"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>
>>> So Paul if we sell it to Japan do we get a lower price per gallon then
>>> we pay for it?
>>> Or do we buy it at the world price, and sell it at the world price?
>>> I think that a wash.
>>
>> "We" get nothing for it. The oil belongs to the lease holders of the
>> fields. This is something very few people can comprehend. "We" do not
>> own the oil, "they" do.
>
> So.... by paying a few dollars for mineral rights on property that other
> people may own, and that other people drill and extract, they may get
> millions of dollars????


The point is "we" do not control the oil. "We" do not set production
amounts. "We" do not set the price. So all the drilling in the world won't
change a damn thing. "They" will control the production in a way to
maximize the price they can charge. That is why drilling is just a gimmick
and a land grab for the oil companies. Reduced use will lower the price.
That means energy sources other than oil. Which is why big oil has
successfully kept alternative energy research from being done via their paid
shills in government.

Paul

blake murphy wrote:

>
> plus, while i don't know much about this kind of thing, i think a lot of
> these are 'loaners.' like nancy reagan, wife of poor-but-honest ronnie,
> most of whose dresses went back to the designer's shop.
>
> your pal,
> blake



Actually I remember reading, in Newsweek IIRC,
after Ron left office that Nancy kept a bunch of
expensive clothing that had been "loaned" and
was supposed to be returned to the designers.
Of course none of them demanded the clothing back
since they weren't interested in causing a scandal
even if she didn't care.

I also remember reading that some of the Kennedy
families didn't bother to return borrowed/rented
ski gear after using it.

Tacky, tacky, tacky.

gloria p

"T" > wrote in message
>
> I'm looking at cars for the two of us and have settled initially on a
> Smart twofour, and then a few months later a Honda Civic Hybrid. Both
> cars get 40MPG or greater highway which is what I want.

I rented a Smart ForFour in Italy. In 1200 miles I averaged 42 mpg with more
highway than city. It was a fun car to drive and was solid at highway speed.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>> Higher taxes have NEVER benefited us as a whole. It you want to give
>> away
>> more of your money, give to charity, not funding a government pork
>> project
>> or other inefficient program.
>
> yep, no one ever benefited from roads, public health, public schools, or
> national defense. everything you have was wrested from the earth with
> your
> own two hands so you deserve EVERY GODDAMN BIT OF IT.
>
> my hat's off to you, really.
>
> blake
>

Reading comprehension problems Blake? I said HIGHER taxes. Some taxes are
necessary, but the number of government employees as a percentage of the
population is increasing. Government programs are expanding, but much is
wasted and not helping people at all. If the taxes are held at the same
percentage the real dollars will increase every year as our incomes
increase. Raising the percentage is what is going to ruining our economy.
If you pay 25% this year, 27% next year, 29% the following year, and on and
on, what happens over time?

The money for your reading education, evidently, was wasted.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the most successful
> economies, historically, have had fairly high rates of taxation
> (United States in the 20th century, the Roman Empire, etc.).


So, what is the tax rate in the Roman Empire today?

"Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
>
> why be socially conscious when you can buy a yacht?
>
> --
> Saerah

It puts people to work building it. Great idea.

Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> > > i still doubt he'll let you suck his dick.
> >
> > At our last local Usenet food get-together I actually was
> > propositioned with that exact offer (with Om as my witness!). I
> > tried to break it to him gently and good naturedly, but he was still
> > pretty disappointed. At least I know who to call if I ever get that
> > urge.
>
> <snicker> Yes, I watched it with a certain morbid fascination. ;-D
>


Poor Steve is reduced to getting frenched by the likes of
cybersuck...heehee...

;-D

--
Best
Greg

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >, sf wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:40:23 -0500, Omelet >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Geeze Bob... We have BILLIONS of gallons of oil in the ground that we
>> >are not drilling!
>> >
>> >If we need it, it's there.
>> >
>> >And we need it NOW.
>>
>> We need alternative energy now, not more oil.
>
> Eventually, yes I agree.
>
> But drilling here for our own oil and USING it here will buy us the time
> that is needed.


