Cap and Trade, Great Stuff!
The Hammer
$250,000. Then, what is the cap and trade bill that passed the House
all about? Is it not a cleverly disguised tax?
Probably will not be a huge amount when it eventually shows up in our
utility bills, probably in the hundreds of dollars annually, although
some have projected into the thousands. Whatever the case is, won't
affect my lifestyle much, won't affect the lifestyle of anyone making
decent money. It will affect the poor , the elderly, and those making
crap wages or unable to find a job at all. That is who it will most
affect, the most vulnerable people. These are among the people that
swarmed to vote for Obama. These are the pathetic souls that bought
his message of renewal and hope. So sorry folks, your pocketbooks
will be getting a little lighter real soon. But hey, think of all you
will be doing to save us from global warming. Yea, this shared
sacrifice is great stuff. Most of these unfortunate souls don't
even know they are getting screwed. Or they are so enamored with
Obama, they just take it with a smile. These are the same people who
are probably glued to their TV's 24/7, in utter grief and shock over
the tragic loss of another messiah, Michael Jackson. Sometimes
people get exactly what they deserve..
Stapler
John H
A little off topic, but a great post.
--
John H
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant
that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-- Thomas Sowell
Lone Golfer
>
> A little off topic, but a great post.
> --
> John H
>
Take a long look down the first page however your reading this. This
topic is as close to On topic as this NG gets anymore.
--------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Howard Brazee
<GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Or they are so enamored with
>Obama, they just take it with a smile. These are the same people who
>are probably glued to their TV's 24/7, in utter grief and shock over
>the tragic loss of another messiah, Michael Jackson. Sometimes
>people get exactly what they deserve..
What makes you think these are the same people?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
The Hammer
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:57:58 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>
They are the same people , or at the very least, different people with
a similar mindset. You take a sleeze, and spin it to the point where
they become deified.
Only an idiot would greive for more than a minute about Michael
Jackson. He was just someone who could sing and dance, that is all.
He got some good breaks, he squandered it all. The sad reality is
that he got exactly what he deserved. No one told him to change his
physical appearnace. No one forced him to spend lavioshly and incur
all that debt and end up screwing God knows how many people out of
hundreds of millions. No one forced him to invite those boys over for
the sleepovers we all have heard about. No one forced him to put all
the painkillers and medicines in his system. No one forced him to
take that poor baby and wave it over the balcony in Berlin. No one
forced him to dress like a fool and act like a fool, over and over
again. He had money like most of us will never comprehend. He was
adored by millions. He travelled the world and stayed at the best of
places. And he blew it. Not a victum, he did it all by himself.
That is the story that needs to be told, and maybe something can be
learned from it. We need to stop idolizing celbrities and living
through them. Living through dysfunctional rotten people is a self
destructive behavior. Giving people a pass because of celebrity
status makes you no better then they are. It shows how mentally
feeble you are,
Similarly, only an idiot would believe that their lot in life is going
to change under the Obama adminstration. He speaks well, he casts a
spell on naive, trusting people. The poor are going to be taxed too,
and they will feel the impact much more than anyone else. When jobs
leave this country, as Obama endeavors to soak the rich and the big
bad corporations, all the working class will suffer. Obama
supporters, they all have Battered Wife Syndrome. Everyone sees the
beating that is going on, yet those that are getting beaten the worse
keep coming back for more.
Kommienezuspadt
"The Hammer" <GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3812ffc5-17ac-49e1...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
===
says the guys that think Drug Boy has answers.....
John B.
Electric utilities have been using a cap and trade system to lower
acid rain-causing sulphur dioxide emissions since the early 90s. Has
that cause an increase in your electric bill? No? Didn't think so.
Dinosaur_Sr
If it passes both houses and is signed into law, it will guarantee
that the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, espcially in concert with
health care reform that regardless of what they do, people won't like
it. Cap and Trade is an economic castrophe in waiting.
Kommienezuspadt
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@att.net> wrote in message
news:75835615-54ca-428c...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
===
more predictions from the guys that @ nothing right for the last 8+ years...
Annika1980
> $250,000.
There you go trying to think again. Whatever would give you the idea
that he wasn't going to tax anyone making under $250K?
As for Cap & Trade, I'm against it not because I think it will cost me
money (thus becoming a tax using your faulty logic), but because it
still allows the big polluters to pollute if they pay a fee to do so.
It's like we're trying to clean up a river and we allow some idiot to
dump all his trash in it if he pays a small fee. How does that help
clean the river?
John B.
If two companies each pour 10 tons of shit into the river every month
and you want to reduce the overall amt. of shit to 5 tons per month,
the two companies can decide between themselves how they're jointly
going to reduce their shit emissions by 15 tons/month. They both have
to get down to 2.5 t/s/m. If one can only get down to 3 t/s/m, it can
pay the other to get down to 2. Target met. It's the way to go unless
we're going to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero, which
is impossible.
Annika1980
>
> If two companies each pour 10 tons of shit into the river every month
> and you want to reduce the overall amt. of shit to 5 tons per month,
> the two companies can decide between themselves how they're jointly
> going to reduce their shit emissions by 15 tons/month. They both have
> to get down to 2.5 t/s/m. If one can only get down to 3 t/s/m, it can
> pay the other to get down to 2. Target met. It's the way to go unless
> we're going to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero, which
> is impossible.
