It's Hard Out Here for a Pump
Alohacyberian
prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil
in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who
shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to
poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.
Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has
been one of the left's main policy goals for years.
For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so
that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding
on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.
The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the
presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military
and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to
propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think
the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This
is the Democratic Party. That's their program.
Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out"
of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire
package."
And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then
we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of
gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal
car-driving, no matter how much it cost.
Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an
additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an
atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities
such as commerce, travel and food production.
Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose,"
saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But
that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry
that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some
revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the
same as a quarter -- another testimonial to the American public educational
system.
The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and
consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional
4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters
would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom
Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.
Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a
president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption
taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a
50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's
stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."
Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out
their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance
policy" against global warming.
Just two months ago, we were being confidently told -- on the basis of a New
York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true -- that "Americans might OK a
gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence
on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming
Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times'
"meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich
presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.
How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of
gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is
it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to
surrender in the war on terrorism?
It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats
can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars
because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!
The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal
government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get
another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the
fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE
SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!
When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do
through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the
public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda
~ Ann Coulter, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pump", April 26, 2006
~ http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14359&o=ANN001
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Don Homuth
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline
Oh nonsense on its face!
The tax amount is not high, and it is a User Fee, without which folks
wouldn't have roads to drive on if they had tax-free gasoline.
>... to force people to ride bicycles has
>been one of the left's main policy goals for years.
And yet, no one has been Forced to do so at all. Nor can you point to
Anyone who has been Forced to do so.
Your whine is content-free altogether.
Chris Bellomy
: I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas
: in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who
: shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
Yeah, but you're Ann Coulter, so nobody cares what you're
interested in. Your time has passed.
BTW, all the oil in Alaska and all the refineries we want to build
won't make a dent in our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If Reagan
hadn't gutted our alternative energy programs, we wouldn't be in
this mess right now.
Also, Ann and Keith, if you like nuclear power so much, go live next
to a nuclear plant. Until then, STFU.
Mitchell Holman
news:Ivf4g.4062$eR6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high
> gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill
> for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new
> refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this
> country decades ago.
Don't forget those ultra-liberal ecofreaks who
blocked any oil drilling in Florida.
"I'm going to work with your governor on offshore
drilling here in Florida. We're both against it."
George Bush, opposing oil drilling in Florida, Oct 2000
"I would work with Gov. Jeb Bush to support an offshore
drilling ban in Florida."
George Bush, August 1999
samurai
> In dfw.politics Alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> : I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas
> : prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil
> : in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who
> : shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
>
> Yeah, but you're Ann Coulter, so nobody cares what you're
> interested in. Your time has passed.
Your commentary is NEVER needed!
> BTW, all the oil in Alaska and all the refineries we want to build
> won't make a dent in our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
A LIE!
It would cut us back by 5%.
> If Reagan
> hadn't gutted our alternative energy programs, we wouldn't be in
> this mess right now.
If Carter hadn't windfall profit taxed the oil companies to HELL they'd
have explored and found more domestic product.
> Also, Ann and Keith, if you like nuclear power so much, go live next
> to a nuclear plant. Until then, STFU.
Why don't you go fuck yourself you useless amoeba.
samurai
viewline!
Chris Bellomy
: Why don't you go fuck yourself you useless amoeba.
Sam, you're so hostile. Don't you ever get laid?
samurai
Chris, have you found your g spot yet?
NeoLibertarian
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:56:40 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline
>
> Oh nonsense on its face!
>
> The tax amount is not high, and it is a User Fee, without which folks
> wouldn't have roads to drive on if they had tax-free gasoline.
Yeah? What makes you think gasoline tax goes for roads? Or that FICA
goes for Social Security, for that matter?
--
NeoLibertarian
Chris Bellomy
Randy Cox
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:Ivf4g.4062$eR6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas
>prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for
>oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and
>who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
There are two reasons why refusing to let "us" drill for oil in Alaska and
shutting down nuclear power. Both of these technologies require integrity.
I've worked in two nuclear plants and a working refinery. I worked for
Brown and Root! I've never seen worse engineering in my life that at
Comanche Peak, Glenrose Texas. Beneath the main dome, huge pipes of 48 inch
in diameter intertwined like spagetti over a huge containment area. The
pipes were to carry off cooling water and steam, water to cool the
reactor.of pipes , and steam which eventually was used to run a steam coal
plant in Grandbury which I also worked on but that was ten years later.
Those pipes were 48 inches in diameter and connected together via flanges
bolted together. Below it all was huge numbers of electrical panels and
controls.
All the conduits that entered the top of those panels were connected via
double lock nut. That means a hole was punched in the top of the cabinets
and the conduits entered secured by a lock nut on top of the enclosure and
one on the bottom. They were not sealing locknuts..........and they
certainly were not Meirs hubs or any other water proof system. Should one
of those pipes above spring a leak, which was inevitable, resulting in a
high pressure stream of water, those non-water tight locknut systems would
have failed allowing water to enter sensitive fail safe control systems. It
was absurd...unbelievable.
Huge racks of pipe were built with vertical unistrut hangers from the
ceiling. The tops were secured by L brackets fastened with one, sometimes
two bolts which can easily slide if the bolt was loosened from vibration.
Again, the horizontal unistrut bracket was secured to a vertical one via L
bracket fitting which can slide and give way. I've worked heavy industrial
projects all over America, and I've never seen vertical strut used in this
fashion, unless it was welded........and then it wouldn't be supporting ten
or fifteen 4 inch conduits with heavy wire inside.
I quit that project and never worked for Brown and Root again. It was my
second time to work for them, but never more. All that work had to be
undone and re-engineered at huge expense to Texas power users. Later Texas
utilities called me to testify in hearings against Brown and Root, but they
changed their mind when the found out I had as much bad stuff to say about
them as I did Brown and Root.
I love nuclear technology......but as human beings in our current culture we
just don't have the integrity to do this stuff right. We could do it
safely........but we just can't refrain from cheating on the specs.
>
> The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the
> presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the
> military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business
> was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas.
> I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus
> station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.
It would be hard for the truth of this to get through your skull but the
first Bush used the gas tax money to offset deficit tax revenue. Instead of
using it to patch the roads, he put it in a trust fund and transfered it to
the general fund leaving a worthless IOU in the the trust fund. Later his
son would explain that these IOUs were bogus monies in both the highway
funds and the social security lock box.
The roads under the first Bush deteriorated so badly some bridges and
overpasses actually fell. Clinton used the revenue from the gas tax to
rebuild roads and bridges all over America. It put people to work, but more
importantly it renewed our highway systems and increased productivity via
more efficient transportation. Neos (nazi-economic people who quote Keynes
like he was Moses) don't understand full economic capital investment outside
corperate welfare.
You spend borrowed money to subsidize business and corperate consumption but
you don't invest in infraststructure..
>
> Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming
> out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the
> entire package."