There is no way you could do that in our capitalist system. Unless you want
to start a government owned oil company that is. That would be the only
way. And we'd have hell to pay from the other oil companies who would
screws us from hell to breakfast for ruining their markets.

It simply cannot be done as you prescribe unless you want a government like
that of Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

Paul

cyberMONS moans::

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:01:07 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sqwertz > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
> >>>> women...
> >>>
> >>> ...women other than Gregory Morrow, that is.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Oooooooh, Steve..............you really SEND
meeeeeeeee............I'll
> >> wear my extra - big pair of fake tittties for ewe
> >> tonight......................"
> >>
> >> <blushing>
> >
> > i still doubt he'll let you suck his dick.
> >
> I love it when you talk dirty. *brushing my Charo wig*


Oh, you mean your *pubic* wig, cyberpussie...???


--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:01:07 -0500, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >
> >> Sqwertz > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ahh, another convertee. Now if I could only get you interested in
> >>> women...
> >>
> >> ...women other than Gregory Morrow, that is.
> >
> >
> > "Oooooooh, Steve..............you really SEND meeeeeeeee............I'll
> > wear my extra - big pair of fake tittties for ewe
> > tonight......................"
> >
> > <blushing>
>
> i still doubt he'll let you suck his dick.


I've got a 'special' glory hole for d00ds like Steve, blake...it has real,
real sharp metal teeth in it that can "clamp down" if need be...


--
Best
Greg

enigma > wrote:

>what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
>to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
>occur in a vacuum, it needs funding. and yes, funding means
>taxes.
> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>though... it was money well spent.

I'm not sure how you're defining "space race" but the Shuttle
and Space Station programs were not money well spent, and
that's been nearly all of NASA's budget for 15 to 20 years.

NASA's greatest accomplishments, like the deep space probes,
are an incredibly small fraction of their spending.

If you're generally saying the technology drive from the
beginning of the space age through say the Apollo program was
well worth it, then I agree.

Steve

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Higher taxes have NEVER benefited us as a whole. It you want to give
>>> away
>>> more of your money, give to charity, not funding a government pork
>>> project
>>> or other inefficient program.
>>
>> yep, no one ever benefited from roads, public health, public schools, or
>> national defense. everything you have was wrested from the earth with
>> your
>> own two hands so you deserve EVERY GODDAMN BIT OF IT.
>>
>> my hat's off to you, really.
>>
>> blake
>>
>
> Reading comprehension problems Blake? I said HIGHER taxes. Some taxes are
> necessary, but the number of government employees as a percentage of the
> population is increasing. Government programs are expanding, but much is
> wasted and not helping people at all. If the taxes are held at the same
> percentage the real dollars will increase every year as our incomes
> increase. Raising the percentage is what is going to ruining our economy.
> If you pay 25% this year, 27% next year, 29% the following year, and on
> and on, what happens over time?
>
> The money for your reading education, evidently, was wasted.

Increased taxes on the rich have had a noticeable impact. They typically
can lower the national debt which raises the value of the dollar which leads
to more international investment in this country. This increases the buying
power of the middle class creating a bigger market for the goods and service
that the wealthy control. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% and the
result was that no noticeable lag in economic figures followed. Noting less
than an economic meltdown was predicted by Newt Gingrich at the time and the
exact opposite was the result. Even exclusive of the Internet bubble. We
did not see a retraction. Quite the reverse, the stock market began to
expand. So the money the wealthy paid in higher taxes created an
environment where the rest of their money could perform better and in the
end making them even more money. Just handing out tax breaks as we did
resulted in the money simply being hoarded and otherwise tucked away. It
did not spur any economic growth and in fact we lost a lot of ground there.

Paul

Omelet > wrote:

>25% of my income already goes to taxes.

You must not be counting all the taxes.

The first dollar of wage income in any year is taxed 22% by the
feds. It hits 40% by the time you have made $32,550/year (single
filers), then goes up to 43%, before FICA finally drops off
at $102,000/year at which point it drops down to a marginal
rate of only 31%, increasing in steps to 38% for higher income.