I finally sat down tonight and read a bit more about the Cap & Trade
issue. It was very enlightening. I wonder how many Repugs know
anything about Cap & Trade other than they're against it because Obama
is for it?
I didn't realize the GOP was so pro-pollution.
R&B
> Only an idiot would greive for more than a minute about Michael
> Jackson. He was just someone who could sing and dance, that is all.
Okay, we get it. You have no capacity for admiration of art and the
artists that create it, especially when that art is not your cup of tea.
Fine. You're entitled.
Some of us were saddened when John Lennon was killed. Still others
were saddened by the passing of Frank Sinatra. Years earlier, it was a
shock to many people's systems when Elvis's bad habits finally caught
up with him. Few of his fans condoned his behavior, but they loved his
music and his live performances. Similarly, Michael Jackson's art, to
millions of people, was the soundtrack of their generation, and his
passing marks a sad benchmark in their lives, regardless of the man's
personal indiscretions.
Artists are not role models. They're artists.
And to those who admired their art, these artists' contributions to the
quality of life was immense.
Did any of the artists I mentioned find a cure for cancer? Uh, no.
Did any of them bring lasting peace to a troubled planet? Uh, no. Did
any of them wipe out poverty around the globe? Uh, no.
What they did, for millions of their fans, was to make the world a
better place by making it a little more musical.
That you articulate your failure to recognize any value in that doesn't
make their contribution any less, it only conveys a complete lack of
understanding on your part for what it is they brought to the world.
But why anyone would expect a clueless soul such as yourself, with your
head stuck firmly up your ass, to ever grasp such a thing as art is the
only mystery here.
As usual, it's not good enough for you to take a "live and let live"
approach. Instead, you insist on trying to portray your world view as
the only viable one.
It isn't.
Randy
KG
>
> If two companies each pour 10 tons of shit into the river every month
> and you want to reduce the overall amt. of shit to 5 tons per month,
> the two companies can decide between themselves how they're jointly
> going to reduce their shit emissions by 15 tons/month. They both have
> to get down to 2.5 t/s/m. If one can only get down to 3 t/s/m, it can
> pay the other to get down to 2. Target met. It's the way to go unless
> we're going to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero, which
> is impossible.
It's not impossible.
If and when automobile battery technology becomes sufficient, everyone
could go 100% nuclear. Either that or go X% nuclear, X% wind.
France has no coal, oil or gas so they went all nuclear. They produce
87% of their electricity by nuclear means and are the world's largest
electricity exporter. Japan makes 35% of their electricity through
nuclear means.
Denmark currently receives 20% of their electricity from wind and they
are aiming for much more.
The world's largest wind energy sources are in the United States. We
could get a large portion of our electricity from wind - it's
relatively cheap (though not as cheap as coal), but we don't have a
sufficient electricity transmission system to get the energy out to
the coasts from the Plains States.
BAR
Why does the government need to be involved in the two companies
discussion?
John B.
Because if the government weren't involved, they wouldn't have a
discussion.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
news:IOCdnT1wWsJ67drX...@giganews.com...
I knew I would shake my head with your post --- I did... while laughing at
you lack of any comprehension of any issues.
Kommienezuspadt
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe8fa4d5-c050-4b03...@d10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
===
Bert is of the group that thinks Rush Limbaugh should be the voice of
reason...
Frank Ketchum
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9811ee8f-f33f-4e04...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> There you go trying to think again. Whatever would give you the idea
> that he wasn't going to tax anyone making under $250K?
Maybe Obama campaigning on it gave people the idea.
I hope you don't have a lot of plans for the next 3 1/2 years, apologizing
for this administration is about to become a full time job.
BAR
Your solution to every problem is to have the government step in and
provide the solution. That is typical of someone who has been feeding at
the government trough for his entire life.
I was lucky and I got to see how the government worked while I was
young. I spent 3 years work at the USDA on the GS. People getting
promoted out. Others rising to their highest level of incompetence. You
couldn't get promoted on merit, you had to wait for someone to die or
retire. And, don't even try firing someone otherwise you may find your
self working in a field office in the hinterlands. It was disgusting.
And, all of the new furniture that was purchased at the end of the year
and put into storage. The money was budgeted and if you didn't spend it,
it would be taken away from your budge next year and given to another
group who would spend the money.
Governments role in building the USA was to get out of the way of
private industry and stay out the the lives of its citizens and let them
live they way they choose to live. You know, the way the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution intended man to live.
KG
>
> Governments role in building the USA was to get out of the way of
> private industry and stay out the the lives of its citizens and let them
> live they way they choose to live.
<snip>
If Government totally gets out of the way, then you have anarchy, like
in Somalia.
Governments' job is to set rules, *then* get out of the way, but they
have adopt the correct set of rules. Unfortunately, coming to
agreement on the correct set of rules is not all that easy. Different
interest groups have different values.
Carbon
> Your solution to every problem is to have the government step in and
> provide the solution. That is typical of someone who has been feeding at
> the government trough for his entire life.
And yours is for the government to abdicate all responsibility and let
the strongest companies swallow everyone else up. What non fantasy-based
evidence do you have that this approach and its inevitable anti-trust
issues is any better?
Frank Ketchum
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a47c727$0$5671$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> And yours is for the government to abdicate all responsibility and let
> the strongest companies swallow everyone else up. What non fantasy-based
> evidence do you have that this approach and its inevitable anti-trust
> issues is any better?
You could start by looking around you and comparing America's standard of
living to the standards of living in the countries you would have us
emulate. You could then ask yourself what accounts for the glaring
difference.
