tax SUVs, subsidize cleaner cars
DonQuijote1954
'The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
This article doesn't mention the increased threat the SUVs pose to
other vehicles, in which case their insurance premiums should be
raised as well. Oh, finally they should bear an sticker that goes,
"Idiot aboard."
'London's Mayor Ken Livingstone said in late May that the people who
drive these cars in the city are ''complete idiots''.'
All-Terrain Pollution
Julio Godoy*
PARIS, Jul 16 (Tierramérica) - Vehicles known as ''4x4s'', originally
developed for use in the rough terrain of rural areas, have turned
into a status symbol in many of Europe's big cities, but are also at
the centre of a controversy because of the high emissions of
pollutants generated by their engines.
Of those emissions, the one that stands out is carbon dioxide,
produced in the combustion of fossil fuels and a leading contributor
to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
The debate on the probable ban on four-wheel drive sports utility
vehicles (SUVs) has only just begun, but is already heating up.
London's Mayor Ken Livingstone said in late May that the people who
drive these cars in the city are ''complete idiots''.
Livingstone said in an interview that he thought it reasonable that a
farmer would drive a 4x4 in an area with bad roads. ''But that type of
car should not circulate in London.''
Since 1997, the right to drive through Rome's historic centre has been
granted only to those who can prove they work in that zone and who pay
an annual fee of 250 to 400 dollars. This policy has cut traffic by
nearly 30 percent.
In Paris, the municipal government, which includes the environmental
Les Verts (The Greens), announced on Jun. 8 a majority opinion to
limit SUVs in the city, underscoring that these emit four times more
carbon dioxide than standard cars.
That position does not have the force of law, but does suggest that
such measures will be implemented in the future.
''The all-terrain vehicles have no place in the cities,'' and the city
government is preparing to ban them, Denis Baupin, transportation
commissioner and leader of the Paris Greens, told Tierramérica.
That move will be part of France's plan for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997 with
the aim of curbing the greenhouse effect and climate change.
Under the Protocol, by 2010 France must not surpass 144 million tons
of emissions of carbon dioxide. In other words, the country must
reduce emissions to their 1990 levels.
The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.
Paul
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com...
> It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>
> 'The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
> Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
> cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
> 1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
No complaint from me. The French can do what they want. France is a sovergn country
after all..... Actually, no complaint from me if they decide to do it here in the US
either. I don't intend to buy a new car for a while and when I do, it damn well won't
be a over blown mom-mobile.
> This article doesn't mention the increased threat the SUVs pose to
> other vehicles, in which case their insurance premiums should be
> raised as well. Oh, finally they should bear an sticker that goes,
> "Idiot aboard."
I thought the fact that they drive a vehicle that looks loke a rolling suppository
did that job quite well. ;-)
> 'London's Mayor Ken Livingstone said in late May that the people who
> drive these cars in the city are ''complete idiots''.'
See, no sticker required.
<article snipped>
--
Paul
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>
>
> other vehicles, in which case their insurance premiums should be
> raised as well.
We also need to raise penalties for reckless driving in these massive
vehicles. A DUI or speeder in a 6000 pound SUV is a lot more dangerous
to other drivers than if in a 2500 pound real car.
คคค Abo คคค
:: 'London's Mayor Ken Livingstone said in late May that the people who
:: drive these cars in the city are ''complete idiots''.'
Yeah but Ken Livingstone is a wanker, so his 'complete idiots' comment is
meaningless...
--
Abo: spotter for #9 truck Pete 'Wilky' Wilkinson
www.pickuptruckracing.com
www.daysofthunder.co.uk
Mike Z. Helm
>On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>(DonQuijote1954) wrote:
>
>>into a status symbol in many of Europe's big cities, but are also at
>>the centre of a controversy because of the high emissions of
>>pollutants generated by their engines.
>
>Cite
>
>>Of those emissions, the one that stands out is carbon dioxide,
>>produced in the combustion of fossil fuels and a leading contributor
>>to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
>
>There is no greenhouse effect
just keep saying that - the truth is you don't know
>
>>limit SUVs in the city, underscoring that these emit four times more
>>carbon dioxide than standard cars.
>
>Cite
>
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
Mike Z. Helm
(DonQuijote1954)
>It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>
Great, move to France. We should try to do away with socialism in all
forms in our country.
--
Daniel J. Stern
> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
Because...?
Mike Z. Helm
<das...@engin.umich.edu>
>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>
>> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
>
>Because...?
because we're anti-socialist. Well, we used to be anyway
Daniel J. Stern
> >> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
> >Because...?
> because we're anti-socialist.
Circulo in demonstrandum. "We should do 'x' because we should do 'x'".
You'll have to do a great deal better than that.
Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
country"?
Paul
"Mike Z. Helm" <mh...@not.known> wrote in message
news:s3uif0t49e7195fn1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:39:50 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> <das...@engin.umich.edu>
>
> >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> >
> >> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
> >
> >Because...?
>
> because we're anti-socialist. Well, we used to be anyway
Today, the socialists disguise themselves and call themselves democrats.
--
Paul
DonQuijote1954
> "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
> >
> > 'The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
> > Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
> > cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
> > 1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
>
> No complaint from me. The French can do what they want. France is a sovergn country
> after all..... Actually, no complaint from me if they decide to do it here in the US
> either. I don't intend to buy a new car for a while and when I do, it damn well won't
> be a over blown mom-mobile.
>
> > This article doesn't mention the increased threat the SUVs pose to
> > other vehicles, in which case their insurance premiums should be
> > raised as well. Oh, finally they should bear an sticker that goes,
> > "Idiot aboard."
>
> I thought the fact that they drive a vehicle that looks loke a rolling suppository
> did that job quite well. ;-)
That's why the hide behind tinted windows.
DonQuijote1954
True. When are you running for Congress?
DonQuijote1954
> On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
> (DonQuijote1954)
>
> >It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
> >
>
> Great, move to France. We should try to do away with socialism in all
> forms in our country.
So small efficient cars are socialist?
DonQuijote1954
And I thought a Democrat and a Republican were the same thing.
Well, there's a slight difference in the following political compass...
DonQuijote1954
> before he began his ministry, Jesus would most likely have driven a 3-4
> Y/O full-sized pick-up truck with a cap as a part of the family business
> (Joseph & Sons Construction, Inc).
>
> :-)
He would have obeyed traffic laws however. He wouldn't have passed on
the right, or tailgated smaller vehicles. In other words, he wouldn't
have driven in America... ;)
Larry Bud
>
> 'The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
> Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
> cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
> 1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
SUVs are already taxed based on the fact they use more gas. The more
gas you use, the more in taxes you already pay.
Next.
Larry Bud
Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our
creator. You and your nanny government violate those rights.
Socialism is a failed government scheme. History shows that the more
free people are, the more prosperous they and everyone around them
are.
That's why.
Larry Bud
When they are government mandated, yes. Now, in the grand scheme of
things, the government creating laws to affect the decision of
individual who buy vehicles small potatos, but all those little things
add up in the long run. Kinda like a slippery slope. Give them those
little "insignificant" laws, and they try and take more and more.
Similar to many traffic laws. First, seat belts laws were secondary
offenses. "No way we'll ever pull anyone over for not wearing a seat
belt" they said. Let a few years go buy, let everyone get comfortable
with seat belt laws, then try to use the emotion of people getting
killed to make it a primary offense. Worked, didn't it?
Larry Bud
> It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>
> 'The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
> Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
> cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
> 1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
SUVs are already taxed more based on the fact they use more gas. The
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>>
>> > >> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
>>
>> > >Because...?
>>
>> > because we're anti-socialist.
>>
>> Circulo in demonstrandum. "We should do 'x' because we should do 'x'".
>> You'll have to do a great deal better than that.
>>
>> Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
>> country"?
>
>Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our
>creator.
How do your parents give you unalienable rights? Just curious...
Doug
Daniel J. Stern
> > Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
> > country"?
> Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our creator.
Your mom and dad sat you down one day and granted you a list of
*inalienable* rights, then, did they?
> You and your nanny government violate those rights.
You do not know me, nor do you know who "my government" is.
> Socialism is a failed government scheme.
Are you sure? There are plenty of prosperous variably socialist countries
*right now, today*. France. Sweden. Norway.
> History shows that the more free people are, the more prosperous they
> and everyone around them are.
Oh, y'know what? It looks as though you're making the typically ignorant
American error of confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is not
antithetical to freedom.
...And that's without even looking below the surface of a society's
prosperity to tally-up its costs!
DS
Josh Halpern
Larry Bud wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
>
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Because...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>because we're anti-socialist.
>>>
>>>
>>Circulo in demonstrandum. "We should do 'x' because we should do 'x'".
>>You'll have to do a great deal better than that.
>>
>>Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
>>country"?
>>
>>
>
>Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our
>creator.
>
That's INalienable rights. If you are trying to get on top of someone
it helps to get what you say right. Of course, most of us from the US
got it right in the third grade
That's why.
But seriously, do you know the where, why and when of doctrine or are
you just spouting the usual agitprop found on the right side of USENET.
josh halpern
DonQuijote1954
>
>
> Judas was the group's treasurer, because of his nack for finances and
> spending control. I see Judas driving a small fuel-efficient car.
>
> Remember what he said about the woman who anointed Christ with the
> perfume?
You got a point there. But with the money he got for betraying Jesus
(I'm sure he got something for it, right?) he would have bought the
SUV. It ain't easy to get an SUV on an honest job, right?
DonQuijote1954
And the more you use, the more you pollute, and the more you need foreign oil...
DonQuijote1954
> > Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote in message news:<kqqif0p3ibe842eug...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
> > > (DonQuijote1954)
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > forms in our country.
> >
>
> When they are government mandated, yes. Now, in the grand scheme of
> things, the government creating laws to affect the decision of
> individual who buy vehicles small potatos, but all those little things
> add up in the long run. Kinda like a slippery slope. Give them those
> little "insignificant" laws, and they try and take more and more.
Is that how SUVs are mandated by regulating out of the market small,
efficient cars from Europe and Japan, and by allowing size to rule the
road?
Mike Z. Helm
<das...@127.0.0.1>
>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Larry Bud wrote:
>
>> > Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
>> > country"?
>
>> Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our creator.
>
>Your mom and dad sat you down one day and granted you a list of
>*inalienable* rights, then, did they?
>
>> You and your nanny government violate those rights.
>
>You do not know me, nor do you know who "my government" is.
>
>> Socialism is a failed government scheme.
>
>Are you sure? There are plenty of prosperous variably socialist countries
>*right now, today*. France. Sweden. Norway.
Move there. Sweden's a great example of how socialism has fucked an
entire country without it completely collapsing.
>
>> History shows that the more free people are, the more prosperous they
>> and everyone around them are.