Of course if you're wealthy and your income comes from
investments, the rates are less.

Steve

(Steve Pope) fnord news:ga2bjn$dui$2
@blue.rahul.net:

> Omelet > wrote:
>
>>25% of my income already goes to taxes.
>
> You must not be counting all the taxes.
>
> The first dollar of wage income in any year is taxed 22% by the
> feds. It hits 40% by the time you have made $32,550/year (single
> filers), then goes up to 43%, before FICA finally drops off
> at $102,000/year at which point it drops down to a marginal
> rate of only 31%, increasing in steps to 38% for higher income.
>
> Of course if you're wealthy and your income comes from
> investments, the rates are less.

Are you sure about these figures? I just did a quick google search, and
the figures I found were *way* lower than that...

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Saerah Gray > wrote:

(Steve Pope) fnord news:ga2bjn$dui$2

>> The first dollar of wage income in any year is taxed 22% by the
>> feds. It hits 40% by the time you have made $32,550/year (single
>> filers), then goes up to 43%, before FICA finally drops off
>> at $102,000/year at which point it drops down to a marginal
>> rate of only 31%, increasing in steps to 38% for higher income.

>Are you sure about these figures? I just did a quick google search, and
>the figures I found were *way* lower than that...

Yes, but I'm including all three federal taxes -- FICA/Medicare,
income tax, and FUTA (unemployment) -- including amounts
paid by the employer.

Steve

"Pan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:01:06 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>McCain was holding out for Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Perhaps the
>>only man in the senate McCain truly trusts. He was told to pick Palin -
>>it
>>was not his pick. Who is in charge? McCain, or Bush's boys? Karl Rove
>>is
>>running McCain's campaign as well as 169 lobbyists. Obama has 0 lobbyists
>>working for him.
> Supposition and wish full thing.
>>

Hard, cold fact. Everone knows Rove is on he campaig and his own aides plus
FEC rules require the disclosre of any registered lobbyists working on a
campaigm. McCain is a good friend of Liberman and he was holding ot to make
him his pick. All verifiable facts.

>>A vote for McCain is a vote or Bush's third term. I wager even Dick
>>Cheney
>>will be kept on the payroll.
>>
> I doubt that but Obama will be the second Carter term. Same policy,
> and inexperience.

Posibly but then Obama has history on his side in that respect.

Paul

In article >,
Kathleen > wrote:

> > My thermostat wars during the summer are legion with my 76 year old dad.
> > ;-) I'll come home from work in the morning in the middle of summer and
> > find the damned heat on.
>
> Can you say "justifiable homicide"?

<lol> I just show him the cats sprawled on the cold floor to make him
feel guilty.
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

(Steve Pope) fnord news:ga2h21$kuo$1
@blue.rahul.net:

> Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
(Steve Pope) fnord news:ga2bjn$dui$2
>
>>> The first dollar of wage income in any year is taxed 22% by the
>>> feds. It hits 40% by the time you have made $32,550/year (single
>>> filers), then goes up to 43%, before FICA finally drops off
>>> at $102,000/year at which point it drops down to a marginal
>>> rate of only 31%, increasing in steps to 38% for higher income.
>
>>Are you sure about these figures? I just did a quick google search,
and
>>the figures I found were *way* lower than that...
>
> Yes, but I'm including all three federal taxes -- FICA/Medicare,
> income tax, and FUTA (unemployment) -- including amounts
> paid by the employer.

yeah, I thought of that after I posted


--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

enigma wrote:

> look at all the things that came out of the space race
> though... it was money well spent.
>
> lee

Tang! <--obFood
Velcro! <--off topic

Steve Pope wrote:
> Omelet > wrote:
>
>> 25% of my income already goes to taxes.
>
> You must not be counting all the taxes.
>
> The first dollar of wage income in any year is taxed 22% by the
> feds. It hits 40% by the time you have made $32,550/year (single
> filers), then goes up to 43%, before FICA finally drops off
> at $102,000/year at which point it drops down to a marginal
> rate of only 31%, increasing in steps to 38% for higher income.
>
> Of course if you're wealthy and your income comes from
> investments, the rates are less.
>
> Steve