But you won't.
Kommienezuspadt
"KG" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb5ea60f-a176-4bdb...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
===
Bar makes laugh -- while shaking my head in disbelief.
Kommienezuspadt
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:uUP1m.1012$066...@newsfe08.iad...
How do you identify this 'standard of living"? My bet -- however Drug Boy
Limbaugh calls it....
US -- 37th as to quality of care by the World Health Org.
Human Development Index --15th -- behind Norway, Sweden, Demark, France ---
Poverty Index -- 16th....
The Economists Quality of Life index ranks the US 13th
The US has one of the widest rich - poor gaps on the planet....
You were saying......
Kommienezuspadt
Have groveled to anyone after the previous 8?
BAR
"Bar makes laugh?" Billy Clark should be castigating you but, since you
are attempting to berate a non-liberal he'll give you a pass.
Keep sucking at mommy government's teat.
BAR
> "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
> news:uUP1m.1012$066...@newsfe08.iad...
>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a47c727$0$5671$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> And yours is for the government to abdicate all responsibility and let
>>> the strongest companies swallow everyone else up. What non fantasy-based
>>> evidence do you have that this approach and its inevitable anti-trust
>>> issues is any better?
>> You could start by looking around you and comparing America's standard of
>> living to the standards of living in the countries you would have us
>> emulate. You could then ask yourself what accounts for the glaring
>> difference.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>
> How do you identify this 'standard of living"? My bet -- however Drug Boy
> Limbaugh calls it....
>
> US -- 37th as to quality of care by the World Health Org.
What is the criteria used to rate the quality of care? Also, what is the
motive and desired outcome of the study by the WHO.
> Human Development Index --15th -- behind Norway, Sweden, Demark, France ---
What is "Human Development Index?"
> Poverty Index -- 16th....
What is "Poverty Index?"
> The Economists Quality of Life index ranks the US 13th
More indexes?
> The US has one of the widest rich - poor gaps on the planet....
The US has, or had before Obama, the greatest fields of opportunities
for the individual.
> You were saying......
Studies and so called Indexes have agendas. Without knowing what the
agendas of the organizations pushing the studies and indexes your
referenced above are they can't be given honest weight.
Alan Baker
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
So let's see some countering indices...
Ooops.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
The Hammer
If you want to engage in debate , at least get you facts straight.
This is right out of the mouth of the "Messiah": DUH!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than
$250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income
tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of
your taxes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if cap and trade is not a defacto tax, then tell us what it is.
His apologists,comprising mostly the most marginal and fringe
elements of this society, are fixing to having a bigger hole in their
pockets than they already have. It is the low wage earners, the
unskilled and uneducated, that are going to be hurt by this guy. And
you keep up with your blind support. What a surprise you will be in
for and the rest of us will sit back and say I told you so. And we
will hear your chorus : POOR POOR ME, WHY WON'T THE GOVERNMENT HELP
POOR POOR ME.! Answer, he couldn't care less about poor , poor you.
You took the bait, now live with it sucka!
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
I just responded to the claim --- you can look it up -- have an adult show
you.
Kommienezuspadt
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-30E16...@news.shawcable.com...
expect silence or demeaning remarks...
John B.
> "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
He said he's not going to tax anybody who makes less that $250k? Wow!
No taxes for me, then!
John B.
You sound like someone who's never been to Europe.
John B.
C&T is not a tax at all. It provides zero revenue to the government.
John B.
Bert, do you honestly believe we would have clean air to breathe and
water to drink w/o the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and other
clean air and water laws? Do you think polluting industries would have
taken it upon themselves to clean things up? If so, why do they fight
tooth and nail against every environmental law that comes down the
pike? I remember the car industry saying catalytic converters would
put them out of business. It was government, not private industry,
that required unleaded gas. It was government that required reductions
in particulate matter from diesel engines. It was government that
required reductions in carbon monoxide from gasoline engines. Private
industry has never voluntarily taken the initiative to clean up its
act, except when it was about to be forced to do so.
Lloyd Parsons
<3a2ecec6-f230-4331...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's an interesting article about the fictional 'self made man' :
http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=489
In addtion to what you've mentioned, the gov't got electricity to the
rural parts of the country because business wasn't interested in doing
it. Hell they probably got water in places that didn't have good
sources either.
And of course, they didn't want the gov't out of the way when they built
the interstate highways or railroads, or that airport either.
The Hammer
> On Jun 28, 4:24 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 9:54 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 27, 12:57 am, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I thought the President was not going to tax anyone making under
> > > > $250,000.
>
> > > There you go trying to think again. Whatever would give you the idea
> > > that he wasn't going to tax anyone making under $250K?
>
> > > As for Cap & Trade, I'm against it not because I think it will cost me
> > > money (thus becoming a tax using your faulty logic), but because it
> > > still allows the big polluters to pollute if they pay a fee to do so.
>
> > > It's like we're trying to clean up a river and we allow some idiot to
> > > dump all his trash in it if he pays a small fee. How does that help
> > > clean the river?
>
> > If you want to engage in debate , at least get you facts straight.
> > This is right out of the mouth of the "Messiah": DUH!
> > "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than
> > $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income
> > tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of
> > your taxes.
>
> > And if cap and trade is not a defacto tax, then tell us what it is.