>
>Oh, y'know what? It looks as though you're making the typically ignorant
>American error of confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is not
>antithetical to freedom.
>
Actually, it is.
>...And that's without even looking below the surface of a society's
>prosperity to tally-up its costs!
>
>DS
--
Mike Z. Helm
<UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com>
except when they call themselves republicans
Daniel J. Stern
> >> Socialism is a failed government scheme.
> >Are you sure? There are plenty of prosperous variably socialist countries
> >*right now, today*. France. Sweden. Norway.
> Move there.
Oh, "America: Love it or leave it!"? Now *there's* a convincing line of
debate...
> Sweden's a great example of how socialism has fucked an entire country
> without it completely collapsing.
Says you. I know plenty of Swedes who like it just fine.
A lot of ign'ant Americans consider Canada socialist, and most Canadians I
know are *very* pleased to be Canadian.
> >Oh, y'know what? It looks as though you're making the typically ignorant
> >American error of confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is not
> >antithetical to freedom.
> Actually, it is.
Ummm...what're you looking for here? "Is not times infinity"? Explain your
misapprehension that socialism precludes freedom.
DonQuijote1954
like it. Good thing the second party was also in an SUV... ;)
What should we little mammals do? :(
Fleeing SUV involved in serious crash
The fleeing SUV hit another SUV, causing it flip over.
Vancouver Police are investigating a serious crash after an SUV tried
to avoid a police roadblock.
The incident occured in East Vancouver around just after midnight on
Sunday.
Police say the driver of the SUV took off at a high rate of speed to
avoid a roadblock at Kingsway and E. 12th Ave.
Shortly afterwards, the SUV crashed into another SUV and a utility
pole, causing the fleeing SUV to flip over at the intersection of E.
12th Ave. and St. George St.
2 innocent woman who were hit in the other SUV were shaken but not
seriously injured.
The driver and passenger of the fleeing SUV were taken to hospital
with non-life threatening injuries.
Police say this incident is the 2nd time in the past week the same
vehicle has tried to evade police.
Charges are pending and the incident is under investigation.
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=abbe8acc-f3c2-4dca-8c1a-901a67f9a62c
DonQuijote1954
> >> bastards for the hell of it. Then tax them some more.
> >>
> >> Bastards.
> >
> >Oh yeah! How DARE the bastards have more money than you and afford to ride
> >around on something other than a bike!
> >
>
>
> Exactly! Punish those who have been successful, cause they are
> different, they are politically correct minority to hate.
>
> Down with success!
Don't take it hard. Remember, punishment can get you to Heaven. Hallelujah!
DonQuijote1954
I thought Republicans were more like communists. But I get your point... ;)
Larry Bud
But the issue at hand is a tax on SUVs because they consume more gas.
That's already taken care of by the fact that gas has a consumption
tax.
DonQuijote1954
elevator-optional SUV?
Well think of these questions while you check the latest behemoths...
THE NEW SUV STANDARD:
OK, we give up. If you can't beat ‘em join ‘em! We've realized the
profit potential of SUVs and have decided to cash in on it ourselves.
We now features quality Firestone tires to make piloting the
Pilgrimage a more exciting experience!* Presenting the 2003 Kenworth
Pilgrimage, the SUV of the future, today:
*We accept no responsibility for putting under-rated car tires on our
porky SUV. As the recent Ford Explorer rollovers have proven, all
rollovers due to the obesity and top-heaviness of SUVs are the sole
responsibility of the tire manufacturer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has your Suburban or Expedition gotten too small for you, or have the
Jones' just one-upped you once again with a new Excursion? If you
thought that so-called "large" SUVs like the Expedition have a tough
look, then you need to check out the new Kenworth Pilgrimage!
DonQuijote1954
>
> Wonder if anyone has taken that defense. Dropped a stack of newspaper
> articles on a judges desk saying it was the SUV that caused the
> accident, not the driver.
SUVs can be weapons and should be treated as such: special license and
tougher regulations. On the pollution aspect, they should pay more for
environmental damage.
I've not seen for example so many accusations fly against semis which
are much larger. Besides they have a purpose.
DonQuijote1954
Europe. And Japan is not far behind. Anything to learn? Yeah sure,
they got to buy more SUVs... ;)
Oil consumption (percapita)
1. Singapore 156.66 barrels per day per 1000 people
2. United Arab Emirates 142.06 barrels per day per 1000 people
3. Qatar 74.65 barrels per day per 1000 people
4. United States 67.85 barrels per day per 1000 people
5. Canada 62.09 barrels per day per 1000 people
6. Saudi Arabia 55.98 barrels per day per 1000 people
7. Brunei 47.47 barrels per day per 1000 people
8. Israel 44.63 barrels per day per 1000 people
9. Australia 44.19 barrels per day per 1000 people
10. Norway 43.99 barrels per day per 1000 people
11. Taiwan 43.57 barrels per day per 1000 people
12. Japan 42.44 barrels per day per 1000 people
13. Bahrain 41.96 barrels per day per 1000 people
14. Greece 38.06 barrels per day per 1000 people
15. Spain 37.29 barrels per day per 1000 people
16. Portugal 33.55 barrels per day per 1000 people
17. Libya 33.09 barrels per day per 1000 people
18. Germany 32.88 barrels per day per 1000 people
19. France 32.56 barrels per day per 1000 people
20. Italy 32.24 barrels per day per 1000 people
21. United Kingdom 28.28 barrels per day per 1000 people
DonQuijote1954
from SUVs, "Who's freer America or France?"
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/001900.shtml
And a couple of viewpoints...
I have a not so bold prediction. This little discussion will turn into
a giant pissing contest where people will say, basically "France is
more free!" or, "The U.S. is more free!" or whatever country you pick.
Don't matter. With every passing year, there are more and more
challenges to whatever freedom we have left. And with every passing
year, the voices of free thinkers like you and I get drowned out by
the bleating of sheep that want to be protected by the gubmint
shepherds.
We better start howling like wolves, or we are gonna be part of the
flock.
***
I am an American Citizen but have lived in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain for many years now. Whenever I return to the United States to
visit family and friends, I really notice the distinct LACK of freedom
in America. Each time I go back to the States, I'm amazed at all the
petty rules, regulations and laws. America has become such a
restrictive country to live in, that I'm always glad to get back to
Britain. I've got to say that British society is so much more free
than American. People just go about their everyday business here,
without people getting on their backs all the time. There is also
absolute freedom of speech. You can say what the hell you like,
without people getting all uptight about it. It's far more laid back
than in the States. Although I love the country of my birth, and the
people, I'm much happier (and much more free) living over here! I'm
afraid that the United States of America is most definitely NOT the
"land of the free" as many of us Americans think it is. I think that
Americans should travel abroad much more, to really see what the rest
of the world is actually like, instead of sitting at home watching FOX
NEWS on the T.V. and accepting everything they're told!
God bless America & Britain....
DonQuijote1954
> nolionn...@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0407...@posting.google.com>...
> > larryb...@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote in message news:<5db363e0.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > nolionn...@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
> > > >
> > > > 'The French government's ''Health and Environment'' plan, announced on
> > > > Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
> > > > cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
> > > > 1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
> > >
> > > SUVs are already taxed based on the fact they use more gas. The more
> > > gas you use, the more in taxes you already pay.
> > >
> > > Next.
> >
> > And the more you use, the more you pollute, and the more you need foreign oil...
>
> But the issue at hand is a tax on SUVs because they consume more gas.
> That's already taken care of by the fact that gas has a consumption
> tax.
They are trying to curb the problem by taxation, before SUVs become a
plague. They do it in America with tobacco. What's wrong with that?
Further, when you smoke you only poison yourself, but when you drive
an SUV you poison my lungs.
Like I said, tax the Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles...
DonQuijote1954
> He KNOWS the is nothing man can do that will effect life
> on earth. His Dad is the only one that can do that and he KNOWS
> he will when the time comes. ;)
OK, then we should change the question: "What would the Devil had driven?"
DonQuijote1954
> the US the people that use public transpiration would have
> to pay the TRUE cost of the trains and buses they ride.
> The federal liquid fuels tax pays over half of their fare today
> and the fed pay for half the buses in the guise of helping the
> handicapped.
Probably drivers are more subsidized than public transportation
passengers... ;)
The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five
primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2)
Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil
Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and
Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities
of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7
billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail
price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.
TAX SUBSIDIES
The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax
breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with
international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American
consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies
include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million
to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit
($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and
development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery
Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4
billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and
accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).
Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most
state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill
results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states
also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes,
amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers
and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely
to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of
$2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support
gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.
Paul
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote in message
news:<2jkKc.3464$j33....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> > "Mike Z. Helm" <mh...@not.known> wrote in message
> > news:s3uif0t49e7195fn1...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:39:50 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> > > <das...@engin.umich.edu>
> > >
> > > >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
> > > >
> > > >Because...?
> > >
> > > because we're anti-socialist. Well, we used to be anyway
> >
> > Today, the socialists disguise themselves and call themselves democrats.
>
They both are a bunch of thieves. The difference is where the money goes after it is
stolen from the working man. No compass needed.
--
Paul
Lloyd Parker
>
>>into a status symbol in many of Europe's big cities, but are also at
>>the centre of a controversy because of the high emissions of
>>pollutants generated by their engines.
>
>Cite
>
>>Of those emissions, the one that stands out is carbon dioxide,
>>produced in the combustion of fossil fuels and a leading contributor
>>to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
>
>There is no greenhouse effect
Huh? Then the earth would be below freezing.
>
>>limit SUVs in the city, underscoring that these emit four times more
>>carbon dioxide than standard cars.
>
>Cite
>
>
Lloyd Parker
Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:39:50 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
><das...@engin.umich.edu>
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>>
>>> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
>>
>>Because...?
>
>because we're anti-socialist. Well, we used to be anyway
Who's "we"? Speak for yourself. Most Americans love Social Security, public
roads, public schools, etc.
Lloyd Parker
Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>>
>
>forms in our country.
OK, you try to eliminate Social Security. Public schools. Public highways.
The military and the police.
Lloyd Parker
"Paul" <UPS_SUCKS!@slower_traffic_get_to_the_right.com> wrote:
>
>"Mike Z. Helm" <mh...@not.known> wrote in message
>news:s3uif0t49e7195fn1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:39:50 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
>> <das...@engin.umich.edu>
>>
>> >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> because we're anti-socialist. Well, we used to be anyway
>
>
Lloyd Parker
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>>
>> > >> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
>>
>> > >Because...?
>>
>> > because we're anti-socialist.
>>
>> You'll have to do a great deal better than that.
>>
>> country"?
>
>Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our
>creator.
There you have it! God wants us to drive SUVs!
> You and your nanny government violate those rights.
>
>Socialism is a failed government scheme. History shows that the more
>free people are, the more prosperous they and everyone around them
>are.