Your numbers seem to be off. Here are the 2008 brackets:

Single Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule X)

* 10% on income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
* 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Y-1)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
* 15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
* 25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
* 28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
* 33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00

Married Filing Separately Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Y-2)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $65,725; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $65,725 and $100,150; plus $12,775.00
* 33% on the income between $100,150 and $178,850; plus $22,414.00
* 35% on the income over $178,850; plus $48,385.00

Head of Household Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Z)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $11,450
* 15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00
* 25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00
* 28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00
* 33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00

enigma wrote:
> Omelet > wrote in
> news >
>> The problem is, we need relief now. It will take time to
>> develop other resources.
>
> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
> occur in a vacuum, it needs funding. and yes, funding means
> taxes.
> look at all the things that came out of the space race
> though... it was money well spent.
>
> lee

I would have to think that any business that has anything to do with
alternative energy is very actively pursuing bringing something to
market. I would much rather have lots of independent minds working on
this.


But right now all we have is stupidity. A good example is grinding up
corn to keep the SUVs going. Our democrat governor (Rendell) wanted to
have at least 12 ethanol plants in the state. Since it makes no sense to
build one as a business he was all set to offer $110,000,000 grants he
pulled out of our pockets plus an operating subsidy and no taxes to
anyone wanting to build a plant.

T wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> "Omelet" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> "Giusi" > wrote:
>>>> We live in Europe with much higher energy costs. We try hard not to
>>>> waste
>>>> energy because it costs too much. There's still a lot to do, but believe
>>>> me
>>>> when I say that paying over $4800 a year for heat and lights and minimal
>>>> car
>>>> use for a single person is hardly getting a bargain.
>>> I pay a lot more than that! My MONTHLY utility for power, water, sewage >
>>> and garbage runs me no less than $400.00. This month was $480.00. My
>>> monthly fuel bill for mine and dads cars (I commute 32 miles per day
>>> round trip) is costing about $250.00 per month. That's $600.00 to
>>> $700.00 per month, or $7,200 to $8,400 per year.
>> 1. you are two people
>> 2. you included things I did not such as rubbush and water
>> 3. you commute.
>>
>> I have been rationing myself to 30 liters of gas per month for some time
>> now. If I go on a job which uses more than 10 liters, there is a trip
>> charge. I use public transport which where I live is not easy.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Right now my commute is about 60 miles via commuter and subway rail, but
> driving would be 40 miles.
>
> I'm looking at cars for the two of us and have settled initially on a
> Smart twofour, and then a few months later a Honda Civic Hybrid. Both
> cars get 40MPG or greater highway which is what I want.
>
> I calculated the cost to run the Smart on an 80 mile a day commute. It
> has an 8 gallon tank so highway range would be 320 miles or 4 days of
> round trip commute. Being that I work from home 2 days a week it means a
> tankful lasts two weeks.
>
> With gas at $4 a gallon (my estimate) my monthly would be about $64, I
> budget $100 a month. I also budget $100 a month for insurance, 100/300
> liability and comprehensive without collission since I'll be paying cash
> for the car. If it's involved in a collision that isn't my fault, I'll
> just subrogate it through my insurance company.
>
> I also added $50 per month for a repair fund. I estimate over the first
> 3 years maintenance items will be < $200 per year. But I'll have banked
> $1,800 less $600 means $1,200 for the big repairs that'll start mounting
> in years 4 through 10.
>
> So that brings the total cost to run the Smart to $250 per month.
> Curiously my commuter pass for the MBTA costs me $250 a month but the
> car gives me so much more freedom.
>
I have two friends who bought Smartcars. They are both meticulous about
record keeping and don't make up stuff and both are averaging around 50 MPG.