>
> And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back
> then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind
> of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal
> car-driving, no matter how much it cost.
You had enough electoral votes to win, but you didn't have a majority untill
the last election......then in three months the people wised up. Turns out
the insanity was on your side. The ideas of Al Gore look pretty good today.
Your foolish president is nation building to 200 billion dollars and failing
miserably. No, you are not qualified to judge insanity. You fail, fail,
and fail again and continue to try the same solutions expecting a different
result.
>
> Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a
> president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption
> taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a
> 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's
> stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."
Well, your side continues to spend money and stack up the bills for your
children. You don't pay your way. You are dead beats. Your grandchildren
will loathe you for what you are doing.
a Dennis Kucinich
> presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.
I didn't vote for Kucinich, but you talk nonsense. Yours is the party of
the free ice cream, raising the pie for everyone. You spend; you don't pay.
Bush is a deadbeat and a destroyer of the dollar in times to come. Gas is
up, commodities are up. That is inflation! It is caused by massive debt.
> When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do
> through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping
> the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda
> ~ Ann Coulter, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pump", April 26, 2006
With vision we could have controlled our destiny. With rampant spending, it
is out of control.
Randy R. Cox
samurai
Ah yes, the dreaded sucking general fund!
samurai
> In dfw.politics samurai <s...@rai.ki> wrote:
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> : > In dfw.politics samurai <s...@rai.ki> wrote:
> : >
> : > : Why don't you go fuck yourself you useless amoeba.
> : >
> : > Sam, you're so hostile. Don't you ever get laid?
> :
> : Chris, have you found your g spot yet?
>
> Why the fascination?
<chuckle>
lein
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:56:40 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline
>
> Oh nonsense on its face!
>
> The tax amount is not high, and it is a User Fee, without which folks
> wouldn't have roads to drive on if they had tax-free gasoline.
No it's not, it's purpose was to build the interstates. Now that they
are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
maintenance.
A road user fee would be based on actual road usage and money collected
would go towards road projects, not floating river walks.
While we're talking about taxes, the Spanish American war has been paid
off for some time so why are we still paying the federal phone taxes?
lein
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> In dfw.politics Alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> : I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas
> : prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil
> : in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who
> : shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
>
> Yeah, but you're Ann Coulter, so nobody cares what you're
> interested in. Your time has passed.
>
> BTW, all the oil in Alaska and all the refineries we want to build
> won't make a dent in our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If Reagan
> hadn't gutted our alternative energy programs, we wouldn't be in
> this mess right now.
Speaking of foreign presidents, if Jimmy Carter wasn't asleep at the
wheel when Iran became a fascist Islamic state and didn't invent Al
Qaeta in Afghanistan...
>
> Also, Ann and Keith, if you like nuclear power so much, go live next
> to a nuclear plant. Until then, STFU.
I grew up near TMI. So tell us, why is you energy burning computer
turned on?
cor
Alohacyberian wrote:
>
> I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas
> prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil
> in Alaska,
Don't be stupid. Drilling in Alaska is trivial for the price of oil.
Something tells me that it has something to do with the idiotic US president's
bomb threats against yet another oil producing country. ... and to the
opportunity for the oil companies to schedule refinery maintenance at such
very profitable moments.
Alohacyberian
news:1146196613....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Federal and state governments have enacted "punitive" taxes and other taxes
more than once since the 70s. Does he think there weren't any roads prior
to that? Sounds sorta like the mentality that thinks there was no art
before federal funding and that AIDS is caused by lack of federal
funding.... as mentioned in Articles #1 & #4 of the Politically Correct
"Official Elitist Leftwing Liberal Handbook". ;-) KM
~ The Politically Correct "Official Elitist Leftwing Liberal Handbook"
~ http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html
Alohacyberian
news:1T33ulp...@redshark.goodshow.net...
> In dfw.politics Alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> : I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high
> gas
> : prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for
> oil
> : in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and
> who
> : shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
>
> won't make a dent in our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If Reagan
> hadn't gutted our alternative energy programs, we wouldn't be in
> this mess right now.
>
Uh-huh. So why didn't Bill Clinton restore them to their former glory? And
why is it so many people think these sorts of problems have to be solved by
government? KM
Alohacyberian
news:125356g...@corp.supernews.com...
Still and all, in the United States, nuclear energy is hands down the safest
method of producing energy and has had the fewest casualties. KM
Randy Cox
> "Randy Cox" <ran...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:125356g...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ivf4g.4062$eR6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> we just don't have the integrity to do this stuff right. We could do it
>> safely........but we just can't refrain from cheating on the specs.
>>
>
> Still and all, in the United States, nuclear energy is hands down the
> safest method of producing energy and has had the fewest casualties. KM
> --
Yes, you are correct. If we went by actuarial numbers, nuclear power would
definitely be the least costly in terms of lost lives. As a cost per
kilowatt hour I believe it is the most costly when the life expectancy of
the nuclear plant is included as a cost.
As poor as our integrity is, it is far greater than the Russians i.e..
Chernobyl, but the risk of a total meltdown also has to be considered.
We've never had one of those, but that fact doesn't mean that we can't.
So I have to admit you have a point! It is a little like football fans
arguing about whether the quarterback should try a hail Mary pass or a side
line pass and run. It would be a lot easier to know who is
right............on the following Monday morning.
Randy R. Cox
Curt
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> In dfw.politics samurai <s...@rai.ki> wrote:
>
> : Why don't you go fuck yourself you useless amoeba.
>
> Sam, you're so hostile. Don't you ever get laid?
Sure she does, but she always blacks out after, so she never remembers.
Curt
Curt
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:Ivf4g.4062$eR6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for
oil
> in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and
who
> shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
Because Ann Coulter is paid, and well, to NOT be interested in what the Dems
say.
Curt
Larry (Scratch)
hey cur, use use oil in your car? Or oil you bike? Or run a lawn mower?
Tell us how you LIVE your convictions!
--
"Every concession leads to aggression"
Putin, 2005
gatt
"Alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:Ivf4g.4062$eR6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>prices
Your President is not a Democrat. Your tired rant about the Dems being
responsible has played itself out.
Your President is not a Democrat. Do you understand?
Your President is not a Democrat.
Larry (Scratch)
Yet, his social agenda says something quite different now doesn't it.
Lot of us capitalist conservative religious Republicans have a real
problem with that.
gatt
"cor" <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
news:4451C95E...@exchangenet.net...
> Something tells me that it has something to do with the idiotic US
> president's
> bomb threats against yet another oil producing country.
Bush hasn't made bomb threats and except for your friends in North Korea,
Russia and China, the rest of the UN rather agrees with Bush on the matter.
Not only that, but in a previous post you were blaming on Exxon.
Get your message straight or shut the fuck up.
At some point, you should ascend from the ridiculous. You remove
credibility from any cause you support.
-c
gatt
> Federal and state governments have enacted "punitive" taxes and other
> taxes more than once since the 70s.