That's why anarchy is so popular?
>
>That's why.
Lloyd Parker
news:<4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> Jun. 21, includes a supplementary tax of some 4,200 dollars on new
>> cars that consume a lot of fuel, as 4x4s do, and a subsidy of around
>> 1,000 dollars for ''cleaner'' cars.'
>
>SUVs are already taxed based on the fact they use more gas. The more
>gas you use, the more in taxes you already pay.
>
>Next.
A pittance. States should base registration fees on fuel mileage rather than
value.
Lloyd Parker
Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:58:12 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
><das...@127.0.0.1>
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Larry Bud wrote:
>>
>>> > Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
>>> > country"?
>>
>>> Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our creator.
>>
>>Your mom and dad sat you down one day and granted you a list of
>>*inalienable* rights, then, did they?
>>
>>> You and your nanny government violate those rights.
>>
>>You do not know me, nor do you know who "my government" is.
>>
>>> Socialism is a failed government scheme.
>>
>>Are you sure? There are plenty of prosperous variably socialist countries
>>*right now, today*. France. Sweden. Norway.
>
>Move there. Sweden's a great example of how socialism has fucked an
>entire country without it completely collapsing.
Norway was just ranked the best country to live in. Their life-expectancy is
higher than ours, their literacy rate is higher, their health care is
superior. Sweden is #2. The US is 8th.
>
>>
>>> History shows that the more free people are, the more prosperous they
>>> and everyone around them are.
>>
>>Oh, y'know what? It looks as though you're making the typically ignorant
>>American error of confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is not
>>antithetical to freedom.
>>
>
>Actually, it is.
And that's an example of the level to which our educational system has sunk.
Lloyd Parker
A pittance of one.
Lloyd Parker
DonQuijote1954
> > > He KNOWS the is nothing man can do that will effect life
> > > on earth. His Dad is the only one that can do that and he KNOWS
> > > he will when the time comes. ;)
> >
> > OK, then we should change the question: "What would the Devil had driven?"
>
Actually no. The Devil is in the SUVs...
"Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation,"
The devil
is in the SUVs
Which of the following bold environmental initiatives is the Bush
administration considering?
A. Outlawing toothpicks in deli sandwiches less than 2 inches tall.
B. Requiring Americans to watch the Channel 11 Yule log rather than
burn real wood.
C. Asking Detroit to boost sport-utility vehicle fuel efficiency by
1.5 miles per gallon by 2007.
So far, my friends, only C is on the President's agenda. But A and B
probably make more sense. Why?
Because what the administration is asking for is less than what the
automakers already were committed to doing two years ago.
Yes, back in 2000, the Ford Motor Co. pledged to raise the fuel
economy of its SUVs by 1.8 miles per gallon over the next five years.
The other car companies vowed to meet or exceed that. "So," says David
Friedman, an engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "the
automakers are already committed to doing more than the administration
is asking for."
Kinda makes Bush's proposal look a little weak, no? That's why perhaps
it's time to trust our environmental policy to someone with a bit more
integrity, not to mention long-term perspective:
God.
"What Would Jesus Drive?" is the headline of a new ad unveiled by
Evangelicals for Social Action, a group of more than 50 evangelical
Christian leaders.
Together with senior leaders from Jewish and mainstream Protestant
groups, they've formed the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment with one simple aim: making a moral issue out of what we
drive.
"Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation," says the WWJD? ad.
In a two-pronged approach, the umbrella group is calling on Detroit to
make cleaner cars - and congregants to drive them.
On Wednesday, the group met with the Big Three automakers - itself a
coup - and, says Chris Preuss, a General Motors spokesman, "We had a
very good, honest, constructive meeting."
By this, Preuss means that he explained to those gathered that GM
would really love to make cars that get better mileage, but people
don't want 'em. With gas still relatively cheap, "The customer keeps
demanding more powerful, less fuel-efficient vehicles."
In other words: Don't blame Detroit for gas guzzlers. Blame Americans
for demanding them.
He has a point. But as Bob Edgar of the religious delegation points
out, our piggish predilections are at least "partly the result of the
$13 billion the auto industry spends on advertising."
Another good point. Not too many ads for SUVs discuss their impact on
global warming, climbing asthma rates and, tangentially, the push for
war in a region crucial to us only for its oil.
Thus it is a real blessing that the clergy is making us think about
such unpleasantries. Because if we really did demand cleaner cars, we
could get them.
"Right now, the technology exists that could give us a
40-miles-per-gallon fleet of vehicles in the next 10 years," says Kate
Simmons, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. These cars would cost more,
true. But that increase would be offset by savings at the pump. By
2020, Simmons says, clean cars "would save us more oil than we
currently import from the Persian Gulf and the projected yield from
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined."
Wildlife vs. pipelines. Clean air vs. asthma. God vs. Detroit. Put
this way, gas guzzling is truly a moral choice we must face.
Even if our President won't.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/37985p-35868c.html
Matthew Russotto
Social Security will take care of itself, circa 2015. Public schools
already suck in many areas, and if certain parties (that would be the
Democratic party, specifically) have their way, they will suck
everywhere, and wipe themselves out in the same way. Highways are
paid for by their users in rough proportion to their use. And every
government has external and internal security forces, not just socialist ones.
Lloyd Parker
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <cdgph7$1p5$5...@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>In article <kqqif0p3ibe842eug...@4ax.com>,
>> Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>>>On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>>>(DonQuijote1954)
>>>
>>>>It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Great, move to France. We should try to do away with socialism in all
>>>forms in our country.
>>
>>OK, you try to eliminate Social Security. Public schools. Public highways.
>>The military and the police.
>
>Social Security will take care of itself, circa 2015.
If you believe politicians will let SS expire, I've got a bridge to sell you.
>Public schools
>already suck in many areas,
But it's all most people can afford.
>and if certain parties (that would be the
>Democratic party, specifically) have their way, they will suck
>everywhere, and wipe themselves out in the same way. Highways are
>paid for by their users in rough proportion to their use.
Not true. A significant chunk of the highway budget comes from general
revenues. As does money for law enforcement there, emergency responders,
etc.
>And every
>government has external and internal security forces, not just socialist
ones.
>
But wouldn't they be supplied by private corporations in your model?
DonQuijote1954
> the Earth's latest trend for global warming. Just wondering how they
> plan on taxing the bigest offender: http://urlbee.com?55
Taxing the sun? That's an easy one...SOLAR ENERGY.
Regrettably it too is about politics...
"The federal government has never adequately subsidized the
development and use of solar energy."
The politics of solar energy
Today it is possible to supply all the heating and electrical needs of
an average household with the wise use of sunlight at a cost
competitive with fossil fuel /nuclear power plants and domestic
fossil fuel heating systems .
Why then is solar energy not more popular?
The federal government has never adequately subsidized the development
and use of solar energy.
Local zoning laws and land use ordinances have blocked solar
development in some areas.
The simplicity of solar application has not yet captured the
imagination of the consumer.
*We are creatures of habit controlled by a fossil fuel empire*.
The use of solar energy offers a safe, environmentally less
destructive technology that can usher in a new era of post-industrial
development. Little attention has been paid by current generations of
scientist , politicians and planers to develop a society that
operates in a framework of environmental and social stability. *In the
mad rush to plunder the earth of it's dwindling supply of non
renewable resources, the planners of today's industrial world have
forgotten the needs of future generations*.
The energy we receive from the sun is our birthright like the air we
breath or the water we drink. Dependence on nonrenewable energy
concentrates such as fossil fuels is no longer necessary. *The
exploitation of resources and people for economic growth is no
longer necessary*. The absurdities of our current high energy era can
only be corrected if the gentle politics of change are implemented
to bring about a post industrial renaissance. *Imagine a social order
motivated by love, courage and curiosity rather than hate, fear and
greed*. It will take more than a few solar collectors to encourage
people to live in harmony and bridge the gap between technical and
social evolution. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the
first step." If you feel strongly about taking that first step there
is something you can do. *Sign a petition to President Bush urging the
necessary research and development in the area of renewable
resources*. To find out more about this petition go to:
http://www.go2zero.com/adechert/solarletter.html.
For "Politics of the Solar Age" visit Hazel Henderson
www.hazelhenderson.com
DonQuijote1954
DonQuijote1954
> old it most likely is more of polluter than today's low emission
> certified SUV's like the Ford Explorer and the Toyota
> Highlander. As to safety, NHTSA statistics show
> that properly belted passenger are much safer in larger
> SUV's than any other vehicle. The dramatic drop in the
> death rate for children over the last five years is attributed to
> the fact more of them are riding in the
> large safer SUV's than five years ago. that of course is
> not widely publicized sine it would drive the country's
> leading environuts..... well nuts ;)
Yeah, right. And how about the kids in other vehicles?
Why don't you instead work on putting some order on the roads, ie.
reckless driving, sipping coffee, passing on the right, signal lights,
talking on the cellular, and many other SUV past times?
DonQuijote1954
> produces half of the worlds food, and that takes fuel.
> There is a lot more that comes out of a barrel of crude
> than gasoline, as well. As to fuel, do the comparison
> by vehicles in use. The US has far more new vehicles added to
> the market every year than they do combined, an average of
> 18,000,000 every year. An average of only 7,000,000 are
> scrapped. You do the math.
Sorry, but you complicate things even further...
"There is substantial room to achieve such reductions since the
consumption of oil per dollar of GDP is now more than *40 percent
higher* in the United States than it is in Germany and France.
Politicians have generally been reluctant to pursue this goal
aggressively because it has been assumed that doing so would require a
European style gasoline tax."
Oil Dependence and National Security: A Market-based System for
Reducing U.S. Vulnerability
Martin Feldstein (1)
The terrorist attacks on September 11th and the subsequent
demonstrations of anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East increase
the saliency of America's dependence on oil imports from the Gulf
states. The United States now imports more than half of all the oil
that we consume. One fourth of those imports come from Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, and Iraq. If there is no change in policy, that dependence
will grow in the future since those three countries plus the United
Arab Emirates have more than half of the world's reserves of oil while
the United States has only 2 percent of total reserves. (2)
America's dependence on imported oil is a serious cause of economic
vulnerability and a major constraint on our foreign defense policy.
The political leaders in the Middle East know that our dependence on
their oil gives them leverage over our policies. The possibility of
increasing that leverage emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in
order to extend the share of mid-East oil controlled by Iraq. And
while the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are basically
friendly to the United States, recent events have made it clear how
potentially vulnerable those governments are to radical elements
within their own countries. All of this is a cloud over the
continuation of oil supply from the Middle East.