They are solidly built and a blast to drive. I drove my one buddies car
for a couple days and it is easy to get in and out off, handles nicely
and parking is a no brainer. The most difficult thing is backing into a
parking spot because when you get out you can see that you are still 8
feet away from what was behind you.

I don't know where you are but your insurance estimate sounds high. My
friends are paying ~ $700/year for total coverage. My one buddy was
going to do what you described and they told him it would only be $80 less.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>
>>> So Paul if we sell it to Japan do we get a lower price per gallon then
>>> we pay for it?
>>> Or do we buy it at the world price, and sell it at the world price?
>>> I think that a wash.
>>
>> "We" get nothing for it. The oil belongs to the lease holders of the
>> fields. This is something very few people can comprehend. "We" do
>> not own the oil, "they" do.
>
> So.... by paying a few dollars for mineral rights on property that other
> people may own, and that other people drill and extract, they may get
> millions of dollars????
>
Actually it doesn't work that way. Lets say you are a landowner and I am
a speculator. I think there is oil on your property so I approach you
and tell you I would like to come to an agreement. I am going to do all
of the heavy lifting and take the risk so I offer you a upfront payment
and then some per gallon renumeration. That way if there is oil we both
gain. There are lots of folks who are getting a nice income for their
oil in this fashion, not just a "few dollars".

George > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Omelet > wrote:
>>
>>> 25% of my income already goes to taxes.

>> You must not be counting all the taxes.

>> The first dollar of wage income in any year is taxed 22% by the
>> feds. It hits 40% by the time you have made $32,550/year (single
>> filers), then goes up to 43%, before FICA finally drops off
>> at $102,000/year at which point it drops down to a marginal
>> rate of only 31%, increasing in steps to 38% for higher income.

>Your numbers seem to be off. Here are the 2008 brackets:

>Single Filing Status
>(Tax Rate Schedule X)

> * 10% on income between $0 and $8,025
> * 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
> * 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
> * 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
> * 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
> * 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

I was also including FICA (15.4 % on the first $102,000,
2.9% afterwards), and FUTA (6.2% on the first $7000). Also
the taxable amount to use in the above FIT chart is after subtracting
half the FICA, all the FUTA, and a standard deduction of
$5450 from total pre-tax wages.

When you do this you get something closer to the numbers I gave,
but they are still a little off.


Steve

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:05:10 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Omelet > wrote:
>
>> And the guy hitting on you was kinda cute. <eg>
>
> He was? I didn't even notice that part. I just remember his
> haircut reminded me of Gary Oldman's in the The Fifth Element.
>
> http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...rgSmokes-1.jpg
>

dear god.

your pal,
blake

"Janet Baraclough"
> from enigma > contains these words:
>
>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>> though... it was money well spent.
>
> Non-stick saucepans. Back on topic :-)
>
> Janet

Tang!

"Goomba" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> Tang! <--obFood
> Velcro! <--off topic

No to Velcro, which was invented by a French dude completely separate from
the space race.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
> "Janet Baraclough"
>> from enigma > contains these words:
>>
>>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>>> though... it was money well spent.
>>
>> Non-stick saucepans. Back on topic :-)
>>
>> Janet
>
> Tang!
One of my favorite people of all time made something she called "Russian
Tea" for us as children. It was Tang mixed with iced tea. I had a feeling
this was a modern shortcut for an old beverage that involved real oranges
and tea.

On Sep 8, 3:09 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "Giusi" > wrote in message
>
> ...> "Janet Baraclough"
> >> from enigma > contains these words:
>
> >>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
> >>> though... it was money well spent.
>
> >> Non-stick saucepans. Back on topic :-)
>
> >> Janet
>
> > Tang!
>
> One of my favorite people of all time made something she called "Russian
> Tea" for us as children. It was Tang mixed with iced tea. I had a feeling
> this was a modern shortcut for an old beverage that involved real oranges
> and tea.

I think our "Russian Tea" had cinnamon and cloves, too. Kinda nasty
as I remember.

