux
money. Which means we have to pay those bills again, but with inflated
dollars. Ask Hillary how are we going to create jobs? Ask all the
candidates. We have let a group of "environmentalists" who figure any
mining or manufacturing is bad for the environment. With that group
pretty much in control, we are not go to survive as a nation. We are
going to be a bankrupt, as Harry how that works out, nation, and the
environment will really go to hell. Burning wood for heat, etc. Rusting
vehicles littering the landscape, and no knowledge how to actually
manufacture stuff by those young enough to work.

Yeah, what good is the environment, anyway?
From Salon:

Just when we thought we were making the first steps toward transparency
in fracking — in the form of EPA indicating it might require frackers, at
long last, to reveal the names of the chemicals they blast into the
ground in order to extract oil and gas — three GOP state senators in
North Carolina stepped in to put a stop to all that.

The senators, who seemed to have taken a page out of the ag-gag book,
last week introduced a bill that would slap any individual who disclosed
information about confidential chemicals with a felony charge. Such
individuals could include fire chiefs and health care providers, who
might require access to the information in order to respond to
emergencies. Environmental groups see the provision allowing for easy
access to that information as a good thing, but worry about the bill’s
harsh terms for making sure those in-the-know keep it to themselves.
Here’s more from Mother Jones:

“The felony provision is far stricter than most states’ provisions in
terms of the penalty for violating trade secrets,� says Hannah Wiseman, a
Florida State University assistant law professor who studies fracking regulations.

The bill also allows companies that own the chemical information to
require emergency responders to sign a confidentiality agreement. And
it’s not clear what the penalty would be for a health care worker or fire
chief who spoke about their experiences with chemical accidents to colleagues.

“I think the only penalties to fire chiefs and doctors, if they
talked about it at their annual conference, would be the penalties
contained in the confidentiality agreement,� says Wiseman. “But [the
bill] is so poorly worded, I cannot confirm that if an emergency
responder or fire chief discloses that confidential information, they too
would not be subject to a felony.� In some sections, she says, “That
appears to be the case.�

While 20 states have passed some sort of regulation requiring disclose of
chemicals to the public, many have made like North Carolina intends to
and protected the information as a “trade secret.� What makes this newest
effort different — and more worrisome — Wiseman told Mother Jones, is how
far it takes the penalty. As EnergyWire reports, individuals who leak
information about those potentially leaking chemicals face both fine and prison time.

http://tinyurl.com/l44lbpc

The environment needs to be cared for, but stopping all mining and
manufacturing does not make for a long lived economic environment, but for
a country that fails. What is the environment going to be like, during a
massive recession?