Political leaders and expert commissions have been calling for a
reduction in our dependence on oil imports at least since 1974 when
President Nixon established Project Independence with the goal of
achieving energy independence by 1980. In fact, however, our
dependence on imported oil was still 42 percent of our consumption in
1980 and has risen to 52 percent in 2000. (3)
What can be done to reverse this trend? Increased oil production in
the United States could help to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
Some of the increased domestic production will occur as a natural
response to a rise in the world price of oil that results from
increasing global demand. A higher price will induce more exploration
and more extraction from such higher cost sources as deep wells and
off-shore sites. But even with these market forces at work, experts
now predict that the oil imports of the U.S. will rise to 70 percent
of our consumption by 2020.
Relaxing some of the government restrictions on oil drilling can
increase U.S. production further, but the impact on our dependence
will be small. For example, although the Administration's proposal to
open some of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling would
eventually increase production in Alaska by an important 600,000
barrels a day, that would only equal about 7 percent of what we now
import from the rest of the world.
Our dependence on foreign oil can only be limited in a significant way
if we reduce our consumption of oil. (4) There is substantial room to
achieve such reductions since the consumption of oil per dollar of GDP
is now more than 40 percent higher in the United States than it is in
Germany and France. Politicians have generally been reluctant to
pursue this goal aggressively because it has been assumed that doing
so would require a European style gasoline tax. As anyone who has
driven in France or Germany knows, an important reason for their lower
consumption of oil is that their gasoline taxes cause gasoline prices
to be nearly three times the level in the United States. The political
impossibility of imposing such a tax was brought home very clearly by
the abject failure of President Clinton's 1993 proposal for a general
Btu energy tax.
DonQuijote1954
> millions of dollar of liquid fuel taxes from the 'Interstate
> Highway Trust Fund' are diverted to mass transit. The majority
> of mass trust systems in the
> US could not function without federal and state funds
> paid by people that do not use the systems.
Neither could other transportation systems in the civilized world.
Regrettably America's system is the worst...
"Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
other options."
Without a Car in the World
by Jane Holtz Kay
The trumpet sounded from eighth row center at a Washington University
lecture hall in St. Louis five years ago. It was early in my
exploration of our "asphalt nation," and I was happy preaching to the
choir…or, I should say, to fellow passengers; for the students at the
St. Louis architecture school were already on the same trip. They had
seen the devastation from our architecture defined by the exit ramp.
They knew intuitively, if not literally, the design formulas that I
recited from the podium: that every motor vehicle required an
ancillary seven spaces to hold it at rest (parking) or in motion
(driving). They realized that big chunks, in fact some 30 percent of
our cities, were hardtopped in service to the car's voracious
appetite. And they knew the consequences: how that transformed the
built environment into a grim "carchitecture."
The architecture students absorbed my other arguments, too, on the
broader compass of America's car costs: financial, social and
environmental. They comprehended the motor vehicle's economic
toll--$6000 in personal costs and another $4000 or $5000 in
'invisible' ones borne by the public. They were startled by the health
and environmental hazards of driving, from the more than l20 fatal
accidents a day, to habitat destruction and global warming. They had
experienced the inconveniences of congestion and chauffeuring, of
parking and driving endless miles to get a quart of milk. The room
darkened, and they chuckled at the slides of cartoons and auto-mated
mayhem.
(snip)
Not only ourselves but our subsidies have dictated car-dependency and
limited our choices. Yet, ideas for pricing devices to make the car
pay its way emerge. There are many ways to curtail the car through the
cash register, to nibble away at the problem of the free ride given to
the car. Our artificially-priced gas cost of $l.25 or so is a quarter
of Japan or Europe's $4 to $5. By paying the true cost of petroleum,
other countries spend half our twenty percent of the GDP on the
private car and can thus afford decent public transportation.
Stop subsidizing cars and solo driving goes down while carpooling,
cycling, mass transit advance in central cities and enhance the
car-free life. We can pay at the pump or pay in excise taxes or
registration fees. Congestion pricing, charging more on roads and
bridges during peak periods of congestion (i.e. rush hour), works
well. So does a carbon, horsepower, or gas guzzling tax. A nickel a
mile surcharge would cut the car's travel ten percent, and hence its
smog, all the while reducing congestion thirty percent. The activism
and awareness of daily choices make a potent combination to bolster
living less hassled lives in a better environment. Yes, it demands a
re-orientation, a "newthink," as the Surface Transportation Policy
Project leading the ISTEA fight calls it. Yes, it demands new
attitudes but no more so than the glacial shifts of the two decades
that have put women in the workplace, recycling in the vocabulary, and
handicap access in buildings.
Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
other options. Choices are large and small. Awareness, say, that
one-third of the automobile's depletion of energy and other resources
comes in the manufacturing of that new car may make us keep a "junker"
car, not purchase a new one. Consciousness of the Superstores and the
money spent on the infrastructure and automobiles to support that
architecture of the exit ramp, may work to bolster walkable centers.
Consciously trying to reduce mileage and to reject automobility, or
hypermobility, as our Manifest Destiny will bring us down the road to
a better existence. At the least, it could make the car a servant not
a master, enable us to live in places not encrusted with asphalt (the
more parking space, the less place is my saying), help us enjoy our
daily existence, enhance our sense of community and advance global
well-being.
And one more thing.
Last fall, at the end of five car-free years, I had an epiphany in
seventy-mile an hour America. In the midst of the automakers'
celebration of the l00th anniversary of the motor vehicle as, first, a
talk-show host and, then, a film-maker documenting the interstate,
interviewed me, I perceived the most striking aspect of my
non-auto-mated life: its humanizing elements. The questions that fired
at me were analytical; my responses more or less cerebral. For several
hours, I plucked sound and sightbites from the Asphalt Nation chapters
I had labored on since I discarded my car. Typically, the
interviewer's questions tended to play the sentimental chords: What
about the nation's love affair with the automobile? what about our
romance with the open road? Equally, consistently, I responded with
skepticism.
"Love affair," said the interviewer.
"Jilted," I replied. Thrust into traffic jams of enlarging
proportions. Put on a treadmill by shop' n' drop lives in a land where
subsidy for the private car deprives us of decent public
transportation.
"Cushioned" from inconveniences, the announcer described the role of
the motor vehicle.
"Bombarded," by congestion, not to mention toxins that haze the air
and besmirch land and sea alike.
"Cheaper" than any other form of transportation.
"Subsidized," I described the government's underwriting of highways,
its funding of oil wars, and the hidden costs of the car-bred
infrastructure that breeds sprawl.
Jane Holtz Kay is architecture/planning critic for The Nation and
author of Asphalt Nation: How the Autombile Took Over American and How
We Can Take It Back
*Funny, thought provoking*
Josh Halpern
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
Actually, Dad gave us a proxy. See Genesis 1 24-31
josh halpern
DonQuijote1954
Worse, there were only a few of those, but SUVs are one of the 7
plagues of the latter times... ;)
FACT BOX
There are 22 million SUVs on U.S. roads, about 10 percent of the total
number of vehicles.
Some call for fast action
The industry has known for years about these dangers and has bobbed
and weaved to avoid regulation. The government has also dropped the
ball.
-- Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen
Report: SUVs pose danger to cars
Congressional hearing focuses on safety
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Posted: 1:06 PM EST (1806 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Congress takes its closest look at auto safety
on Wednesday since the Firestone tire debacle nearly two years ago,
probing the safety of sport utility vehicles.
Regulators, auto makers and consumer groups were scheduled to testify
at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on rollover risks, seat belt
use and other safety concerns associated with one of the most popular
vehicles ever.
The spotlight will be on the nation's top auto safety regulator,
Jeffrey Runge, who last month stunned the industry by criticizing SUV
safety. The administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration called for meaningful and swift changes.
Concerned about deaths
Runge, an emergency room physician who will be the featured witness at
the hearing, is most concerned about rollover deaths and injuries in
sport utility vehicles, seat belt use, and the threat posed to smaller
cars by bigger and stronger SUVs.
"SUVs inflict more harm on occupants than other cars do," said Brian
O'Neill, president of an insurance industry group that will release
new statistics on SUV safety at the hearing.
The group's report, an analysis of government safety data, will show
that sport utility fatality rates have fallen sharply in recent years
and are now almost even with passenger cars.
But O'Neill said the analysis will also show that because of their
size and weight, sport utility vehicles can cause considerable damage
to smaller passenger cars in side-impact crashes.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/02/26/hearing.suv.reut/index.html
Brent P
> "Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
> other options."
And that's why I don't understand anyone who likes to drive not
wanting for better public transportation. Consider me selfish as it
were, but since for all practical purposes having a competent driving
population in the USA isn't likely to happen I would like the next
best thing which is fewer people on the road. The best way to get that
is _GOOD_ public transportation. Public transportation
that works better than driving for large numbers of people.
However, I find that the ideas for getting more people to use public/mass
transportation aren't positive. They are punitive, designed to make
driving worse. This doesn't do any good at all. It only serves
to anger people who now have two bad choices instead of a
decent or functional choice in driving and a crappy in mass
transit. Some seem to be explicitly set up such that wealthy and/or
connected people can still drive with ease while regular folk can't.
Another thing that is popular is pushing bus service. The only advantage of
taking a bus is not looking for a parking place. Sit in the same
traffic and have to sit with the public in cramped space. It's the worst
of both combined.
Mass transit simply has to be better than driving for more people.
But that is unlikely to happen any time soon even if suddenly the valve
was opened and money poured into mass transit. From what I've seen
(and it could be just who has the loudest voice) the USA has lots of
anti-car people but compartively few actual pro-transit people, so the
money would be squandered.
DonQuijote1954
> SUV's, do indeed need to meet the same environmental and crash
> standards as cars. The only difference is the
> CAFE and light trucks do a better job of exceeding their CAFE
> than do cars.
No, no way. Cars got to have door impact bars, sturdy bumpers, etc.
You can't just import a French car into America, but SUVs get away as
"trucks." But the fundamental difference is that they are sold to be
safe when they are not... :(
The truth, underneath all the rationalizations, seemed to be that
S.U.V. buyers thought of big, heavy vehicles as safe: they found
comfort in being surrounded by so much rubber and steel. To the
engineers, of course, that didn't make any sense, either: if consumers
really wanted something that was big and heavy and comforting, they
ought to buy minivans, since minivans, with their unit-body
construction, do much better in accidents than S.U.V.s. (In a
thirty-five-m.p.h. crash test, for instance, the driver of a Cadillac
Escalade--the G.M. counterpart to the Lincoln Navigator--has a
sixteen-per-cent chance of a life-threatening head injury, a
twenty-per-cent chance of a life-threatening chest injury, and a
thirty-five-per-cent chance of a leg injury. The same numbers in a
Ford Windstar minivan--a vehicle engineered from the ground up, as
opposed to simply being bolted onto a pickup-truck frame--are,
respectively, two per cent, four per cent, and one per cent.) But this
desire for safety wasn't a rational calculation. It was a feeling.