"bulka" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 8, 3:09 pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>> "Giusi" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...> "Janet Baraclough"
>> >> from enigma > contains these words:
>>
>> >>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>> >>> though... it was money well spent.
>>
>> >> Non-stick saucepans. Back on topic :-)
>>
>> >> Janet
>>
>> > Tang!
>>
>> One of my favorite people of all time made something she called "Russian
>> Tea" for us as children. It was Tang mixed with iced tea. I had a feeling
>> this was a modern shortcut for an old beverage that involved real oranges
>> and tea.
>
> I think our "Russian Tea" had cinnamon and cloves, too. Kinda nasty
> as I remember.

It sure would be with cinnamon an cloves. I actually never thought about
whether I liked it or not. I really liked the old lady who made it for us,
so it didn't matter.

Giusi wrote:
> "Goomba" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> Tang! <--obFood
>> Velcro! <--off topic
>
> No to Velcro, which was invented by a French dude completely separate from
> the space race.
>
>

Actually it was invented by a Swiss Engineer. Here's the wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro

Although, I always thought the inventor was Germant

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>>> We need fixes NOW. Not in 20 years.
>> Conservation is immediate. You can do a lot to cut down your energy bill.
>
> I have thyroid issues. I need to keep my thermostat at 72. ;-)
>
> But, I do have a low flow toilet and both dad and I put the TP in the
> trash if we only pee and don't flush. (TMI I know but it saves on water
> and wastewater charges!). Short showers too.
>
>> It all adds up. I just swapped out my fridge. My old clunker was wasting a
>> huge amount of electricity.
>
> I'm careful about refrigeration... There are other ways to cut power
> too.
>
>> I check my tires every week and keep them at
>> optimal, that is saving money.
>
> I'm already careful about that. I can't afford car payments right now
> or I'd replace my Chevy S-10. It gets 21 to 23 mpg. <sigh> Car
> payments would far outweigh the cost of replacing it as it's paid for.
>

You get 21mpg in an S-10???? Mine only gets 17-19 on a good day. And
yes, I tune up and check the tires.

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>
>>>> We need fixes NOW. Not in 20 years.
>>> Conservation is immediate. You can do a lot to cut down your energy
>>> bill.
>> I have thyroid issues. I need to keep my thermostat at 72. ;-)
>>
>> But, I do have a low flow toilet and both dad and I put the TP in the
>> trash if we only pee and don't flush. (TMI I know but it saves on water
>> and wastewater charges!). Short showers too.
>>
>>> It all adds up. I just swapped out my fridge. My old clunker was
>>> wasting a
>>> huge amount of electricity.
>> I'm careful about refrigeration... There are other ways to cut power
>> too.
>>
>>> I check my tires every week and keep them at
>>> optimal, that is saving money.
>> I'm already careful about that. I can't afford car payments right now
>> or I'd replace my Chevy S-10. It gets 21 to 23 mpg. <sigh> Car
>> payments would far outweigh the cost of replacing it as it's paid for.
>>
>>> I line dry clothes and that saves money.
>> I've never owned a clothes dryer, nor a dish washer.
>>
>>> their is a lot that can be done and it really adds up fast. It is not 1
>>> big
>>> thing it is a lot of little things.
>>>
>>> Paul
>> I know.
>>
>> But your point is??? <g>
>>
>> For those of us that already conserve, the price is still too high!
>> --
>
> People pay 4 bucks for a cup of coffee at Starbucks and complain about 4
> dollar a gallon gas? Yes it hurts a whole lot. I drive 600 miles a week.
> I know. But the rest of the world pays a lot more. They are not
> sympathetic. We enjoyed relatively low gas prics due to the high value fo
> he dollar and the "petro dollar recycling." With the crash of the dollar
> now the petro dollar recycling is working in reverse.
>
> Paul
>
>

Here's one that is even more absurd. People will pay a buck or two for
24oz of water in a bottle. This works out to $5 to $10 a gallon and
people don;t blink....