> > His apologists,comprising mostly the most marginal and fringe
> > elements of this society, are fixing to having a bigger hole in their
> > pockets than they already have. It is the low wage earners, the
> > unskilled and uneducated, that are going to be hurt by this guy. And
> > you keep up with your blind support. What a surprise you will be in
> > for and the rest of us will sit back and say I told you so. And we
> > will hear your chorus : POOR POOR ME, WHY WON'T THE GOVERNMENT HELP
> > POOR POOR ME.! Answer, he couldn't care less about poor , poor you.
> > You took the bait, now live with it sucka!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Johnny Boy, spin it all you want. Bottom line is that money will be
taken from people's pockets, they will have less than before. As a
result of some government intervention.
And if Cap and Trade does have the result of cleaning the environment,
that is good. I don't mind making my contribution, my lifestyle ain't
gonna change because of it. What bothers me the most is the adverse
affect it will have on people already struggling. I have heard all
kind of numbers, like several hundred to several thousand per year.
Whatever it is, there are many already that are barely making a go of
it, sometimes of no fault of their own. These were the people that
supported Obama so fervently and still do. They are getting screwed
and can't even see it. And if they do see it, they are so starry eyed
and possessed they give him a pass. Makes you understand very easily
how the likes of Hitler get the masses behind them. It just takes
charisma and good speaking skills, really nothing more than that.
People want to believe things so badly, they just need a charismatic
orator to deliver the message and then the message becomes truth.
It begs the questions, are people stupid because they are poor, or are
they poor because they are stupid?. In this case, it certainly seems
to be the latter.
BAR
"You make laugh"
-- Kommienezuspadt, June 28th 2009
BAR
Yeah right.
The Hammer
> John B. wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 4:24 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 9:54 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 27, 12:57 am, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I thought the President was not going to tax anyone making under
> >>>> $250,000.
> >>> There you go trying to think again. Whatever would give you the idea
> >>> that he wasn't going to tax anyone making under $250K?
> >>> As for Cap & Trade, I'm against it not because I think it will cost me
> >>> money (thus becoming a tax using your faulty logic), but because it
> >>> still allows the big polluters to pollute if they pay a fee to do so.
> >>> It's like we're trying to clean up a river and we allow some idiot to
> >>> dump all his trash in it if he pays a small fee. How does that help
> >>> clean the river?
> >> If you want to engage in debate , at least get you facts straight.
> >> This is right out of the mouth of the "Messiah": DUH!
> >> "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than
> >> $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income
> >> tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of
> >> your taxes.
>
> >> And if cap and trade is not a defacto tax, then tell us what it is.
> >> His apologists,comprising mostly the most marginal and fringe
> >> elements of this society, are fixing to having a bigger hole in their
> >> pockets than they already have. It is the low wage earners, the
> >> unskilled and uneducated, that are going to be hurt by this guy. And
> >> you keep up with your blind support. What a surprise you will be in
> >> for and the rest of us will sit back and say I told you so. And we
> >> will hear your chorus : POOR POOR ME, WHY WON'T THE GOVERNMENT HELP
> >> POOR POOR ME.! Answer, he couldn't care less about poor , poor you.
> >> You took the bait, now live with it sucka!
>
> > C&T is not a tax at all. It provides zero revenue to the government.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The current administration does nothing unless it is to its benefit.
If anyone believes that the government does not derive some type of
benefit from this legislation, they are delusional. It is not about
cleaning the air, it is about controlling and taxing people and
business.
BAR
> On Jun 28, 2:38 pm, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>> Kommienezuspadt wrote:
>>> "BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
>>> news:IOCdnT1wWsJ67drX...@giganews.com...
>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 27, 9:54 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 12:57 am, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I thought the President was not going to tax anyone making under
>>>>>>> $250,000.
>>>>>> There you go trying to think again. Whatever would give you the idea
>>>>>> that he wasn't going to tax anyone making under $250K?
>>>>>> As for Cap & Trade, I'm against it not because I think it will cost me
>>>>>> money (thus becoming a tax using your faulty logic), but because it
China and India are not going to participate in Cap and Trade. They are
going full speed ahead in burning hydro-carbons and will be filling the
atmosphere with CO2. Even if the US of A does Cap and Trade it will not
have a global effect that will yield the intended results. Cap and Trade
is nothing more than redistribution of wealth and the leveling of
nations on the world stage by bringing the US of A down to the level of
undeveloped countries. China and India with nearly half the worlds
population will be putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20
years than the USA has since the industrial revolution began.
If burning hydro-carbons is bad for the Earth then it does not matter
which country is burning the hydro-carbons. Any country burning
hydro-carbons should be coerced into Cap and Trade. If it is a global
problem then it requires a global solution. Are you willing to join me
in a global solution or are you just interested in putting the onus on
first world countries to destroy their economies?
Cap and Trade is nothing more than economic punishment for the producers
of goods and services the world wants. If you are lucky enough to be
living in 50 years you will see that I am correct.
BAR
Are you now going to say that people have a right to electricity? Have
you ever heard of a diesel generator and fuel tank. Farmers don't run
their tractors into town to fuel up a the local gas station.
Freaking amazing.
Carbon
You're saying that the standard of living is better in the US than
anywhere else in the world? Reality disagrees with you. Gosh, just look
at all those countries with evil communistic health care systems. My!
Carbon
>> You were saying......
>
> Studies and so called Indexes have agendas. Without knowing what the
> agendas of the organizations pushing the studies and indexes your
> referenced above are they can't be given honest weight.