Over the past decade, a number of major automakers in America have
relied on the services of a French-born cultural anthropologist, G.
Clotaire Rapaille, whose speciality is getting beyond the
rational--what he calls "cortex"--impressions of consumers and tapping
into their deeper, "reptilian" responses. And what Rapaille concluded
from countless, intensive sessions with car buyers was that when
S.U.V. buyers thought about safety they were thinking about something
that reached into their deepest unconscious. "The No. 1 feeling is
that everything surrounding you should be round and soft, and should
give," Rapaille told me. "There should be air bags everywhere. Then
there's this notion that you need to be up high. That's a
contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the
cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover.
But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller
I'm safer. You feel secure because you are higher and dominate and
look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful
notion. And what was the key element of safety when you were a child?
It was that your mother fed you, and there was warm liquid. That's why
cupholders are absolutely crucial for safety. If there is a car that
has no cupholder, it is not safe. If I can put my coffee there, if I
can have my food, if everything is round, if it's soft, and if I'm
high, then I feel safe. It's amazing that intelligent, educated women
will look at a car and the first thing they will look at is how many
cupholders it has." During the design of Chrysler's PT Cruiser, one of
the things Rapaille learned was that car buyers felt unsafe when they
thought that an outsider could easily see inside their vehicles. So
Chrysler made the back window of the PT Cruiser smaller. Of course,
making windows smaller--and thereby reducing visibility--makes driving
more dangerous, not less so. But that's the puzzle of what has
happened to the automobile world: feeling safe has become more
important than actually being safe.
DonQuijote1954
> In article <5db363e0.04071...@posting.google.com>,
> larryb...@yahoo.com (Larry Bud) wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> We should try to do away with socialism in all forms in our country.
>
> >> > >Because...?
>
> >> > because we're anti-socialist.
> >>
> >> Circulo in demonstrandum. "We should do 'x' because we should do 'x'".
> >> You'll have to do a great deal better than that.
> >>
> >> Now: Why should we "try to do away with socialism in all forms in our
> >> country"?
> >
> >Because individuals have unalienable rights given to us by our
> >creator.
>
> There you have it! God wants us to drive SUVs!
You know what? You made me think... ;)
How about if Europe, and all its former colonies (of course, except
the US) and the rest of the world were wrong? What about if the whole
process of Evolution was wrong in producing so many stupid species
that (except for petroleum) don't have any legitimate reason to be
here? We, helped by God and SUVs, are sure to correct those
blunders...
Hallelujah!!!
DonQuijote1954
Yeah, but conservative governments are unique in that they increase
their military spending while cutting down on welfare.
DonQuijote1954
DonQuijote1954
shop...
I like the Copulator GTX with the boat rack, Batman Package. Isn't
this peace of mind?
"Isn't it comforting to know
you can drive a vehicle while stone drunk, with no seatbelt,
and high on crack without endangering YOUR self or YOUR family?
Soon everyone else will realize what a comfort this is and all
humanity will own SUVs."
DonQuijote1954
DonQuijote1954
> shop...
>
> I like the Copulator GTX with the boat rack, Batman Package. Isn't
> this peace of mind?
Correction, it's the Fornicator. All SUVs are copulators as they mount
the smaller cars. Did you realize cars are all feminine and SUVs, well
machos? The gun rack is a nice feature if the other party in the
accident wants to argue too much--if he's left alive.
DonQuijote1954
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=88372
<It is unwise to congratulate nature for its natural nature event.
Dinosaurs were the perfect creation and die as a result of cosmic
catastrophe. And this is what worries the most; that they were adopted
to environment, powerful and disappeared.
Statement claiming lack of morality between dinosaurs is equally
nonsense as claiming the morality in motivation in human beings.>
Howdy Woj
No wait a minute, there's no ultimate morality in Nature? Shouldn't we
extend it to the Human? Or at least in reverse? Then there's no right
and wrong and Bush it's only a manifestation of the will of Nature to
prey on others, and some are predators and some are prey?
If you believe in God, on the other hand, then you must accept that he
hurled the Asteroid in disgust as only He could have taken such an
important decision that ultimately led to the rise of us Human Beings.
We could not have shared the Earth as the dinosaurs would have preyed
on us...
If you don't believe, you still got to see the will of Nature to order
efficiency over waste. The Law of the Jungle is not mandated by
Nature, and if it is, then the only response of the small animals is
to cooperate and find strenght in numbers. Then it would be a fight
for survival between between the few and the many, the big and the
small. That was the only choice left for the cooperating Little
Ants...
Lloyd Parker
DTJ <d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 19 Jul 2004 17:58:45 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>(DonQuijote1954) wrote:
>
>>Yeah, but conservative governments are unique in that they increase
>>their military spending while cutting down on welfare.
>
The people who wrote the US constitution disagree. "Provide for the general
welfare" actually comes before "common defense."
Lloyd Parker
DTJ <d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 19 Jul 2004 16:12:12 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>(DonQuijote1954) wrote:
>
>>Why don't you instead work on putting some order on the roads, ie.
>>reckless driving,
>
Yeah, but nobody enforces it.
>
>>sipping coffee,
>
>How is this dangerous?
>
>>passing on the right,
>
>See above. There is no need for passing on the right if assholes like
>you would obey the law and get your stupid ass to the right.
>
>>signal lights,
>>talking on the cellular, and many other SUV past times?
>
>Only SUV drivers do this?
Most of the time when I come up on a driver poking at 55 in the left lane, it
is indeed an SUV driver, and often he/she is clueless to what's going on
around him/her because he/she is indeed talking on a cell phone.
Seriously, add SUVs to the people you never want to get behind, right next to
people with hats, people with white hair, and people driving an RV.
Matthew Russotto
Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <XLCdncDf59c...@speakeasy.net>,
> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>In article <cdgph7$1p5$5...@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>>Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <kqqif0p3ibe842eug...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>>>>On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>>>>(DonQuijote1954)
>>>>
>>>>>It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Great, move to France. We should try to do away with socialism in all
>>>>forms in our country.
>>>
>>>OK, you try to eliminate Social Security. Public schools. Public highways.
>
>>>The military and the police.
>>
>>Social Security will take care of itself, circa 2015.
>
>If you believe politicians will let SS expire, I've got a bridge to sell you.
It's not an "expiration", it's a collapse of a pyramid scheme.
Doesn't matter whether the politicians "let" it expire or not. They
can no more prevent it than hold back the tide.
>>Public schools
>>already suck in many areas,
>
>But it's all most people can afford.
Sure.... mainly because their money is being sucked into the worthless
public schools.
>>and if certain parties (that would be the
>>Democratic party, specifically) have their way, they will suck
>>everywhere, and wipe themselves out in the same way. Highways are
>>paid for by their users in rough proportion to their use.
>
>Not true. A significant chunk of the highway budget comes from general
>revenues.
And a signficant portion of highway taxes are funneled elsewhere.
>As does money for law enforcement there, emergency responders,
>etc.
Law enforcement on the highways is revenue generating.
>>And every
>>government has external and internal security forces, not just socialist
>ones.
>>
>But wouldn't they be supplied by private corporations in your model?
No. I'm not an anarchist.
Ian St. John
> In article <cdh72l$gu8$1...@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
> Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>> In article <XLCdncDf59c...@speakeasy.net>,
>> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>> In article <cdgph7$1p5$5...@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>>> Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article <kqqif0p3ibe842eug...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>>>>> On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>>>>> (DonQuijote1954)
>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, move to France. We should try to do away with socialism
>>>>> in all forms in our country.
>>>>
>>>> OK, you try to eliminate Social Security. Public schools. Public
>>>> highways.
>>
>>>> The military and the police.
>>>
>>> Social Security will take care of itself, circa 2015.
>>
>> If you believe politicians will let SS expire, I've got a bridge to
>> sell you.
>
> It's not an "expiration", it's a collapse of a pyramid scheme.
Not true. The claims are based on the idea that the fund is financed from
revenue input, not on accumulated savings. There is nothing that resembles a
pyramid scheme where funding is dependent on the number of currrently active
contributors. The excess is 'loaned' to the general debt as it accruse and
'withdrawn' from the general debt as workers become entitled on retirement
> Doesn't matter whether the politicians "let" it expire or not. They
> can no more prevent it than hold back the tide.
Your faith is total stupidity and lies is touching.
>
>>> Public schools
>>> already suck in many areas,
>>
>> But it's all most people can afford.
>
> Sure.... mainly because their money is being sucked into the worthless
> public schools.
Not true. The main 'suck' is pushing money into the private schools for the
benefit of the elite, while stripping the public schools under the ideal of
'reducing taxes'. However the taxe adjustments already push the burden on
the poor at double the rate of the rich in order to try to pay for tax
holidays for the super wealthy who benefit from the private education
system.
http://www.ctj.org/html/whopay.htm
>
>>> and if certain parties (that would be the
>>> Democratic party, specifically) have their way, they will suck
>>> everywhere, and wipe themselves out in the same way. Highways are
>>> paid for by their users in rough proportion to their use.
>>
>> Not true. A significant chunk of the highway budget comes from
>> general revenues.
>
> And a signficant portion of highway taxes are funneled elsewhere.
More dumb crap.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/attrib.htm
"Each State is guaranteed that at least 90.5 percent of its highway user
percentage attributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund
will be returned to the State."
>
>> As does money for law enforcement there, emergency responders,
>> etc.
>
> Law enforcement on the highways is revenue generating.
You must be totally unaware of the costs of policing. While you were paying
that $20 ticket, the police helicopter above you was sucking that up in
about 7.3 seconds of operation.
Matthew Russotto
DonQuijote1954 <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Per 1000 persons is a ruse and meaningless. The US
>> produces half of the worlds food, and that takes fuel.
>> There is a lot more that comes out of a barrel of crude
>> than gasoline, as well. As to fuel, do the comparison
>> by vehicles in use. The US has far more new vehicles added to
>> the market every year than they do combined, an average of
>> 18,000,000 every year. An average of only 7,000,000 are
>> scrapped. You do the math.
>
>Sorry, but you complicate things even further...
That's because the issue is complicated.
Matthew Russotto
>> millions of dollar of liquid fuel taxes from the 'Interstate
>> Highway Trust Fund' are diverted to mass transit. The majority
>> of mass trust systems in the
>> US could not function without federal and state funds
>> paid by people that do not use the systems.
>
>Neither could other transportation systems in the civilized world.
>Regrettably America's system is the worst...
The worst? No. Bad, if you're lacking a car? Sure.
>"Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
>other options."
Like what, a free private chauffer?
>They knew intuitively, if not literally, the design formulas that I
>recited from the podium: that every motor vehicle required an
>ancillary seven spaces to hold it at rest (parking) or in motion
>(driving).