On Sep 7, 9:53*am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> > I hate greedy people. *But I hate commies even more as NOBODY can get
> > ahead in a fully socialist society.
>
> Tell that to Candada, France, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Australia,
> Norway, Sweden, Finland, Lichtenstein etc etc.

Where did you ever get the idea that these countries are "fully
socialist" societies (what ever that actually is). They all have a
capitalist economy with some social programs, including at least in
Canada and France's case the occasional government owned corporation.
Not sure about the others.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Sep 7, 10:52*am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article > ,
> *Saerah Gray > wrote:
>
> > Omelet > fnord
> >news
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > I don't give a damn about the rest of the world. (sorry).
> > > We are capable of solving our own energy issues if people would get
> > > off their asses and quit being quite so greedy!
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Center ground.
>
> > These two statements are contradictory.
>
> Not when I was referring to the specific energy needs of the US.
>
> My point was that we are capable of supplying our OWN energy needs.
> We do NOT need imported oil! *I have no issues if we export the excess,
> but we need to be a bit more self-sufficient.

At the moment the USA imports about 58% of its oil. It's been years
since the USA was self-sufficient in oil products. Drilling in
Alaska, etc, is unlikely to make an significant difference.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

On Sep 7, 4:16*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
> > It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the most successful
> > economies, historically, have had fairly high rates of taxation
> > (United States in the 20th century, the Roman Empire, etc.).
> > The only other success stories had high levels of
> > mercantilism -- direct government ownership of businesses --
> > like the British Empire through much of its history. *That
> > is just another form of tax.
>
> > There is no such thing as a successful, low-tax state, unless
> > you want to count offshore tax havens.
>
> Speaking of which..... there is a hurricane heading for the Turks and
> Caicos Islands. *When they were hit a few years ago they were looking
> for aid from Canada and the US. *That left me wondering..... the place
> is a tax shelter. It's primary business is banking, hiding money from
> the US and Canadian government so that people don't have to pay tax on
> it. So when they need help, they expect us to use taxpayers money to
> help them rebuild. Just doesn't seem right to me. If they want tax money
> to help them, they should raise their own taxes instead of just sitting
> back and making money of untaxed income.

It's our own fault. They wanted to join Canada back in the early
1970's and we would not listen. We could have had our own tropic
paradise ( even better than Niagra) and a cut of the money.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:14:50 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Remember the luxury tax? As soon as it took effect, the rich stopped buying
> their yachts, planes, etc. Who got hurt? The $10 an hour worker at the
> places that built those items. If you buy diamond earrings for $290,000
> very few people get a benefit, but buy a $20,000,000 yacht and a lot of
> middle class workers that make the components and assemble it will benefit.

no question about it, a healthy yacht economy is key to the u.s. economy.

blake

On Sep 7, 1:21*am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
> > > Are you really sure you want to vote for someone that REFUSES to salute
> > > the American Flag and has the above credentials ?
>
> > Symbolism is not important as you might think.
>
> > Paul
>
> Symbolism is more important than you think.
> It shows a treasonous attitude.
>
> My main beef with Obama is that he SUPPORTS the formation of a North
> American Union under the rule of the UN which would totally abolish the
> American Constitution.

Where the hell did you get that?
Not that any other country in North America would be stupid enough to
buy into it.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:22:31 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "George Cebulka" > wrote
>>>
>>> George, if McSame gets in those guys aren't going anywhere. I wager
>>> Cheney will be retained as a "consultant."
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Now that is a scary thought....
>
> Hopefully he won't last that long.

try this on for size: there is no legal or constitutional bar to cheney
serving another term as vice president.

don't like Caribou Barbie? suck on this, bitchez!

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:31:32 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George Cebulka" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> George, if McSame gets in those guys aren't going anywhere. I wager
>>>> Cheney will be retained as a "consultant."
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Now that is a scary thought....
>
> They've already prepared the life body suit and the respirator mask.
>
> Paul
>>
>> Hopefully he won't last that long.
>>

cheney has been in and out of the bethesda naval hospitald so often he has
a parking space with his name painted on it.

your pal,
blake