What a steaming pile of crap. If reality disagrees with your biases,
then reality itself must be wrong!
John B.
And what is it in your case?
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that the best you can do? Insult instead of the issues. I am
not biting. Let's stick to the issue. You are not an idiot, stop
acting like one. nothing wrong with disagreement on issues.
So please comment.................
What is your opinion on the effect of Cap and Trade on the poor,
unempoyed, elderly, and aged. Don't many of them have enough finacial
issues to deal with already, now there is more? . Isn't this a
betrayal to Obama's most loyal constituency? While Cap and Trade is
not a tax per se, won't you agree from a pocketbook standpoint, it has
the ultimate effect as such?
Carbon
> Are you now going to say that people have a right to electricity? Have
> you ever heard of a diesel generator and fuel tank. Farmers don't run
> their tractors into town to fuel up a the local gas station.
>
> Freaking amazing.
You are insane. In a supposedly first world country, yes, people have a
right to clean water and electricity. How it works is the community,
which on a large scale is the government, gets together and amortises
the cost of large projects over the entire population. That way, the
entire population has an acceptable standard of living.
Things turn out to be cheaper for everyone that way. If the government
didn't provide water, then getting water would take up a much larger
chunk of your income. Same for roads, same for schools, same for
libraries, same for all manner of public utilities. Do you somehow not
realize this or what?
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:75835615-54ca-428c...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 11:57 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I thought the President was not going to tax anyone making under
> > all about? Is it not a cleverly disguised tax?
>
> > Probably will not be a huge amount when it eventually shows up in our
> > utility bills, probably in the hundreds of dollars annually, although
> > some have projected into the thousands. Whatever the case is, won't
> > affect my lifestyle much, won't affect the lifestyle of anyone making
> > decent money. It will affect the poor , the elderly, and those making
> > crap wages or unable to find a job at all. That is who it will most
> > affect, the most vulnerable people. These are among the people that
> > swarmed to vote for Obama. These are the pathetic souls that bought
> > his message of renewal and hope. So sorry folks, your pocketbooks
> > will be getting a little lighter real soon. But hey, think of all you
> > will be doing to save us from global warming. Yea, this shared
> > sacrifice is great stuff. Most of these unfortunate souls don't
> > even know they are getting screwed. Or they are so enamored with
> > Obama, they just take it with a smile. These are the same people who
> > are probably glued to their TV's 24/7, in utter grief and shock over
> > the tragic loss of another messiah, Michael Jackson. Sometimes
> > people get exactly what they deserve..
>
> If it passes both houses and is signed into law, it will guarantee
> that the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, espcially in concert with
> health care reform that regardless of what they do, people won't like
> it. Cap and Trade is an economic castrophe in waiting.
>
> ===
>
> more predictions from the guys that @ nothing right for the last 8+ years...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We'll see. The GOP thought they had it all in 2004, and the dems
looked dead. The GOP thought they could do what they wanted. Nope.
Same thing on steroids this time.
John B.
No, I don't agree with that at all. Suppose you explain how C&T is
going to hurt poor people.
John B.
There's one flaw in your premise. The Democrats don't have anybody as
stupid and incompetent in the White House as Geo. W. Bush.
William Clark
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4a47c727$0$5671$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >
> > And yours is for the government to abdicate all responsibility and let
> > the strongest companies swallow everyone else up. What non fantasy-based
> > evidence do you have that this approach and its inevitable anti-trust
> > issues is any better?
>
> You could start by looking around you and comparing America's standard of
> living to the standards of living in the countries you would have us
> emulate. You could then ask yourself what accounts for the glaring
> difference.
>
> But you won't.
How do you define "standard of living"? GDP, access to affordable health
care, taxation, or what?
William Clark
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
In other words, you don't have a clue. Just more mindless Limbaugh
blather.
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is going to hurt poor people because in many parts of the country
there is still a lot of energy being produced with carbon emissions
that are viewed as too high.. These providers are going to have to by
law buy credits (from more efficient providers of energy) in order to
continue to pollute above specified levels and this will represent a
cost. This cost will be passed directly to the consumer. And the sad
thing is, the polluting will still occur, only now the polluter will
pay a price to do it. So for many people , this cost will just be an
irritant. But for people already struggling, this is another kick in
the butt. And the governmment did it to them. Would you not agree
with this john?
The whole thing sounds silly and contrived. Can't imagine how they
will monitor and enforce it. Seems to me there would be a better way
to do all this.
BAR
> On Jun 28, 7:20 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 7:11 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 6:03 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 4:52 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 28, 4:24 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 9:54 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 12:57 am, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I thought the President was not going to tax anyone making under
>>>>>>>> $250,000.
>>>>>>> There you go trying to think again. Whatever would give you the idea
>>>>>>> that he wasn't going to tax anyone making under $250K?
>>>>>>> As for Cap & Trade, I'm against it not because I think it will cost me
>>>>>>> money (thus becoming a tax using your faulty logic), but because it
>>>>>>> still allows the big polluters to pollute if they pay a fee to do so.
>>>>>>> It's like we're trying to clean up a river and we allow some idiot to
>>>>>>> dump all his trash in it if he pays a small fee. How does that help
>>>>>>> clean the river?
>>>>>> This is right out of the mouth of the "Messiah": DUH!
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------��--------------------------------------
>>>>>> "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than
>>>>>> $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income
>>>>>> tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of
>>>>>> your taxes.
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------��---------------------------------------
>>>>>> And if cap and trade is not a defacto tax, then tell us what it is.
