THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>
>> In article >,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
>>>> puts it.
>>>
>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>
>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.
>>
>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>>> what we do.
>>
>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>
>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>>> the house and transportation.
>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>
>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>>> start with.
>>
>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
>> in energy use.
>>
>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>>
>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>>> had money for other things..
>
>Other things like higher taxes?

Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century.

Facts are stubborn things.

On 7/25/2010 10:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> > wrote in
> misc.transport.road:
>
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
>>>>> puts it.
>>>>
>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>>
>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.
>>>
>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>>>> what we do.
>>>
>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>>
>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>>>> the house and transportation.
>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>>
>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>>>> start with.
>>>
>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
>>> in energy use.
>>>
>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>>>
>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>>>> had money for other things..
>>
>> Other things like higher taxes?
>
> Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century.
>
> Facts are stubborn things.

And going up in January.

And the Federal government has more TAX LAWS than it has had in half a
century.

17% medicare / medicade / Social security

39% Federal income tax
==
56% The Feds are taking in

On Jul 25, 9:31*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
>
> >> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
> >> puts it.
>
> >with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
> >There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
> >as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>
> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.
>
> >I'm *not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
> >people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
> >what we do.
>
> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>
> >they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
> >standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
> >the house and transportation.
>
> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>
> >Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
> >even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
> >start with.
>
> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
> in energy use.
>
> >I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>
> >my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
> >had money for other things..
>
> So adjusting your schedule to match the schedule of other people in
> your carpool was of no consequence?

not or 80% of the trips... basically involved finding folks who had
schedules within 15-30 minutes of your own... an easy transition most
days.

this is the problem with the narrative in general.. it's cast as an
all or nothing proposition and it's simply not and never has to be.

you make adjustments in life all the time... anyhow..

Beam Me Up Scotty > wrote
in ster.com:

> On 7/25/2010 10:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> > wrote in
>> misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew
>>>>> Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower"
>>>>>> has he puts it.
>>>>>
>>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income
>>>>> level. There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high
>>>>> on the hog as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>>>
>>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard
>>>> of living.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>>>>> what we do.
>>>>
>>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>>>
>>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and
>>>>> have a standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more
>>>>> modest on the house and transportation.
>>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>>>
>>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it
>>>>> without even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so
>>>>> prolifigate to start with.
>>>>
>>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make
>>>> significant cuts in energy use.
>>>>
>>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I
>>>>> actually had money for other things..
>>>
>>> Other things like higher taxes?
>>
>> Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century.

then why is the average American's tax load only paid up in the end of
May(Tax Freedon Day),when it used to be earlier in the year?
also,"taxes" are now accompanied by "fees" charged by gov't for their
services.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
>>
>> Facts are stubborn things.
>
> And going up in January.
>
> And the Federal government has more TAX LAWS than it has had in half a
> century.
>
> 17% medicare / medicade / Social security
>
> 39% Federal income tax
>==
> 56% The Feds are taking in
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article >,
Free Lunch > wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
>misc.transport.road:
>
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
>>>>> puts it.
>>>>
>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>>
>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.
>>>
>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>>>> what we do.
>>>
>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>>
>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>>>> the house and transportation.
>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>>
>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>>>> start with.
>>>
>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
>>> in energy use.
>>>
>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>>>
>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>>>> had money for other things..
>>
>>Other things like higher taxes?
>
>Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century.
Lie.

>Facts are stubborn things.
Indeed.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

In article >,
Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>On Jul 25, 9:31=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article =
>.com>,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 25, 5:33=3DA0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has h=
>e
>> >> puts it.
>>
>> >with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>> >There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>> >as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>
>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of liv=
>ing.
>>
>> >I'm =A0not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>> >people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>> >what we do.
>>
>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>
>> >they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>> >standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>> >the house and transportation.
>>
>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>
>> >Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>> >even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>> >start with.
>>
>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant c=
>uts
>> in energy use.
>>
>> >I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>
>> >my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>> >had money for other things..
>>
>> So adjusting your schedule to match the schedule of other people in
>> your carpool was of no consequence?
>
>not or 80% of the trips... basically involved finding folks who had
>schedules within 15-30 minutes of your own... an easy transition most
>days.