Cite. Somebody else already shot down your "half-of-it-is-taxes" nonsense.
-c
Chris Bellomy
: > In dfw.politics Alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
: > : I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high
: > gas
: > : prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for
: > oil
: > : in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and
: > who
: > : shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
: >
: > BTW, all the oil in Alaska and all the refineries we want to build
: > won't make a dent in our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If Reagan
: > hadn't gutted our alternative energy programs, we wouldn't be in
: > this mess right now.
:
: Uh-huh. So why didn't Bill Clinton restore them to their former glory?
Because Bill Clinton was a shitty president, that's why.
Unlike you, I'm not a blind partisan hack.
Chris Bellomy
: On 27 Apr 2006 22:55:26 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
: wrote:
:
: >No it's not, it's purpose was to build the interstates. Now that they
: >are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
: >maintenance.
: Chuckle. You really are clueless as to what simple "maintenance"
: costs. Or how much new highway capacity is built every year.
I guess he hasn't noticed that our infrastructure is crumbling
as it is. But he never has been terribly bright.
Larry (Scratch)
> On 27 Apr 2006 22:55:26 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>> are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
>> maintenance.
>
>
> costs. Or how much new highway capacity is built every year.
Due to what? Union labor costs?
> ____
>
> Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
> putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
gatt
"Larry (Scratch)" <Scr...@Tigard.OR.com> wrote in message
news:d_2dnUoHY7S...@comcast.com...
>> Your President is not a Democrat. Do you understand?
>>
>> Your President is not a Democrat.
> Yet, his social agenda says something quite different now doesn't it. Lot
> of us capitalist conservative religious Republicans have a real problem
> with that.
You "capitalist conservative religious Republicans" nominated him, elected
him and reelected him. Lots of people have a problem with that. You REAP
what you f'ckin' SOW.
-c
Larry (Scratch)
> ours as it gets scarcer and ore valuable.
> ____
>
> Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
> putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Keep this post in mind when your paying $10 a gallon at the pump if you
live in the USA
Chris Bellomy
: retro...@comcast.net wrote:
: > On 27 Apr 2006 22:55:26 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> No it's not, it's purpose was to build the interstates. Now that they
: >> are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
: >> maintenance.
: >
: >
: > Chuckle. You really are clueless as to what simple "maintenance"
: > costs. Or how much new highway capacity is built every year.
:
: Due to what? Union labor costs?
Cute. Blame the regular guys just trying to make a living, while
CEO salaries skyrocket.
Larry (Scratch)
And if given EXACTLY the same choices again and he could run I would
vote for him again!
gatt
>>
>>> Yet, his social agenda says something quite different now doesn't it.
>>> Lot of us capitalist conservative religious Republicans have a real
>>> problem with that.
>>
>> You "capitalist conservative religious Republicans" nominated him,
>> elected him and reelected him. Lots of people have a problem with that.
>> You REAP what you f'ckin' SOW.
> And if given EXACTLY the same choices again and he could run I would vote
> for him again!
Perhaps. But perhaps the Republicans wouldn't have had this "real problem"
if they'd have not nominated the guy in the first place.
It's kinda like Dems bitching about Kerry or Gore. You bought it, you got
it. Now you're stuck with it.
-c
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:56:40 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
>> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline
>>
>> Oh nonsense on its face!
>>
>> The tax amount is not high, and it is a User Fee, without which folks
>> wouldn't have roads to drive on if they had tax-free gasoline.
>
>Yeah? What makes you think gasoline tax goes for roads? Or that FICA
>goes for Social Security, for that matter?
I read the budgets for roads on the dedicated funds.
Chris Bellomy
: It's kinda like Dems bitching about Kerry or Gore. You bought it, you got
: it. Now you're stuck with it.
I have a real problem with this notion of collective guilt.
Exactly what did *you* do to get us better nominees? At least
*I* tried.
Don Homuth
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:56:40 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
>> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline
>>
>> Oh nonsense on its face!
>>
>> The tax amount is not high, and it is a User Fee, without which folks
>> wouldn't have roads to drive on if they had tax-free gasoline.
>
>
>No it's not, it's purpose was to build the interstates.
Once again, you are Wrong.
Gasoline taxes were instituted well prior to the Interstates.
> Now that they
>are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
>maintenance.
There is no Minimum for maintenance. Roads wear out, and must be
Replaced -- at a far higher cost than initially building them
>A road user fee would be based on actual road usage and money collected
>would go towards road projects, not floating river walks.
The gas tax is a reasonable approximation of a user fee. The larger
the vehicle, the greater the road wear, the lower the mileage and the
more money paid.
It's not Perfect, but being Approximately Right is not the same as
being Absolutely Wrong.
It does have the substantial advantage of being easy to collect and
administer, which is not inconsequential in such matters. It will be
Far more difficult and expensive to transition to a true Weight/Mile
tax -- which should be the way it's done, and doubtles Will be in the
future.
It could Not have been done in the past with any reasonable
administrative efficiency.
>While we're talking about taxes, the Spanish American war has been paid
>off for some time so why are we still paying the federal phone taxes?
There are other wars.
gatt
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : Due to what? Union labor costs?
>
> Cute. Blame the regular guys just trying to make a living, while
> CEO salaries skyrocket.
LOL! Seriously.
I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar "get
lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
bitching about labor costs.
-c
gatt
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : It's kinda like Dems bitching about Kerry or Gore. You bought it, you
> got
> : it. Now you're stuck with it.
>
> I have a real problem with this notion of collective guilt.
That's fair.
> Exactly what did *you* do to get us better nominees?
Voted for who I thought was best. But, see, I lost. That means I can
complain about the guy that's elected knowing that I'm not one of the
jackasses who put him there, reelected him and then claim to have "real
problems" with him. The "real problems" just might have been what a whole
bunch of people were trying to tell them about before he was reelected.
-c
Chris Bellomy
:
: > : Due to what? Union labor costs?
: >
: > Cute. Blame the regular guys just trying to make a living, while
: > CEO salaries skyrocket.
:
: LOL! Seriously.
I live in Texas. AFAIK, there aren't any labor unions driving
up the cost of road maintenance here.
: I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar "get
: lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
: bitching about labor costs.
Oh, you were agreeing with me. Heh. :)
Chris Bellomy
:
: > : It's kinda like Dems bitching about Kerry or Gore. You bought it, you
: > got
: > : it. Now you're stuck with it.
: >
: > I have a real problem with this notion of collective guilt.
:
: That's fair.
:
: > Exactly what did *you* do to get us better nominees?
:
: Voted for who I thought was best. But, see, I lost.
OK, then you know how I feel.
Thing is, I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry. (I didn't even
vote for Gore in the general election, but I damn sure didn't
vote for George the Petulant Emperor Child.) But once Kerry
got the nomination, I did everything I could for him because
the alternative was, well... let's just say that we could have
picked a name out of the phone book and had at least an 80%
chance of getting more effective leadership.