>>>>>> His apologists,comprising mostly the most marginal and fringe
>>>>>> elements of this society, are fixing to having a bigger hole in their
>>>>>> pockets than they already have. It is the low wage earners, the
>>>>>> unskilled and uneducated, that are going to be hurt by this guy. And
>>>>>> you keep up with your blind support. What a surprise you will be in
>>>>>> for and the rest of us will sit back and say I told you so. And we
>>>>>> will hear your chorus : POOR POOR ME, WHY WON'T THE GOVERNMENT HELP
>>>>>> POOR POOR ME.! Answer, he couldn't care less about poor , poor you.
>>>>>> You took the bait, now live with it sucka!
Suppose you explain how it is going to help the little guy. How is the
increase in energy cost going to help those below the poverty level?
BAR
> On Jun 28, 7:31 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 5:05 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
You wish.
Take away the tele prompter and Obama sounds like an idiot.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
> Kommienezuspadt wrote:
>> "KG" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cb5ea60f-a176-4bdb...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 28, 11:38 am, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> Governments role in building the USA was to get out of the way of
>>> private industry and stay out the the lives of its citizens and let them
>>> live they way they choose to live.
>>
>>
>>
>> If Government totally gets out of the way, then you have anarchy, like
>> in Somalia.
>>
>> Governments' job is to set rules, *then* get out of the way, but they
>> have adopt the correct set of rules. Unfortunately, coming to
>> agreement on the correct set of rules is not all that easy. Different
>> interest groups have different values.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Bar makes laugh -- while shaking my head in disbelief.
>
> "Bar makes laugh?" Billy Clark should be castigating you but, since you
> are attempting to berate a non-liberal he'll give you a pass.
>
> Keep sucking at mommy government's teat.
>
>
sorry for the typo --- do you care to show proof for your claim I suck at
the government's teat?
Yup -- just more dung for your post --- just you making it up because you've
got zero...
You should just keep practicing -- & maybe -- just maybe -- someday you'll
be allowed to ask -- Do you want fries with that? Until then -- keep your
broom handy...
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
Hey -- an adult showed you how to copy & paste!
== just keep practicing -- "do you want fries with that?" Someday you can
get the headphones at your job!
BAR
You want the government to solve all of the problems. Sucking at the
government teat doesn't mean you accept a welfare check from them.
BAR
At 11 I worked for KrispyKreme selling donuts door to door.
From 12 to 15 I delivered newspapers door to door 7 days a week.
At 16 I worked at McDonald's 6 days a week.
From 17 to 19 I worked at the USDA Headquarters as a GSer writing COBOL
code. And when I was 17 I still worked at McDonald's on Saturdays and
Sundays primarily because I was bored, all of my friends were still
working there, nothing to do from 6AM to 3PM Saturdays and Sundays.
Then a USMC recruiter got a hold of me and life got real interesting.
When it comes to working and earning a buck, I will do what is necessary
and needed to earn a buck.
Carbon
> You want the government to solve all of the problems. Sucking at the
> government teat doesn't mean you accept a welfare check from them.
Bert. It's cheaper for everyone that way. Roads. Electricity. Everyone
pays in and everyone shares in the cost. The more the participation the
lower the cost. In other first world countries, the same applies to
healthcare. Many countries have healthcare that is both better and
cheaper than here.
All this crap about independence is self-delusion. You drive to work on
roads. How did they get there? Magic?
Lloyd Parsons
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
I didn't say a thing about rights. I did say it took the gov't to get
that job done because business wouldn't.
And just in case you hadn't noticed, a hell of a lot of people not on
farms got electricity from the rural electrification projects.
John B.
All speculation on your part. Electric utilities have been using cap
and trade since the early 90s to lower acid-rain causing sulphur
dioxide emissions in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. Have poor rate-payers been hurt by that to your knowledge? Has
anybody?
John B.
Says you.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
Not true -- or can you prove your latest wild eyed claim?
Why don't you do something for your fellow man? You "say" you are too busy
to volunteer --- as someone smart once said -- ask a busy person to do
something if you want something done --
I guess that leaves you out....
Kommienezuspadt
BAR paved them all with his dung.....
Frank Ketchum
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b77ff9a-f6fa-42a8...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> You sound like someone who's never been to Europe.
I worked for a European company and have been many times. You?
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not speculation on my part, but many economists saying it now. I
would be happy to google them and provide links, but that wouldn't
change your mind. Bottom line, time will tell. Can't believe anyone
is going to get a free ride here. Time will tell with all these tax
and spend programs. I see few people being any better off in the next
few years. We are being snowed. And it is not necessarily Obama's
fault, Bush's fault, it is the fault of career politicians, totally
out of touch , obsessed with power, and beholding to special
interests. They all stink. It would be unfair to blame any one
person or administration. Until we wake up, we really deserve what we
get.
Frank Ketchum
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote in message
news:4a47ce48$0$8691$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
> How do you identify this 'standard of living"? My bet -- however Drug Boy
> Limbaugh calls it....
Oh, so obfuscate definitions to the point where you put standard of living
in quotes as if it is some subjective term. Typical.
> Human Development Index --15th -- behind Norway, Sweden, Demark,
> France ---
And then you quote metrics that measure how socialistic we are and pretend
that is how the standard of living is measured.
Your logical processes do make a convincing case about the lack of human
development however.