I've worked many places, both large and small, and I've never had
co-workers who lived near me and had schedules within 15-30 minutes of
my own. Never.

>this is the problem with the narrative in general.. it's cast as an
>all or nothing proposition and it's simply not and never has to be.

You're claiming no effect, or no significant effect. Dave and I are
claiming there is a significant effect. There is no "all"; it's
"nothing" versus "something".
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Jul 26, 9:23*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 25, 9:31=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article =
> >.com>,
> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 25, 5:33=3DA0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has h=
> >e
> >> >> puts it.
>
> >> >with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
> >> >There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
> >> >as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>
> >> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of liv=
> >ing.
>
> >> >I'm =A0not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
> >> >people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
> >> >what we do.
>
> >> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>
> >> >they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
> >> >standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
> >> >the house and transportation.
>
> >> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>
> >> >Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
> >> >even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
> >> >start with.
>
> >> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant c=
> >uts
> >> in energy use.
>
> >> >I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>
> >> >my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
> >> >had money for other things..
>
> >> So adjusting your schedule to match the schedule of other people in
> >> your carpool was of no consequence?
>
> >not or 80% of the trips... * basically involved finding folks who had
> >schedules within 15-30 minutes of your own... an easy transition most
> >days.
>
> I've worked many places, both large and small, and I've never had
> co-workers who lived near me and had schedules within 15-30 minutes of
> my own. *Never.
>
> >this is the problem with the narrative in general.. it's cast as an
> >all or nothing proposition and it's simply not and never has to be.
>
> You're claiming no effect, or no significant effect. *Dave and I are
> claiming there is a significant effect. *There is no "all"; it's
> "nothing" versus "something".
> --
> The problem with socialism is there's always
> someone with less ability and more need.

I guess it's a value judgement. I did have the benefit of staying at
one job and there were 2000 of us but the "not having anyone live near
you" is bogus. We picked a central meeting place on the way to work
and I lived miles from the others but we still shaved 50 miles off a
60 mile commute.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:12:42 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
misc.transport.road:

>On 7/25/2010 10:34 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> > wrote in
>> misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
>>>>>> puts it.
>>>>>
>>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>>>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>>>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>>>
>>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>>>>> what we do.
>>>>
>>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>>>
>>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>>>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>>>>> the house and transportation.
>>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>>>
>>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>>>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>>>>> start with.
>>>>
>>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
>>>> in energy use.
>>>>
>>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>>>>> had money for other things..
>>>
>>> Other things like higher taxes?
>>
>> Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century.
>>
>> Facts are stubborn things.
>
>And going up in January.
>
>And the Federal government has more TAX LAWS than it has had in half a
>century.
>
>17% medicare / medicade / Social security
>
>39% Federal income tax
>==
>56% The Feds are taking in
>
NO, they are not. Your ignorance is your own undoing.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:09:23 GMT, (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article >,
>Free Lunch > wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote in
>>misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
>>>>>> puts it.
>>>>>
>>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>>>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>>>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.
>>>>
>>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>>>>> what we do.
>>>>
>>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.
>>>>
>>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>>>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>>>>> the house and transportation.
>>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.
>>>>
>>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>>>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>>>>> start with.
>>>>
>>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
>>>> in energy use.
>>>>
>>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>>>>> had money for other things..
>>>
>>>Other things like higher taxes?
>>
>>Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century.
>Lie.

Look at the revenue as a percent of GDP.
>
>>Facts are stubborn things.
>Indeed.

But they don't support the reactionaries who lie about taxes and only
complain about deficits when the Democrats are in power.

THOUSANDTH

POST


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
BITCHES!