(Which leads me to my kooky plan to reform our government:
"Congress duty" along the lines of jury duty. If the computer
picks your name, you serve for a year. The pay is good, though.)
samurai
samurai
samurai
samurai
samurai
Let's get one thing straight: The oil levy imposed in 1980 was called
the "crude oil windfall profit tax" (WPT). Note the singular "profit," a
useful reminder that this tax should never be confused with the "excess
profits tax" imposed during World War I, World War II, and the Korean
War. "The windfall profits tax has nothing to do, in fact, with
profits," observed The Washington Post in 1979. "It is an excise tax --
that is, a tax on each barrel of oil produced."
In 1980 Congress enacted the WPT when it ended oil price controls. The
controls were a remnant of President Richard Nixon's general wage and
price freeze, implemented in 1971. While most of Nixon's price controls
expired in 1973, Congress extended oil regulation through 1981. Worried
over the rising cost of home heating oil as well as a general run-up in
world petroleum prices, legislators decided to keep a lid on domestic
oil prices.
From the start, opponents worked tirelessly to abolish oil price
controls. Most plans for repeal included some sort of windfall profit
tax, either as a sop to disaffected lawmakers or as part of a genuine
effort to balance the scales of economic justice. In 1974 President
Gerald Ford proposed such a compromise, and the Senate Finance Committee
approved a version of the WPT in 1975. Ultimately, however, it fell to
President Jimmy Carter to make the bargain stick. In April 1979 he
introduced plans to lift price controls gradually over the subsequent
18-month period. In tandem, he offered a new tax on oil production.
"Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved
windfall profits," Carter declared in a nationwide address. Americans
had a right to recapture some of that windfall and put it to good use.
Carter suggested that the revenue be earmarked for mass transit, oil
price relief for poor families, and the development of alternative
energy sources.
Structure of the Tax
After considerable wrangling, Congress agreed, and on April 2, 1980,
Carter signed the WPT into law (P.L. 96-223). Lawmakers had imposed an
excise levy on domestic oil production, taxing the difference between
the market price of oil and a predetermined base price. The base price
was derived from 1979 oil prices, and it required annual adjustments for
inflation and state severance taxes. (For an excellent description of
the tax, its structure, and its legislative odyssey, see the fine
postmortem published in 1990 by Salvatore Lazzari of the Congressional
Research Service, Doc 90-6824 or 90 TNT 198-43 .)
Virtually all domestic oil production was subject to the tax. (Some
types of oil were exempt, including any owned by state and local
governments, qualified educational or charitable organizations, or some
Indian tribes and individuals.) Every barrel of taxable oil was assigned
to one of three categories. Those "tiers," which were derived from
similar classifications in the oil price controls, were based on the age
of the oil well, the type of oil produced, and the amount of daily
production. Each tier had its own tax rate and its own base price. Tax
burdens also varied according to the type of producer; independent
companies paid a lower rate than major, integrated producers. Taken
together, those various factors produced a range of rates from 15
percent to 70 percent.
The WPT was collected on the first sale of taxable oil, typically when a
producer sold a barrel to a refiner. The refiner was required to
withhold applicable tax from the payment to the producer and deposit the
money semimonthly into an account. The purchaser filed quarterly returns
reflecting those collections.
The tax eventually succumbed to its own disappointing results. It had
proven to be a heavy administrative burden, both for taxpayers and the
IRS. Oil industry representatives claimed annual compliance costs of $40
million to $50 million. Press reports suggested the IRS was spending as
much as $15 million to collect the tax. Overall, it was a heavy cross to
bear, complained oil executives. In 1984 a General Accounting Office
report called the WPT "perhaps the largest and most complex tax ever
levied on a U.S. industry."
Worse, the tax had yielded less revenue than anticipated throughout its
existence -- and none at all in its later years. Oil prices had failed
to continue their dramatic rise; between 1980 and 1986, they had fallen
from $30 to just $10 per barrel. Meanwhile, the WPT's "base price" --
used to calculate tax liability -- had continued to rise with inflation,
as required by law. Squeezed from both sides of the equation, the tax
had become a negligible source of revenue.
In its eight years of existence, the WPT raised $79 billion in revenue,
the CRS later reported. But since those payments were deductible against
income, affected companies enjoyed a lower burden under the regular
corporate income tax, effectively reducing the net yield to about $40
billion -- a far cry from early hopes.
Meanwhile, domestic oil production had fallen to its lowest level in 20
years. While demand had continued to rise, domestic producers had fallen
behind in the search for new oil reserves. As a result, the United
States had increased its reliance on foreign oil supplies. According to
the American Petroleum Institute, the United States had derived about 32
percent of its energy from foreign sources in 1983. By 1986 that figure
had climbed to 38 percent. Some analysts expected the trend to continue,
although not everyone believed that taxes were driving the dynamic.
WPT opponents complained loud and long about this burdensome but
unproductive tax. "As long as the tax is not being collected, the
accounting requirements are needless," complained former Democratic
senator from Oklahoma David Boren in 1988. "They result in heavy burdens
for the private sector and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer." Those
arguments were particularly resonant as the oil industry struggled
through one of its deepest slumps. Lawmakers from leading oil states
were eager for repeal.
In August 1988 Congress agreed to repeal the tax. Few mourned its
passing. "Time for the windfall tax to fall," declared its erstwhile
champions at The New York Times. Events had overtaken the levy, as so
often happens with narrow taxes designed to deal with transient
phenomena. Did oil companies deserve to keep their windfall profits? "It
was a resentful question when Americans waited two hours in gasoline
lines and Saudi princes summered in Monaco," the Times recalled. "It
seems almost quaint now."
samurai
A lie.
mr_antone
<Scr...@Tigard.OR.com> wrote:
>retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2006 22:55:26 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No it's not, it's purpose was to build the interstates. Now that they
>>> are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
>>> maintenance.
>>
>>
>> Chuckle. You really are clueless as to what simple "maintenance"
>> costs. Or how much new highway capacity is built every year.
>
>Due to what? Union labor costs?
Do you jerk both knees at the same time or alternate one at a time?
mr_antone
Chris Bellomy
Sam, shut up. There are grown-ups here trying to have a
conversation.
samurai
Keanu Reeves draws for his next flic?
Well, do ya?
samurai
So did your candidate factor?
Or did you get Perot'd into a trojan horse vote for an insignificant 3rd
party satellite?
samurai
> In dfw.politics gatt <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:0T34073...@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :
> : > : It's kinda like Dems bitching about Kerry or Gore. You bought it, you
> : > got
> : > : it. Now you're stuck with it.
> : >
> : > I have a real problem with this notion of collective guilt.
> :
> : That's fair.
> :
> : > Exactly what did *you* do to get us better nominees?
> :
> : Voted for who I thought was best. But, see, I lost.
>
> OK, then you know how I feel.