Carbon
W is clearly a few bricks short. That much is obvious to any rational
person. It is also obvious that Obama is a very capable middle of the
road Democrat. If the Republicans had any sense they'd give up these
ridiculous fantasies and see about grooming a moderate for 2012. They
will get wiped out otherwise.
Carbon
I think what is tripping you up is the word "socialistic". It's not
about that. It's about what's cheapest and most effective. Overall, the
following countries are more *efficient* than the United States at
providing services for their citizens:
1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Canada
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. Japan
9. Luxembourg
10. Switzerland
11. France
12. Finland
13. Denmark
14. Austria
Kommienezuspadt
"The Hammer" <GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b92f114-860e-438d...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
==
Time will tell if what you predict happens -- but history has shown that
your Bush Tax cuts did not lead to deficit reductions......
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4194 (20090628) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4194 (20090628) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Kommienezuspadt
Hell's Bells man -- you are the one that brought the "standard of living"
into the thread == then you gutlessly snip the post in an effort to hide ---
There are cowards -- then there is you.
I gues you like being a fool.
Frank Ketchum
>
> I think what is tripping you up is the word "socialistic". It's not
> about that. It's about what's cheapest and most effective. Overall, the
> following countries are more *efficient* than the United States at
> providing services for their citizens:
>
> 1. Iceland
> 2. Norway
> 3. Canada
> 4. Australia
> 5. Ireland
> 6. Netherlands
> 7. Sweden
> 8. Japan
> 9. Luxembourg
> 10. Switzerland
> 11. France
> 12. Finland
> 13. Denmark
> 14. Austria
>
> http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
And that has exactly what to do with standard of living?
Frank Ketchum
"Kommienezuspadt" <nos...@nothanks.net> wrote in message
news:4a483ace$0$31822$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> Hell's Bells man -- you are the one that brought the "standard of living"
> into the thread == then you gutlessly snip the post in an effort to
> hide ---
>
> There are cowards -- then there is you.
>
> I gues you like being a fool.
>
It doesn't surprise me that you are unaware of the proper newsgroup
etiquette of snipping posts to indicate to which part you are responding.
It also doesn't surprise me that you had to run to wikipedia to do a crash
course on what standard of living means.
You are entertaining if nothing else Kommrade.
Kommienezuspadt
IOW -- you cannot find any evidence to back up your groundless claim --
thanks for playing
BTW -- the honest snipper NOTES the snipping --
Kommienezuspadt
we're still waiting for you to show some proof for your claim..... and
maybe a definition for your claim....
John B.
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3b77ff9a-f6fa-42a8...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You sound like someone who's never been to Europe.
>
> I worked for a European company and have been many times. You?
I've been to France, Italy, UK and I don't know why Americans claim to
have a higher standard of living than they have.
John B.
> "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a47ce48$0$8691$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> > How do you identify this 'standard of living"? My bet -- however Drug Boy
> > Limbaugh calls it....
>
> Oh, so obfuscate definitions to the point where you put standard of living
> in quotes as if it is some subjective term. Typical.
It IS a subjective term, you dolt.
BAR
Business isn't in business to lose money. Is the REA still functioning
or has it been shutdown yet?
> And just in case you hadn't noticed, a hell of a lot of people not on
> farms got electricity from the rural electrification projects.
I live in one of the most prosperous counties with the highest average
incomes and we still have people on well and septic. Shouldn't the
government push the water and sewer lines out to every house in the county?
BAR
You must have missed the part where I said we donate. My wife
volunteers. Of course she has the time to do so.
BAR
Gasoline tax.
BAR
Define standard of living. Without your definition your argument is just
oral effluent.
BAR
> On Jun 28, 9:40 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>> "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4a47ce48$0$8691$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>
>>> How do you identify this 'standard of living"? My bet -- however Drug Boy
>>> Limbaugh calls it....
>> Oh, so obfuscate definitions to the point where you put standard of living
>> in quotes as if it is some subjective term. Typical.
>
>
> It IS a subjective term, you dolt.
If it IS a subjective term there it is useless to argue about it.
Frank Ketchum
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
news:4a48b0b0$0$31822$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
> we're still waiting for you to show some proof for your claim..... and
> maybe a definition for your claim....
What claim are you talking about?
Lloyd Parsons
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
Not exactly. Here's a link that talks a bit about it and what it has
become :
http://www.answers.com/topic/rural-electrification-act
Lots of businesses have reaped the harvest of all that gov't electricity
in case you hadn't noticed.
> > And just in case you hadn't noticed, a hell of a lot of people not on
> > farms got electricity from the rural electrification projects.
>
> I live in one of the most prosperous counties with the highest average
> incomes and we still have people on well and septic. Shouldn't the
> government push the water and sewer lines out to every house in the county?
And probably will at some point in time. Of course, they'll most likely
have to fight with you all when they try 'cause you won't want to pay
for the hookups and don't want the taxes and bills that go with it.
I know people that bought land just so they wouldn't have to have city
water and sewer.
But overall, most people think it is a good thing and that's why it
happens.
These things are done because the public wants them and the gov't
provides it when it isn't necessarily an immediately profitable venture.
Of course, then the people and the businesses get to benefit from it.
Just like the roads, airports, public transportation and a slew of other
things.
Which brings us to the point we are all discussing around.
Most everyone agrees we need to reduce gov't spending. But the devil is
in the details. That's what Reagan and others have always run into.
Their is a constituency for practically every dollar the gov't spends
that doesn't want to see their particular program cut.