Nonsense, of course. Each parked motor vehicle actually holds only
one space at a time. Most might take two -- one where they are
primarily garaged (which is unavailable for other uses) and one where
they actually are. A substantial minority might have two reserved
spots. Seven is nonsense, and nonsense recited from the podium is
still nonsense.
>They realized that big chunks, in fact some 30 percent of
>our cities, were hardtopped in service to the car's voracious
>appetite.
A number pulled out of the writer's nether regions.
>The architecture students absorbed my other arguments, too, on the
>broader compass of America's car costs: financial, social and
>environmental.
Too bad they hadn't developed critical thinking skills. Or perhaps
they'd learned that this idiot just wanted his idiocy recited back in
order to get a high mark.
>accidents a day, to habitat destruction and global warming. They had
>experienced the inconveniences of congestion and chauffeuring, of
>parking and driving endless miles to get a quart of milk.
Sure beats pumping it out of the cow by hand.
Matthew Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com>, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>
>> "Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
>> other options."
>
>And that's why I don't understand anyone who likes to drive not
>wanting for better public transportation.
Every additional bus on the road is one more slow, large, smelly,
lane-blocking vehicle; I'd rather have the cars it replaces. Every
dollar spent on transit (usually contracts given to politician's cronies) is
(literally) one dollar out of the pockets of drivers, a dollar that
might otherwise be spent giving highway contracts to politician's cronies.
Larry Bud
> oil...
> >
> >But the issue at hand is a tax on SUVs because they consume more gas.
> >That's already taken care of by the fact that gas has a consumption
> >tax.
>
> A pittance of one.
Hardly. The tax averages 45 cents / gallon in the U.S., which is a
25% tax.
Consumption taxes the fairest of them all. If you use twice the gas,
you pay twice the tax.
Larry Bud
> > That's already taken care of by the fact that gas has a consumption
> > tax.
>
> plague. They do it in America with tobacco. What's wrong with that?
Incredible how you can get so worked up over inanimate object,
equating them to a "plague".
What's wrong is this type of taxation is social engineering by the
government. Stay the hell out of my life, thank you very much.
That's not government's purpose. It's purpose (in the U.S., at least)
is to protect our rights, and not to create powers which take them
away.
> Further, when you smoke you only poison yourself, but when you drive
> an SUV you poison my lungs.
Geez, what nonsense. Do you know how clean new vehicles, including
SUVs, are? If you want cleaner air, force the people driving the 20
year old pieces of shit to buy a brand new SUV, which emit 1% of the
old pieces of shit.
> Like I said, tax the Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles...
And as I pointed out, those who require more gas pay more in taxes,
exactly in scale with the amount of gas they use. Perfectly fair.
Who made you God to deem them unnecessary? Since when is "necessity"
a requirement of products you buy?
You SUV haters amaze me. I seriously wonder if it's a type of mental
disorder, in which someone can have such hatred over a machine.
Perhaps a psychologist could weigh in on thia matter.
Lloyd Parker
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <cdh72l$gu8$1...@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>In article <XLCdncDf59c...@speakeasy.net>,
>> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>In article <cdgph7$1p5$5...@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>>>Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>>>In article <kqqif0p3ibe842eug...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Mike Z. Helm <mh...@not.known> wrote:
>>>>>On 17 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0700, nolionn...@hotmail.com
>>>>>(DonQuijote1954)
>>>>>
>>>>>>It sounds like a heck of a good idea to me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Great, move to France. We should try to do away with socialism in all
>>>>>forms in our country.
>>>>
>>>>OK, you try to eliminate Social Security. Public schools. Public
highways.
>>
>>>>The military and the police.
>>>
>>>Social Security will take care of itself, circa 2015.
>>
>>If you believe politicians will let SS expire, I've got a bridge to sell
you.
>
>It's not an "expiration", it's a collapse of a pyramid scheme.
>Doesn't matter whether the politicians "let" it expire or not. They
>can no more prevent it than hold back the tide.
The gov't has more ways to raise money than are dreamt of in heaven and
earth. They will do so for SS.
>
>>>Public schools
>>>already suck in many areas,
>>
>>But it's all most people can afford.
>
>Sure.... mainly because their money is being sucked into the worthless
>public schools.
No, because people without children are pretty much willing to pay taxes for
public schools, subsidizing them, but we sure aren't going to pay taxes for
religious instruction!
>
>>>and if certain parties (that would be the
>>>Democratic party, specifically) have their way, they will suck
>>>everywhere, and wipe themselves out in the same way. Highways are
>>>paid for by their users in rough proportion to their use.
>>
>>Not true. A significant chunk of the highway budget comes from general
>>revenues.
>
>And a signficant portion of highway taxes are funneled elsewhere.
Not the gasoline taxes.
>
>>As does money for law enforcement there, emergency responders,
>>etc.
>
>Law enforcement on the highways is revenue generating.
Not necessarily. For example, the State Patrol in GA. Any tickets written
go to the city or county where the ticket was written, not into the State
Patrol's budget.
Lloyd Parker
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <yLZKc.118758$JR4.40991@attbi_s54>,
>Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com>,
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> "Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
>>> other options."
>>
>>And that's why I don't understand anyone who likes to drive not
>>wanting for better public transportation.
>
>Every additional bus on the road is one more slow, large, smelly,
>lane-blocking vehicle; I'd rather have the cars it replaces.
But buses now generally use the HOV lane on expressways and stay out of the
way of us solo motorists! Also, it's easier to pass 1 car on a surface
street than 20-30 cars.
>Every
>dollar spent on transit (usually contracts given to politician's cronies) is
>(literally) one dollar out of the pockets of drivers, a dollar that
>might otherwise be spent giving highway contracts to politician's cronies.
>
>
>
Similarly, I don't mind paying for children to get vaccinated, as that helps
me too.
Lloyd Parker
And a 12-mpg SUV that drives 12,000 miles a year pays $450; a 50-mpg car,
$108. Somehow, $300 tax for guzzling that much gas strikes me as, well, a
pittance (especially on a $30,000+ SUV -- that's a 1% tax).
A better idea would be take, say, 25 mpg as a yardstick. For every 0.1 mpg a
vehicle gets below that, a $100 yearly tax. So that 12-mpg SUV would pay
$13,000. That might finally get people out of their Hummers. And for every
0.1 mpg above the yardstick, a credit of $100 a year. Then automakers would
have more incentive to develop hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles, as they
could sell them at a profit and people would still buy them knowing they'd
get a tax credit to offset the higher purchase price.
Lloyd Parker
>> > That's already taken care of by the fact that gas has a consumption
>> > tax.
>>
>> They are trying to curb the problem by taxation, before SUVs become a
>> plague. They do it in America with tobacco. What's wrong with that?
>
>Incredible how you can get so worked up over inanimate object,
>equating them to a "plague".
>
>What's wrong is this type of taxation is social engineering by the
>government. Stay the hell out of my life, thank you very much.
>That's not government's purpose. It's purpose (in the U.S., at least)
>is to protect our rights, and not to create powers which take them
>away.
And having clean air is a right. National security, which our dependence on
foreign oil threatens, is a right.
>
>> Further, when you smoke you only poison yourself, but when you drive
>> an SUV you poison my lungs.
>
>Geez, what nonsense. Do you know how clean new vehicles, including
>SUVs, are?
Not as clean as they could be. And don't forget the CO2, which is
proportional to gasoline used.
>If you want cleaner air, force the people driving the 20
>year old pieces of shit to buy a brand new SUV, which emit 1% of the
>old pieces of shit.
The heaviest vehicles don't have the same strict standards.
>
>> Like I said, tax the Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles...
>
>And as I pointed out, those who require more gas pay more in taxes,
>exactly in scale with the amount of gas they use. Perfectly fair.
Not when it's less than 1% of the purchase price. What's $300 a year to a
Hummer owner?
>
>Who made you God to deem them unnecessary? Since when is "necessity"
>a requirement of products you buy?
>
>You SUV haters amaze me. I seriously wonder if it's a type of mental
>disorder, in which someone can have such hatred over a machine.
>Perhaps a psychologist could weigh in on thia matter.
No, it's concern for our safety, for our climate, for our dependence on
foreign oil...
Brent P
> In article <yLZKc.118758$JR4.40991@attbi_s54>,
> Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <4e4a3f58.04071...@posting.google.com>, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> "Many Americans would stop putting the pedal to the metal if they had
>>> other options."
>>
>>And that's why I don't understand anyone who likes to drive not
>>wanting for better public transportation.
> Every additional bus on the road is one more slow, large, smelly,
> lane-blocking vehicle; I'd rather have the cars it replaces.
You should read entire posts before replying. It makes you look less
foolish. If you go back you'll see I don't consider buses to be a
solution.
> Every
> dollar spent on transit (usually contracts given to politician's cronies) is
> (literally) one dollar out of the pockets of drivers, a dollar that
> might otherwise be spent giving highway contracts to politician's cronies.
Considering IL is great for that, I'll tell ya the road is better before
they repave it and it falls apart the first winter.
Matthew Russotto
Ian St. John <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
Looks like all the know-nothings are back.
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>> It's not an "expiration", it's a collapse of a pyramid scheme.
>
>Not true. The claims are based on the idea that the fund is financed from
>revenue input, not on accumulated savings.
Which it is.
>There is nothing that resembles a
>pyramid scheme where funding is dependent on the number of currrently active
>contributors. The excess is 'loaned' to the general debt as it accruse and
>'withdrawn' from the general debt as workers become entitled on retirement
Quite. But the scheme, as with any pyramid scheme, works because
there's many more workers paying in than there are retirees taking
out. With the Baby Boom generation retiring, along with the general
trend towards longer lifespans, that inequality will no longer hold.
>You must be totally unaware of the costs of policing. While you were paying
>that $20 ticket, the police helicopter above you was sucking that up in
>about 7.3 seconds of operation.
The ticket was more like $120, and no helicopter was required.
Brent P
> Not when it's less than 1% of the purchase price. What's $300 a year to a
> Hummer owner?
About the same as is to a Mercedes owner/renter.
Ian St. John
> In article <c8cLc.17756$Vw3.9...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Ian St. John <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote:
>
> Looks like all the know-nothings are back.
>
>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not an "expiration", it's a collapse of a pyramid scheme.
>>
>> Not true. The claims are based on the idea that the fund is financed
>> from revenue input, not on accumulated savings.
>
> Which it is.
Bullshit. The people put money in over their lifetime and collect it when
they retire *with the built up interest*. The idea of it as a pyramid scheme
is a lie promoted by rightwing propagandists. The use of cash from current
workers to pay out to retired people is no different than the banks using
the money from deposits to hand out to clients making withdrawals. The flow
of money is not important. The account balance is the real basis of
accounting.