>
> Thing is, I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry. (I didn't even
> vote for Gore in the general election, but I damn sure didn't
> vote for George the Petulant Emperor Child.) But once Kerry
> got the nomination, I did everything I could for him because
> the alternative was, well... let's just say that we could have
> picked a name out of the phone book and had at least an 80%
> chance of getting more effective leadership.
Tell me all about the Kerry energy plan....this should be a hoot!
samurai
> In dfw.politics samurai <s...@rai.ki> wrote:
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> : > In dfw.politics retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> : > : On 27 Apr 2006 22:55:26 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
> : > : wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >No it's not, it's purpose was to build the interstates. Now that they
> : > : >are built, the tax should go for except a very minimum amount for
> : > : >maintenance.
> : > :
> : > : Chuckle. You really are clueless as to what simple "maintenance"
> : > : costs. Or how much new highway capacity is built every year.
> : >
> : > I guess he hasn't noticed that our infrastructure is crumbling
> : > as it is.
> :
> : A lie.
>
> Sam, shut up.
Kiss my ass, boy.
Chris Bellomy
As long as it didn't involve stealing from the public at
large to fill his own pockets and those of his buddies,
it had no choice but to be an improvement over what we got.
samurai
Who stole from the public, eh???
CITE!
gatt
"samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
news:NHs4g.20674$%_1.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>> Federal and state governments have enacted "punitive" taxes and other
>>> taxes more than once since the 70s.
>>
>> Cite. Somebody else already shot down your "half-of-it-is-taxes"
>> nonsense.
> http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/edf8de04e58e4b14852570ba0048848b?OpenDocument
>
> Let's get one thing straight: The oil levy imposed in 1980 was called the
> "crude oil windfall profit tax" (WPT).
Was Aloha talking about "punitive taxes" against the driving public or the
oil industry? Maybe I misunderstood.
-c
gatt
>> I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar
>> "get lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
>> bitching about labor costs.
> Do you spend equal time crying about how much Barry Bonds makes, or what
> Keanu Reeves draws for his next flic?
>
> Well, do ya?
Barry Bonds is a useless disgrace and a junkie. Had you pegged me for a
sports fan?
Keanu Reeves' last useful movie was "The River's Edge." But having been in
studio environments and seen who works the hardest versus who makes the
most, and which end of the Hollywood demographic has to share apartments or
work at nightclubs or strip clubs to make ends meet while also working
12-hour days at the studio while guys like Tom Cruise make tens of millions
of dollars off of really shitty movies...
What are you expecting me to say? That Hollywood is fair? That LA isn't
the very epitome of what is wrong with our economic model? I'm not
saying a really rare talent shouldn't make a really rare wage, but it
doesn't work that way unless you own a set of Hollywood tits or you're
screwing somebody who does.
But here's the deal. Keanu Reeves doesn't make windfall profits off of war
or national natural disasters. All the money Reeves will ever make in his
lifetime is piss in a lake compared to what Exxon made during the three
months after Katrina.
-c
Curt
> >> I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high
gas
> >> prices
> >
> > Your President is not a Democrat. Your tired rant about the Dems being
> > responsible has played itself out.
> >
> > Your President is not a Democrat. Do you understand?
> >
> > Your President is not a Democrat.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> problem with that.
Whatever your problems with him, you'd vote for him again given a chance.
And you'll vote for the next chickenhawk neocon that gets the Repub
nomination, too.
Curt
samurai
samurai
> "samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
> news:i3t4g.165169$zy2.1...@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
>>> I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar
>>> "get lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
>>> bitching about labor costs.
>
>> Do you spend equal time crying about how much Barry Bonds makes, or what
>> Keanu Reeves draws for his next flic?
>>
>> Well, do ya?
>
> Barry Bonds is a useless disgrace and a junkie. Had you pegged me for a
> sports fan?
No, I just picked a timely name with high bankroll.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=124545&page=1
The top earner last year was not surprisingly businessman Donald Trump,
whose salary was $100 million, Parade found. The lowest-paid person on
the survey was author C. Annette Boyd from Randolph, Mass., who made
just $2,000 last year.
Simon Cowell, the sharp-tongued judge on American Idol, made $2 million
last year for shooting down hopeful singers with remarks like "You are
all horribly stupid and pathetic!" That's a much better salary than high
school counselor Carla Bailey, who made just over $64,000 trying to
build up student's confidence last year.
> Keanu Reeves' last useful movie was "The River's Edge." But having been in
> studio environments and seen who works the hardest versus who makes the
> most, and which end of the Hollywood demographic has to share apartments or
> work at nightclubs or strip clubs to make ends meet while also working
> 12-hour days at the studio while guys like Tom Cruise make tens of millions
> of dollars off of really shitty movies...
>
> What are you expecting me to say? That Hollywood is fair? That LA isn't
> the very epitome of what is wrong with our economic model? I'm not
> saying a really rare talent shouldn't make a really rare wage, but it
> doesn't work that way unless you own a set of Hollywood tits or you're
> screwing somebody who does.
So Keanu slept his way to big paydays?
I wasn't aware of that...
> But here's the deal. Keanu Reeves doesn't make windfall profits off of war
> or national natural disasters. All the money Reeves will ever make in his
> lifetime is piss in a lake compared to what Exxon made during the three
> months after Katrina.
>
> -c
Really?
Proportionately is that so?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/03/1054406166939.html
Keanu Reeves has become Hollywood's highest paid star thanks to the
success of the Matrix film series.
According to press reports today, his contract pays him 15 per cent of
the movies' box-office take - giving him a paycheque of $US206 million
($A313.79 million) so far.
That amount is before the final film in the trilogy The Matrix: Revolutions
I guess we should go after these other notable windfall profit war and
disaster pigs too, right:
NEW YORK, April 27 (Reuters) - Raytheon Co. (RTN.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) said on Thursday quarterly profit rose a greater-than-expected
73 percent as the No. 5 U.S. defense contractor increased sales of
military equipment and business jets.
The company, which makes Tomahawk missiles, Hawker jets and a range of
defense electronics, also raised its full-year profit forecast on the
back of the strong results.
The Waltham, Massachusetts-based company, whose shares rose 1 percent in
early trading, reported first-quarter net profit of $287 million, or 64
cents per share, compared with $166 million, or 36 cents per share, a
year earlier.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051002/news_1h02kb.html
KB Home makes plans to build in New Orleans
By Janet Morrissey
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
October 2, 2005
NEW YORK – KB Home wants to become the first major home builder to move
into the New Orleans market to help the city rebuild in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina's destructive journey.
Chief Executive Bruce Karatz said he hopes the Los Angeles-based builder
can have an office set up in the storm-damaged city by year end.
During a Wall Street Journal roundtable editorial meeting, Karatz said
he began thinking about moving into the market while watching television
coverage of the hurricane's aftermath.