Just look at you and I. We both think the gov't is pissing away way too
much money and should cut some things. It is which things that define
our differences.
John B.
> John B. wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 9:40 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> >> "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4a47ce48$0$8691$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> >>> How do you identify this 'standard of living"? My bet -- however Drug Boy
> >>> Limbaugh calls it....
> >> Oh, so obfuscate definitions to the point where you put standard of living
> >> in quotes as if it is some subjective term. Typical.
>
> > It IS a subjective term, you dolt.
>
> If it IS a subjective term there it is useless to argue about it.
>
Lloyd Parsons
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
If it was just gasoline taxes, the roads wouldn't be as good as they are.
Frank Ketchum
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a480ebb$0$11849$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> pays in and everyone shares in the cost. The more the participation the
> lower the cost. In other first world countries, the same applies to
> healthcare. Many countries have healthcare that is both better and
> cheaper than here.
And your source for your assertion that government run healthcare is cheaper
and better?
Kommienezuspadt
OK -- I get it -- you have dementia -- my bad for trying to engage you.
Maybe you should not snip everything you don't like out of the posts if you
cannot remember the subject anything.
For hahas -- here is what YOU posted ---
You could start by looking around you and comparing America's standard of
living to the standards of living in the countries you would have us
emulate. You could then ask yourself what accounts for the glaring
difference.
===
maybe someone else will try to rescue you- - don't count on BAR -- he's of
the screw everyone else clan...
Frank Ketchum
>
> You are insane. In a supposedly first world country, yes, people have a
> right to clean water and electricity. How it works is the community,
> which on a large scale is the government, gets together and amortises
> the cost of large projects over the entire population. That way, the
> entire population has an acceptable standard of living.
>
> Things turn out to be cheaper for everyone that way. If the government
> didn't provide water, then getting water would take up a much larger
> chunk of your income. Same for roads, same for schools, same for
> libraries, same for all manner of public utilities. Do you somehow not
> realize this or what?
Carbon, you make a common error in your assumptions. To look at the things
in which government currently has a hand and assume that they wouldn't get
done at all or would get done inefficiently is wrong. The free market is
completely capable of handling things like water, electricity and
healthcare. Where there is a demand, private companies rush to meet the
demand and the best at efficiently meeting the need are the ones that
survive. Government is the very definition of inefficiency. It goes with
the territory. You have to realize that when politicians become involved
there are very different forces at work than when private industry handles a
need. When private industry handles a need, a return on investment is the
driving force behind decisions. The requirement of making money to cover
costs is what drives efficiency. No such requirement exists when government
runs anything. When politicians handle a need, a return on votes is what
they seek, not a return on investment. This is the opposite of efficiency.
A good example will be General Motors. Obama said that the government will
be a hands off partner not even wanting to run GM at arm's length. It is a
nice thought but that is not how politics works. Congressmen lined up the
next day after the GM deal was done to lobby for the plants and dealerships
in their states to stay open. Government never runs anything efficiently.
GM is going be become a black hole for taxpayer dollars for the foreseeable
future. Government will not run healthcare with efficiency in mind, they
will run it in such a way as to secure their own power just as they do
everything else. Sorry.
assim...@borg.org
On 29-Jun-2009, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> Well I hope all the sheeple who fell for "hope and change" choke on it.
Yes, I think H.L. Menken applies here: Democracy is the theory that the
common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 28-Jun-2009, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote:
> US -- 37th as to quality of care by the World Health Org.
One of the Ranking criteria is a single payer (gov't) system, sounds rigged
to me.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
I'm sorry but you made the claim, we are refuting your data.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 28-Jun-2009, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But you won't.
>
> You sound like someone who's never been to Europe.
I have and in w europe it is more expensive to live as we do.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 29-Jun-2009, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I worked for a European company and have been many times. �You?
>
> I've been to France, Italy, UK and I don't know why Americans claim to
> have a higher standard of living than they have.
You visited or lived? It takes more money to live as we do, ergo, we have a
higher standard of living.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 29-Jun-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> You're saying that the standard of living is better in the US than
> anywhere else in the world? Reality disagrees with you. Gosh, just look
> at all those countries with evil communistic health care systems. My!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
And you just accept blindly the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
definition? It entails:
The HDI combines three basic dimensions:
* Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and
longevity
* Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with
two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary
gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting).
* Standard of living, as measured by the natural logarithm of gross
domestic product per capita
As the last word in SOL these are criteria are debatable. Just the fact that
live births are counted differently in the diff countries would skew the
first. That one could accurately measure knowledge & education is debatable
in and of itself, that enrollment and literacy should be all that is mesured
is more so. What does the LOG of SOL tell us? And most important, nothing
about personal or economic liberty, you know that freedom stuff.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 28-Jun-2009, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> In addtion to what you've mentioned, the gov't got electricity to the
> rural parts of the country because business wasn't interested in doing
> it.
The hell they weren't, Wendell Wilkie, before being a candidate for Pres,
ran Commenwealth and Southern, a private utility that was interested in
electrifying the South. He was forced to sell to the TVA and this likely
delayed the aforementioned efforts to do so.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 28-Jun-2009, The Hammer <GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The current administration does nothing unless it is to its benefit.
> If anyone believes that the government does not derive some type of
> benefit from this legislation, they are delusional. It is not about
> cleaning the air, it is about controlling and taxing people and
> business.
You have never said anything more true than this my friend.
--
bill-o