>
>> There is nothing that resembles a
>> pyramid scheme where funding is dependent on the number of
>> currrently active contributors. The excess is 'loaned' to the
>> general debt as it accruse and 'withdrawn' from the general debt as
>> workers become entitled on retirement
>
> Quite.
So you are smart enough to know when you are wrong?
> But the scheme, as with any pyramid scheme, works because
> there's many more workers paying in than there are retirees taking
> out.
It works because it is a retirement investment backed by the government who
maintains the account until retirement and pays it out when entitled. No
different than an RRSP, which may be invested in your local business while
you wait. The number of active customers making withdrawals against their
account vs the number making deposits merely changes the level of stored
funds to be invested.
> With the Baby Boom generation retiring, along with the general
> trend towards longer lifespans, that inequality will no longer hold.
What inequality??? Are you talking about the account or the cash flow? So
the fund has to recall some loans from invested funds. It is the workers
money, and they have a right to withdraw from the account regardless. How
about going to the bank and being told that there aren't enough funds on
hand because not enough people came in to make deposits? Would you accept
that you money is *gone* because of this???? Fuck you are stupid. Maybe you
would...
>
>> You must be totally unaware of the costs of policing. While you were
>> paying that $20 ticket, the police helicopter above you was sucking
>> that up in about 7.3 seconds of operation.
>
> The ticket was more like $120, and no helicopter was required.
You must speed a *lot*, and it may have been used. You don't know. It is
still part of the costs of policing just to have it available in case you
decide to try to outrun the cop car.
DonQuijote1954
literature, El Dinosaurio (The Dinosaur), which reads in its entirety:
"When he awoke, the dinosaur was still there."
<I'm new here, but what we need a dinosaur for? >
Good question Xena. Actually many people are asking the same, same
question. I guess the dinosaur is still around out of habit. He got a
very small brain, and it's used to using its size to get the point
across.
Many writers have known of this problem, and one of my favorities
passed recently. Honor to him. May he be in dinosaur-free territory.
Master of brevity dies in Mexico
The Guatemalan writer Augusto Monterroso, winner of Spain's
prestigious Prince of Asturias prize for literature and an acclaimed
master of the short story, has died, his family has said.
By Guardian Newspapers, 2/10/2003
The Guatemalan writer Augusto Monterroso, winner of Spain's
prestigious Prince of Asturias prize for literature and an acclaimed
master of the short story, has died, his family has said.
Monterroso, who was 81, died of a heart attack at the weekend at his
home in Mexico City where he lived with his wife, the Mexican author
Barbara Jacobs.
The writer was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, but held Guatemalan
citizenship.
He had lived in Mexico since 1944 when he was exiled from Guatemala
for opposing the dictator Jorge Ubico and protesting against US-owned
banana plantations operating in Central America.
He returned to Guatemala in 1996 to receive the country's National
Literature Award.
"He is one of the cleanest, most intelligent, transparent and smiling
authors in the Spanish language," the Mexican author Carlos Fuentes
said of Monterroso in 2000, the year he won the Prince of Asturias
prize.
Monterroso is credited with one of the shortest stories of all
literature, El Dinosaurio (The Dinosaur), which reads in its entirety:
"When he awoke, the dinosaur was still there."
He also wrote the critically acclaimed The Black Sheep and Other
Fables, which has been translated into English. Other works included
Perpetual Movement and All the Rest is Silence.
Brent P
> Bullshit. The people put money in over their lifetime and collect it when
> they retire *with the built up interest*.
What interest rate am I getting on the SS tax I've paid thus far? You can't
tell me, because it's not like a savings account. It's a government
entitlement program which can be adjusted or eliminated at any time. It
bares no resemblence to a savings account.
> The idea of it as a pyramid scheme is a lie promoted by rightwing
> propagandists.
According to social security it works very much like a pyramid scheme.
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
-> Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my retirement?
-> Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's
-> taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not needed
-> to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury bonds.
The proof is here, where they declare there is not sufficently large
bottom of the pyramid for the future:
-> I hear that Social Security has a big financial problem? Why?
-> Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect
-> today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious.
-> People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years from
-> retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the
-> worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1
-> today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be
-> enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.
Regardless of how much of a reserve may exist at that time, once pay ins
do not meet pay outs, the pyramid is collasping.
> The use of cash from current
> workers to pay out to retired people is no different than the banks using
> the money from deposits to hand out to clients making withdrawals. The flow
> of money is not important. The account balance is the real basis of
> accounting.
Really? How about this from the horse's mouth?
-> I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what can
-> I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
->
-> Unless changes are made, at age 73 your scheduled benefits could be
-> reduced by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year
-> thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the Trustees Report
-> I'm 25 years old. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what
-> can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
->
-> Unless changes are made, when you reach age 63 in 2042, benefits for all
-> retirees could be cut by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced
-> every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which
-> will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by
-> 33 percent from today's scheduled levels. See the Trustees Report
When I put money into a bank, I can expect it to be there. I can expect
a certain payout when buying an annunity. Not the case with social
security.
> It works because it is a retirement investment backed by the government who
> maintains the account until retirement and pays it out when entitled. No
> different than an RRSP, which may be invested in your local business while
> you wait. The number of active customers making withdrawals against their
> account vs the number making deposits merely changes the level of stored
> funds to be invested.
There is nothing that even resembles a bank account with social security.
They track how much that is paid in, but there is nothing established to
insure that a person or his heirs can get what he put in. You can put
in all your working life, and an act of congress or your death and the
money goes *POOF*. Bank accounts do not work like that.
Lance Lamboy
<snip>
>
>> It works because it is a retirement investment backed by the government
>> who maintains the account until retirement and pays it out when
>> entitled. No different than an RRSP, which may be invested in your
>> local business while you wait. The number of active customers making
>> withdrawals against their account vs the number making deposits merely
>> changes the level of stored funds to be invested.
>
> There is nothing that even resembles a bank account with social
> security. They track how much that is paid in, but there is nothing
> established to insure that a person or his heirs can get what he put in.
> You can put in all your working life, and an act of congress or your
> death and the money goes *POOF*. Bank accounts do not work like that.
Really? Who do you think insures bank accounts? How do bank accounts work?
Social Security will not collapse because the government can always print
more money. The more serious concern is that the Social Security payments
will not buy as much as you have calculated.
--
Lance Lamboy
"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney
Ian St. John
> In article <nVeLc.18622$Vw3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Ian St.
> John wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. The people put money in over their lifetime and collect it
>> when they retire *with the built up interest*.
>
> What interest rate am I getting on the SS tax I've paid thus far? You
> can't tell me, because it's not like a savings account. It's a
> government entitlement program which can be adjusted or eliminated at
> any time. It bares no resemblence to a savings account.
Well, it is true that the government can adjust it at any time. They are the
ones paying interest so they are the ones that set the rate of payout to
payin. However it is not hard to calculate for the average of the program.
Just look at what the average paying has been over the working mans career
vs the payout levels. Even an idiot ought to be able to figure that one out.
>
>> The idea of it as a pyramid scheme is a lie promoted by rightwing
>> propagandists.
>
> According to social security it works very much like a pyramid scheme.
No. It is neither described as a pyramid scheme nor operates as one. You are
just blowing smoke.
>
> http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
> -> Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my
> retirement?
>
> -> Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's
> -> taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not
> needed
> -> to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury
> bonds.
Which is basically equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank by
customer X is paid out to customer Y when he draws on his account. It is
*cashflow* description, not an accounting.
>
> The proof is here, where they declare there is not sufficently large
> bottom of the pyramid for the future:
It is not proof of anything except a discussion of how the cashflow is
managed. This does not make your bank a 'pyramid scheme' and it does not
make the SS a pyramid scheme. This is the basic lie promoted by right wing
idiots that cannot understand basic accounting.
>
> -> I hear that Social Security has a big financial problem? Why?
>
> -> Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not
> -> affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and
> serious.
> -> People are living longer, the first baby boomers are five years
> from
> -> retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the
> -> worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16-to-1 in 1950 to
> 3.3-to-1
> -> today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will
> not be
> -> enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.
not stated but understood.. "out of current cash flow". However, the
government is not restricted to current cash flow. They have taken the
benefit of long years of SS surpluses to pay down the national debt (paying
off debt is acutally more economical than investing the money because the
debt is usually higher interest rates than investments ) and they may have
to dip into it to pay it back now.
Discussing the problem with cash flow, NOT the accounts. The fact is that as
the 'customers' withdraw their moeny from their accounts, they may have to
recall some of the loans made from the previous surpluses when the cashflow
becomes critical.
>
> Regardless of how much of a reserve may exist at that time, once pay
> ins do not meet pay outs, the pyramid is collasping.
Only if the surplus paid in before is wasted rather than invested as in SS.
Show me how the workers investments were blown on mansions, wild parties,
booze and fast cars for the government and maybe I'll give you some
credibility. Oh. wait! It cannot be spent on such things! It is REQUIRED by
law to be invested for the future payout.
>> The use of cash from current
>> workers to pay out to retired people is no different than the banks
>> using the money from deposits to hand out to clients making
>> withdrawals. The flow of money is not important. The account balance
>> is the real basis of accounting.
>
> Really? How about this from the horse's mouth?
It seems I'm speaking to a horses ass...
< more specious crap deleted>
Note: The bookkeeping does not have to keep specific account information.
Basically the governmetn got the money and the government will repay the
money with interest. None of it was 'wasted' for a fancy lifestyle by a
scammer. The only scam here is the one that is being run by rightwing idiots
trying to lie about it.
Ian St. John
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:06:27 +0000, Brent P wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>> It works because it is a retirement investment backed by the
>>> government who maintains the account until retirement and pays it
>>> out when entitled. No different than an RRSP, which may be invested
>>> in your local business while you wait. The number of active
>>> customers making withdrawals against their account vs the number
>>> making deposits merely changes the level of stored funds to be
>>> invested.
>>
>> There is nothing that even resembles a bank account with social
>> security. They track how much that is paid in, but there is nothing
>> established to insure that a person or his heirs can get what he put
>> in. You can put in all your working life, and an act of congress or
>> your death and the money goes *POOF*. Bank accounts do not work like
>> that.
>
> Really? Who do you think insures bank accounts? How do bank accounts
> work?
You pays your money and you can then withdraw your money. Have you never
used anything but cash??? I guess not...
>
> Social Security will not collapse because the government can always
> print more money.
Not exactly. It will not collapse because the government can pay back the
surpluses which accumulated over the baby boom.
> The more serious concern is that the Social
> Security payments will not buy as much as you have calculated.
I haven't calculated any particular level of payback. It is not much really.
A supplemental retirement fund at best but it does help those who lost their
retirement fund to Enron...
Lance Lamboy
<snip>
>
> Note: The bookkeeping does not have to keep specific account
> information. Basically the governmetn got the money and the government
> will repay the money with interest. None of it was 'wasted' for a fancy
> lifestyle by a scammer. The only scam here is the one that is being run
> by rightwing idiots trying to lie about it.