"I was watching it on CNN and I said – everybody's going to send money,
but nobody's going to do anything," he said. As a result, he put
together a team to design small, 1,000-square-foot, three-bedroom,
one-bath homes with Victorian styles that could be constructed in
battered neighborhoods.
Currently none of the country's largest builders do business in New
Orleans. Demand, demographics, general business conditions and other
factors just didn't make the market an attractive one. However, new home
construction is expected to soar as the city rebuilds.
Housing starts in New Orleans averaged 5,000 to 6,000 a year prior to
Katrina, estimates Karatz. But with 250,000 homes needing to be rebuilt
following the storm, demand will surge.
"I would guess that the need is going to be somewhere – at least attempt
to do – 40,000 to 50,000 housing units a year over the next five years,"
he said Karatz.
Karatz speculates it will be tough for smaller builders to meet this
demand, and he believes a large builder, like his company, needs to step in.
"We think we're well-suited to go in there . . . and be helpful in a
for-profit as well as nonprofit way," Karatz said.
LOLOL!
In a "for-profit as well as nonprofit way"...that's corporate speak at
it's finest!!!
Don Homuth
<LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>
>"samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
>news:i3t4g.165169$zy2.1...@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
>>> I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar
>>> "get lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
>>> bitching about labor costs.
>
>> Do you spend equal time crying about how much Barry Bonds makes, or what
>> Keanu Reeves draws for his next flic?
>>
>> Well, do ya?
>
>Barry Bonds is a useless disgrace and a junkie....
But he is Paid precisely as he ought to be -- whatever the market will
bear.
If it won't bear it, he won't be paid it.
samurai
Fuck your ass to HELL you slimeball motherfucker!
gatt
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> Thing is, I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry. (I didn't even vote for Gore in
> the general election, but I damn sure didn't
> vote for George the Petulant Emperor Child.) But once Kerry got the
> nomination, I did everything I could for him
Well, our voting records are more or less identical there. I'd high five
you but we got our asses kicked. I wouldn't say I did everything I could
for Kerry because I waited a long time to make a final decision. I can
tolerate their arrogance and pompousity if it's best for the people, but I
don't trust Democrats. In the end I voted for him to let the Republicans
know I was displeased with them.
> (Which leads me to my kooky plan to reform our government: "Congress duty"
> along the lines of jury duty. If the computer
> picks your name, you serve for a year. The pay is good, though.)
Let's use Oregon as a test case! Nothin' to lose...
-c
samurai
Actually I think he's almost as pompous and self-absorbed as you are donny.
All you need is some 'roids and a bum knee and you'd be major league!
samurai
> "Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1T34092...@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
>> Thing is, I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry. (I didn't even vote for Gore in
>> the general election, but I damn sure didn't
>> vote for George the Petulant Emperor Child.) But once Kerry got the
>> nomination, I did everything I could for him
>
> Well, our voting records are more or less identical there. I'd high five
> you but we got our asses kicked. I wouldn't say I did everything I could
> for Kerry because I waited a long time to make a final decision. I can
> tolerate their arrogance and pompousity if it's best for the people, but I
> don't trust Democrats. In the end I voted for him to let the Republicans
> know I was displeased with them.
I thought you said you went for Nader?
mr_antone
wrote:
Yes.
Many out there think the recent baseball player's salary cap was for
the players. It wasn't. It was for the team owners.
mr_antone
samurai
Screw it, bankrupt em all, they're as evil as Exxon!
gatt
> So did your candidate factor?
>
> Or did you get Perot'd into a trojan horse vote for an insignificant 3rd
> party satellite?
I wouldn't throw my allegiance to whomever is most likely to win. I
maintain my allegiance in spite of it.
The Republicans did not get my vote. The Republicans are coming into a time
where it looks like they might desperately need the votes of people like me.
'Cause, let's face it. If Clinton had been sinking through the 30s at this
point in his presidency, the Republicans would have been cackling and
bandying it about with insane glee.
What matters the most right now is, whom shall I vote for in November?
Let's observe their arrogance toward me as it approaches.
-c
samurai
> "samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
> news:n4t4g.165182$zy2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
>> So did your candidate factor?
>>
>> Or did you get Perot'd into a trojan horse vote for an insignificant 3rd
>> party satellite?
>
> I wouldn't throw my allegiance to whomever is most likely to win. I
> maintain my allegiance in spite of it.
Um...not really an answer...
> The Republicans did not get my vote. The Republicans are coming into a time
> where it looks like they might desperately need the votes of people like me.
> 'Cause, let's face it. If Clinton had been sinking through the 30s at this
> point in his presidency, the Republicans would have been cackling and
> bandying it about with insane glee.
So you think partisan opportunism is not a 2 way street?
> What matters the most right now is, whom shall I vote for in November?
> Let's observe their arrogance toward me as it approaches.
>
> -c
Vote for the one that gives you a windfall profits tax then...
gatt
>> Your President is not a Democrat. Your tired rant about the Dems being
>> responsible has played itself out.
>>
>> Your President is not a Democrat. Do you understand?
>>
>> Your President is not a Democrat.
> Read an annual report, lamer.
YOUR PRESIDENT =/= DEMOCRAT, LAMER.
"'And yet there's a certain unease,' Bush acknowledged, largely because of
gas prices. Again repeating a refrain: 'We're dependent upon oil... We've
got to get off oil.'... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/
Bush said he had ordered antitrust authorities to probe for price fixing or
other anticompetitive behavior in the nation's energy markets. 'Americans
understand by and large that the price of crude oil is going up and that the
prices are going up, but what they don't want and will not accept is
manipulation of the market. And neither will I," Bush said.
"'Cash flows are up. Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these
expenses on behalf of the energy companies,' Bush said."
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/DmRtpW8VR205Nlhcs5P5464?siteid=mktw&dist=TNMKTW
-c
Don Homuth
Not at issue. What's he Paid?
>All you need is some 'roids and a bum knee and you'd be major league!
Nah. First I'd need some Talent at the game, and I never bothered to
play baseball as a kid. Besides, my preference is always to make a
Mockery of Jockery anyway.
samurai
> "samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
> news:KHs4g.20671$%_1....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
>>> Your President is not a Democrat. Your tired rant about the Dems being
>>> responsible has played itself out.
>>>
>>> Your President is not a Democrat. Do you understand?
>>>
>>> Your President is not a Democrat.
>
>> Read an annual report, lamer.
>
> YOUR PRESIDENT =/= DEMOCRAT, LAMER.
I believe you mean OUR president....
> "'And yet there's a certain unease,' Bush acknowledged, largely because of
> gas prices. Again repeating a refrain: 'We're dependent upon oil... We've
> got to get off oil.'... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/
Sorta like Brazil has:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p05s01-woam.html
Unlike hybrids sold in the US, for example, flex cars sold in Brazil
don't cost any more than traditional models. In fact, some models are
only available with flex engines now. Ethanol engines use 25 percent
more ethanol per mile than gasoline. But ethanol (the alcohol produced
by fermenting sugar) usually sells at somewhere between a third to half
of the price of gas. Even people who were reluctant to take the plunge
and buy a flex say they have been won over by the savings.