This is what is going on. The SS Trust fund buys Government Bonds. The
government uses the money that it would otherwise have to raise from taxes
to spend on secret Halliburton contracts. Dick Cheney gets his
performance bonus from Halliburton that he uses to fund his fancy
lifestyle. Then when the bonds are due, the Treasury printers will get
some nice overtime work. The government will pay back the bonds with
interest. Social Security will meet its obligations. The US Dollar will
be worthless.
Lance Lamboy
> I am amazed that someone who claims to be intelligent doesn't understand
> the definition of the word welfare in the constitution does not mean
> buying crack for you whores.
Yes. When the Founding Fathers used the word "General Welfare" they
clearly meant it to mean "$1000/hour hookers for Halliburton execs."
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <nVeLc.18622$Vw3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Ian St.
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit. The people put money in over their lifetime and collect it
>>> when they retire *with the built up interest*.
>>
>> What interest rate am I getting on the SS tax I've paid thus far? You
>> can't tell me, because it's not like a savings account. It's a
>> government entitlement program which can be adjusted or eliminated at
>> any time. It bares no resemblence to a savings account.
> Well, it is true that the government can adjust it at any time. They are the
> ones paying interest so they are the ones that set the rate of payout to
> payin. However it is not hard to calculate for the average of the program.
> Just look at what the average paying has been over the working mans career
> vs the payout levels. Even an idiot ought to be able to figure that one out.
It's still not a savings account. And because they can change it at
anytime and we cannot go elsewhere to save our money, we become dependent
on elected officals. This increases their power over us.
>>> The idea of it as a pyramid scheme is a lie promoted by rightwing
>>> propagandists.
>>
>> According to social security it works very much like a pyramid scheme.
> No. It is neither described as a pyramid scheme nor operates as one. You are
> just blowing smoke.
Sorry, the material on the Social Security Administration says otherwise.
Like a pyramid scheme, it's pay-as-you-go. Those on the bottom of pyramid
(taxpayers) have money transfered from them to those on the top of the
pyramid (retires).
>> http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
>> -> Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my
>> retirement?
>>
>> -> Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's
>> -> taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not
>> needed
>> -> to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury
>> bonds.
> Which is basically equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank by
> customer X is paid out to customer Y when he draws on his account. It is
> *cashflow* description, not an accounting.
If any citizen of the USA were to put together this same scheme and call it
"cashflow" or "equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank" he
would still go to jail for running a pyramid scheme.
>> The proof is here, where they declare there is not sufficently large
>> bottom of the pyramid for the future:
> It is not proof of anything except a discussion of how the cashflow is
> managed. This does not make your bank a 'pyramid scheme' and it does not
> make the SS a pyramid scheme. This is the basic lie promoted by right wing
> idiots that cannot understand basic accounting.
You snip it because it shows the collaspe of the pyramid. A bank account
doesn't require new accounts to be opened. A bank account does not require
others to keep making deposits for the bank to stay solvent. A pyramid
scheme on the other hand does require the base to grow sufficently with
those on top of the pyramid to remain functional. The collaspe of a
pyramid scheme is characterized by not finding enough people to make up
that base. This is the problem social security is projected to have. Not
enough people to feed the payouts. If I put a $100000 in the bank, I don't
have to worry about there being 6 people to open new accounts so I can
get my money back. With social security, this is a very real problem. When
and if I ever retire, I do have to worry about there being enough workers
to pay enough into the system so I can get the same amount I put in back,
let alone any 'interest'.
> Discussing the problem with cash flow, NOT the accounts. The fact is that as
> the 'customers' withdraw their moeny from their accounts, they may have to
> recall some of the loans made from the previous surpluses when the cashflow
> becomes critical.
Elected officals could tell us all tomorrow that
they are canceling the program and we're shit out of luck. If a bank did
that there would be legal recourse to recover the funds. There is no
parallel between social security and savings in a bank account. None, zero,
zilch. It is now, IMO, at best a risky long term investment that I am being
forced to make. At worst, and as I consider it most of the time, just
another income tax.
>> Regardless of how much of a reserve may exist at that time, once pay
>> ins do not meet pay outs, the pyramid is collasping.
> Only if the surplus paid in before is wasted rather than invested as in SS.
> Show me how the workers investments were blown on mansions, wild parties,
> booze and fast cars for the government and maybe I'll give you some
> credibility. Oh. wait! It cannot be spent on such things! It is REQUIRED by
> law to be invested for the future payout.
Ahh divert the issue. Cute, but totally irrelevant. A lack of corruption
doesn't make it any less of a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes can be run
without corruption too. Run by the book and they still collaspe. The
reason is that the base eventually cannot be big enough to support all
the people who are further up. That's social security's future problem, not
enough people working and paying taxes to fund those getting a payout.
This is right from their website.
> It seems I'm speaking to a horses ass...
I knew you would react badly to the actual information from a source you
cannot call 'right wing' and dismiss.
>< more specious crap deleted>
You mean the Q and A from the social security admin.
> Note: The bookkeeping does not have to keep specific account information.
> Basically the governmetn got the money and the government will repay the
> money with interest. None of it was 'wasted' for a fancy lifestyle by a
> scammer. The only scam here is the one that is being run by rightwing idiots
> trying to lie about it.
Again, you try to divert the issue. By the information from the social
security administration, it doesn't work like a bank account (as you
claim) in any shape or form. Given what they wrote, it most resembles
a pyramid scheme. Those low on the pyramid (workers) paying those high
on the pyramid (retirees). There are no savings accounts, no interest,
you work your way to the top, paying your way up, and if the pyramid
hasn't collasped, and you haven't died, then you get a payout.
If social security was anything like a bank account, it wouldn't go
*poof* with an act of congress or one's death.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <nVeLc.18622$Vw3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, Ian St.
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit. The people put money in over their lifetime and collect it
>>> when they retire *with the built up interest*.
>>
>> What interest rate am I getting on the SS tax I've paid thus far? You
>> can't tell me, because it's not like a savings account. It's a
>> government entitlement program which can be adjusted or eliminated at
>> any time. It bares no resemblence to a savings account.
> Well, it is true that the government can adjust it at any time. They are the
> ones paying interest so they are the ones that set the rate of payout to
> payin. However it is not hard to calculate for the average of the program.
> Just look at what the average paying has been over the working mans career
> vs the payout levels. Even an idiot ought to be able to figure that one out.
It's still not a savings account. And because they can change it at
anytime and we cannot go elsewhere to save our money, we become dependent
on elected officals. This increases their power over us.
>>> The idea of it as a pyramid scheme is a lie promoted by rightwing
>>> propagandists.
>>
>> According to social security it works very much like a pyramid scheme.
> No. It is neither described as a pyramid scheme nor operates as one. You are
> just blowing smoke.
Sorry, the material on the Social Security Administration says otherwise.
Like a pyramid scheme, it's pay-as-you-go. Those on the bottom of pyramid
(taxpayers) have money transfered from them to those on the top of the
pyramid (retires).
>> http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
>> -> Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my
>> retirement?
>>
>> -> Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's
>> -> taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not
>> needed
>> -> to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury
>> bonds.
> Which is basically equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank by
> customer X is paid out to customer Y when he draws on his account. It is
> *cashflow* description, not an accounting.
If any citizen of the USA were to put together this same scheme and call it
"cashflow" or "equivalent to sahing that money deposited in the bank" he
would still go to jail for running a pyramid scheme.
>> The proof is here, where they declare there is not sufficently large
>> bottom of the pyramid for the future:
> It is not proof of anything except a discussion of how the cashflow is
> managed. This does not make your bank a 'pyramid scheme' and it does not
> make the SS a pyramid scheme. This is the basic lie promoted by right wing
> idiots that cannot understand basic accounting.
You snip it because it shows the collaspe of the pyramid. A bank account
doesn't require new accounts to be opened. A bank account does not require
others to keep making deposits for the bank to stay solvent. A pyramid
scheme on the other hand does require the base to grow sufficently with
those on top of the pyramid to remain functional. The collaspe of a
pyramid scheme is characterized by not finding enough people to make up
that base. This is the problem social security is projected to have. Not
enough people to feed the payouts. If I put a $100000 in the bank, I don't
have to worry about there being 6 people to open new accounts so I can
get my money back. With social security, this is a very real problem. When
and if I ever retire, I do have to worry about there being enough workers
to pay enough into the system so I can get the same amount I put in back,
let alone any 'interest'.
> Discussing the problem with cash flow, NOT the accounts. The fact is that as
> the 'customers' withdraw their moeny from their accounts, they may have to
> recall some of the loans made from the previous surpluses when the cashflow
> becomes critical.
Elected officals could tell us all tomorrow that
they are canceling the program and we're shit out of luck. If a bank did
that there would be legal recourse to recover the funds. There is no
parallel between social security and savings in a bank account. None, zero,
zilch. It is now, IMO, at best a risky long term investment that I am being
forced to make. At worst, and as I consider it most of the time, just
another income tax.
>> Regardless of how much of a reserve may exist at that time, once pay
>> ins do not meet pay outs, the pyramid is collasping.
> Only if the surplus paid in before is wasted rather than invested as in SS.
> Show me how the workers investments were blown on mansions, wild parties,
> booze and fast cars for the government and maybe I'll give you some
> credibility. Oh. wait! It cannot be spent on such things! It is REQUIRED by
> law to be invested for the future payout.
Ahh divert the issue. Cute, but totally irrelevant. A lack of corruption
doesn't make it any less of a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes can be run
without corruption too. Run by the book and they still collaspe. The
reason is that the base eventually cannot be big enough to support all
the people who are further up. That's social security's future problem, not
enough people working and paying taxes to fund those getting a payout.
This is right from their website.
> It seems I'm speaking to a horses ass...
I knew you would react badly to the actual information from a source you
cannot call 'right wing' and dismiss.
>< more specious crap deleted>
You mean the Q and A from the social security admin.
> Note: The bookkeeping does not have to keep specific account information.
> Basically the governmetn got the money and the government will repay the
> money with interest. None of it was 'wasted' for a fancy lifestyle by a
> scammer. The only scam here is the one that is being run by rightwing idiots
> trying to lie about it.
Again, you try to divert the issue. By the information from the social
security administration, it doesn't work like a bank account (as you
claim) in any shape or form. Given what they wrote, it most resembles
a pyramid scheme. Those low on the pyramid (workers) paying those high
on the pyramid (retirees). There are no savings accounts, no interest,
you work your way to the top, paying your way up, and if the pyramid
hasn't collasped, and you haven't died, then you get a payout.
If social security was anything like a bank account, it wouldn't go
*poof* with an act of congress or one's death.