"It's been a revelation because of the economy," says Madalena Lira, a
university lecturer who says that she and her husband had reluctantly
purchased a flex car because it was the only available version of the
Fiat Palio Weekend they wanted. "I love this car in spite of it being a
flex, not because it is a flex. The savings have been great. I'd
certainly buy another one."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_oil_sufficiency
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, dressed in
an orange jump suit, drenched his hand in oil as he flipped the switch
Friday on a new oil rig that will usher in overall independence from
foreign oil.
The start of production at the P-50 rig off Brazil's south Atlantic
coast puts Brazil on track to produce as much oil as it consumes.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntl52722.htm
Brazil's ethanol effort helps country lead to oil self-sufficiency
20-06-05 While Americans fume at high gasoline prices, Carolina Rossini
is the essence of cool at the pump. Like tens of thousands of her fellow
citizens, she is running her zippy red Fiat on pure ethanol extracted
from Brazilian sugar cane. On a recent morning in Brazil's largest city,
the clear liquid was selling for less than half the price of gasoline, a
sweet deal for the 26-year-old lawyer.
"You save money and you don't pollute as much," said Rossini, who paid
about $ 18 to fill her nearly empty tank. "And it's a good thing that
the product is made here."
Three decades after the first oil shock rocked its economy, Brazil has
nearly shaken its dependence on foreign oil. More vulnerable than even
the United States when the 1973 Middle East oil embargo sent gas prices
soaring, Brazil vowed to kick its import habit. Now the country that
once relied on outsiders to supply 80 % of its crude is projected to be
self-sufficient within a few years.
Developing its own oil reserves was crucial to Brazil's long-term
strategy. Its domestic petroleum production has increased sevenfold
since 1980. But the Western Hemisphere's second-largest economy also has
embraced renewable energy with a vengeance.
Today about 40 % of all the fuel that Brazilians pump into their
vehicles is ethanol, known in Brazil as alcohol, compared with about 3 %
in the United States. No other nation is using ethanol on such a scale.
The change wasn't easy or cheap. But 30 years later, Brazil is reaping
the return on its investment in energy security while the United States
writes checks for $ 50-a-barrel foreign oil.
Much of Brazil's ethanol usage stems from a government mandate requiring
all gasoline to contain 25 % alcohol. Vehicles that ran solely on
ethanol fell out of favour in Brazil in the 1990s because of an alcohol
shortage that pushed drivers back to gas-powered cars. But thanks to a
new generation of vehicles that can run on gasoline, ethanol or any
combination of those two fuels, more motorists such as Rossini are
filling up with 100 % alcohol again to beat high gas prices.
> Bush said he had ordered antitrust authorities to probe for price fixing or
> other anticompetitive behavior in the nation's energy markets. 'Americans
> understand by and large that the price of crude oil is going up and that the
> prices are going up, but what they don't want and will not accept is
> manipulation of the market. And neither will I," Bush said.
ya don't suppose he already KNOWS they won't come up with any grand
conspiracy do ya?
I mean this has been looked at hundreds of times before hasn't it?
> "'Cash flows are up. Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these
> expenses on behalf of the energy companies,' Bush said."
> http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/DmRtpW8VR205Nlhcs5P5464?siteid=mktw&dist=TNMKTW
>
> -c
That why US investors won't back new refineries and we have to go to the
friggin' Saudis for backing?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=a0kre1yqiahs
First U.S. Refinery Since '76 May Be Built in Arizona
There will be more hills to climb. McGinnis, 55, chief executive
officer of Phoenix-based Arizona Clean Fuels LLC, must secure two dozen
government permits for the $2.5 billion project, close a deal for crude
from Mexico and pull together investors that may include Saudi Arabia's
state-owned oil company.
In the last 25 years, the number of U.S. refineries has fallen by
half, from 308 in 1979 to 146, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy. The last one built was Marathon Oil Corp.'s plant in Garyville,
Louisiana, dedicated in 1976.
``Refineries have closed rather than make the capital investments
required to meet increasing environmental regulations,'' says Bill
Greehey, 68, chief executive of San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp.,
the third-largest U.S. oil refiner. ``More closures are expected,
primarily smaller refineries.''
`Pressure Points'
Public and political opposition is a deterrent for those considering new
construction, says Bob Slaughter, president of the Washington-based
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Environmentalists in
California, for example, sued last month to force ConocoPhillips, the
largest U.S. refiner, to use better air-pollution controls on a planned
expansion of a refinery near Los Angeles.
``There's almost an unlimited amount of pressure points at which someone
who is determined can bring further delay to this process,'' he says.
Don Homuth
<LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>
>"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1T34092...@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
>> (Which leads me to my kooky plan to reform our government: "Congress duty"
>> along the lines of jury duty. If the computer
>> picks your name, you serve for a year. The pay is good, though.)
>
>Let's use Oregon as a test case! Nothin' to lose...
It doesn't work for juries very well. Why would it work for elected
office? You can't Force folks to serve. That would be
unConstitutional, seems to me.
If you'd like to be slightly less drastic in your approach, there's an
interim measure that might be worth exploring.
Go here:
It will open up The Process and make it far easier for anyone to run
for anything, and lessen the influence of the Major Parties as well.
BT won't like it, because He didn't hypothesize it first. But it's
not a bad start for the sorts of things y'all are discussing.
samurai
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:07:36 GMT, samurai <s...@rai.ki> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:18:11 GMT, "gatt"
>>> <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
>>>> news:i3t4g.165169$zy2.1...@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar
>>>>>> "get lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
>>>>>> bitching about labor costs.
>>>>> Do you spend equal time crying about how much Barry Bonds makes, or what
>>>>> Keanu Reeves draws for his next flic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, do ya?
>>>> Barry Bonds is a useless disgrace and a junkie....
>>> But he is Paid precisely as he ought to be -- whatever the market will
>>> bear.
>>>
>>> If it won't bear it, he won't be paid it.
>> Actually I think he's almost as pompous and self-absorbed as you are donny.
>
> Not at issue. What's he Paid?
More than you.
>> All you need is some 'roids and a bum knee and you'd be major league!
>
> Nah. First I'd need some Talent
In so many areas...
samurai
gatt
>>
>> Many out there think the recent baseball player's salary cap was for
>> the players. It wasn't. It was for the team owners.
>
> Screw it, bankrupt em all, they're as evil as Exxon!
No they're not. The US economy and security doesn't REQUIRE baseball.
-=c
gatt
>I can tolerate their arrogance and pompousity if it's best for the people,
>but I
>> don't trust Democrats. In the end I voted for him to let the Republicans
>> know I was displeased with them.
>
> I thought you said you went for Nader?
Not the second time. Kerry was the first time I've ever voted for a
Democrat, at least in a national election. (I don't remember offhand for
state.)
-c
Osiris88
Alohacyberian wrote:
> I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say
I would be more interested in what you had to say if you would
apologize for lying about that Lenin quote.
samurai
samurai
> "samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
> news:yDu4g.181594$7i1.1...@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>> I can tolerate their arrogance and pompousity if it's best for the people,
>> but I
>>> don't trust Democrats. In the end I voted for him to let the Republicans
>>> know I was displeased with them.
>> I thought you said you went for Nader?
>
> Not the second time.
Gotcha.
> Kerry was the first time I've ever voted for a
> Democrat, at least in a national election. (I don't remember offhand for
> state.)
>
> -c
Fair enough.
He was, by some estimates, a better candidate than Gore at least.
samurai
Curt
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:he15529d5oaqclhlq...@4ax.com...
>
>
> SHould this be its hard out there for a "chump" or perhaps for a
> "Chimp"?
I wondered, but forbore asking, exactly what Ann Coulter knows about being a
"pump"..
Curt
samurai
Curt
"gatt" <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:GMu4g.7311$kg....@news02.roc.ny...
>
> Bush said he had ordered antitrust authorities to probe for price fixing
or
> other anticompetitive behavior in the nation's energy markets. 'Americans
> understand by and large that the price of crude oil is going up and that
the
> prices are going up, but what they don't want and will not accept is
> manipulation of the market. And neither will I," Bush said.
Hyuk hyuk.
Wasn't Wyden investigating this, and getting stymied by the Repubs, years
ago?
Curt
gatt
.
>> 'Cause, let's face it. If Clinton had been sinking through the 30s at
>> this point in his presidency, the Republicans would have been cackling
>> and bandying it about with insane glee.
>
> So you think partisan opportunism is not a 2 way street?
I think the Dems and Repubicans are essentially the same in the sheer
sleazebag dishonesty and the amount of anti-American fraud they will commit
in order to win an election, if that's what you're asking.
> Vote for the one that gives you a windfall profits tax then...
No. I don't exploit my own suffering people for profit if I can help it.
-c
samurai
Yes, investigate that evil gas pricing market, where 78% of the product
comes from STATE-OWNED oil companies...
you fucking dim child.
samurai
> "samurai" <s...@rai.ki> wrote in message
> news:wZu4g.153278$4P2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> .
>>> 'Cause, let's face it. If Clinton had been sinking through the 30s at
>>> this point in his presidency, the Republicans would have been cackling
>>> and bandying it about with insane glee.
>> So you think partisan opportunism is not a 2 way street?
>
> I think the Dems and Repubicans are essentially the same in the sheer
> sleazebag dishonesty and the amount of anti-American fraud they will commit
> in order to win an election, if that's what you're asking.
Pretty much it was..
>> Vote for the one that gives you a windfall profits tax then...
>
> No. I don't exploit my own suffering people for profit if I can help it.
>
> -c
Oh...but it's OK to rob Exxon to pay for Katrina?
Remember what Hugo Chavez told his people:
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=24&ID=281720&r=5
Dos Santos’ son accused Chavez of virtually ignoring crime while also
inciting the poor: “The president is always saying it’s OK to steal in
order to eat.”
...he regularly launches into tirades against wealthy Venezuelans. “The
rich are condemned to hell. Christ himself condemned them,” Chavez said
in a speech Tuesday. “I say it from the heart: to be rich is evil.”
Bwanna Matata
"Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:12552tn...@corp.supernews.com...
She has been quoted as saying she has slept with every influential
republican in D.C.
samurai
And do it NOW you libelous ASSHOLE!
Chris Bellomy
:
: "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote in message
There does seem to be a lot of this sort of homoeroticism
going on with the DC GOP lately.
samurai
You like libel too, huh?
aus...@primus.com.au
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:18:11 GMT, "gatt"
> >
> >>> I enjoy how the same people who are defending the multimillion dollar
> >>> "get lost" giveaways to people like Carly the Destroyer are the same ones
> >>> bitching about labor costs.
> >
> >> Do you spend equal time crying about how much Barry Bonds makes, or what
> >> Keanu Reeves draws for his next flic?
> >>
> >> Well, do ya?
> >
> >Barry Bonds is a useless disgrace and a junkie....
>
> But he is Paid precisely as he ought to be -- whatever the market will
> bear.
>
> If it won't bear it, he won't be paid it.
Point 1 - People who make such obscene should pay the highest rate of
tax as they can afford to, but under Bush they received tax cuts which
have dramatically increased the budget deficit which will hurt the
economy for years to come.
Point 2 - I believe it is a fallacy that the so called free market is
perfect in setting wages that reflect the value of the work performed.
Take CEO pay or that of Wall Street investment bankers. Their wages
are not set by individual shareholders but in reality are set by a
small group of fund managers whose set their own pay and that of the
CEO. The problem is the so called free market is not as free as many
believe or as competetive as it should be.
Chris Bellomy
JimmyJeff GannonGuckert.
David Dreier.
Ken Mehlman.
Duke Cunningham.
It ain't libel if it's true.
cogn...@yahoo.com
Don Homuth wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2006 20:56:53 -0700, "NeoLibertarian" <cogn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Don Homuth wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:56:40 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
> >> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline
> >>
> >> Oh nonsense on its face!
> >>
> >> The tax amount is not high, and it is a User Fee, without which folks
> >> wouldn't have roads to drive on if they had tax-free gasoline.
> >
> >Yeah? What makes you think gasoline tax goes for roads? Or that FICA
> >goes for Social Security, for that matter?
>
> I read the budgets for roads on the dedicated funds.
Heh. Then you know how much this fund has been manipulated since it
became "dedicated."
IIRC, even today part goes for Recreational Trails, Water & Land
Conservation, Public Transportation, etc.
And a full 1/4 goes to "reducing the deficit." Not highways.
But, the Feds aren't building highways, anyway. So, what do they do
with the money that's left over...after salaries, handling fees, and
building recreational trails?
They grant it to the states to build highways. That's what they do.
Many states have their own road tax. But, if they want the fed's money,
too, they gotta enact laws and regulations that the feds have no way to
enact otherwise.
If the states don't comply, then their citizens are put in the position
of paying the fucking tax, but not getting the grant money back for
their own fucking roads (even minus the Fed overhead). They end up
paying for the roads in the neighboring states.
Yeah, that's a good, healthy system.
So's FICA.
--
NeoLibertarian
Don Homuth
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:07:36 GMT, samurai <s...@rai.ki> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I think he's almost as pompous and self-absorbed as you are donny.
>>
>> Not at issue. What's he Paid?
>
>More than you.
As well he ought to be. More than You as well.
He sells a lot of tickets, even as a controversial figure.
>>> All you need is some 'roids and a bum knee and you'd be major league!
>>
>> Nah. First I'd need some Talent
>
>In so many areas...
Nah -- you'll find most Major Leaguers have Talent in merely one
field. I, otoh, strive to be a bit of a polymath.