|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > March 2006 > Enough of this futility (for now)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Enough of this futility (for now)
|
|
| Enough Already 2006-03-19, 8:21 pm |
| To any and all concerned:
I have decided to put off my five-year Usenet war against
growth-addiction until the day when "I told you so" becomes
self-evident. That day is already here for those who respect the land
more than the dollar. Technology has blinded others to the restrictions
of a finite planet. No limits exist for "conservatives" who snub
conservation while profiting from depletion. Is gluttony not among
their Seven Deadly Sins? The Left, with its feel-good attitude toward
immigration, isn't much better. Moderates aren't helping either when it
comes to curbing numbers. They're the ones who invented Smart Growth
and other excuses for overpopulation.
It may take decades to reach a carrying-capacity threshold that few
will deny, but there's no way our quality of life will improve up to
that point. I have focused on the U.S. and California in particular,
since it's the fastest growing State with 500,000+ annually. Traffic
will keep getting worse. Crowds will keep thickening. Wilderness will
keep being compromised. Peace and quiet will become rarer. Crime rates
will rise in rural areas. And money will keep being made off the whole
MLM scheme. Common sense still ends where the buck stops.
I think growthism is rooted in Man's arrogant, religious sense of
superiority over nature. Something could be done about it, like an
urgent media campaign for birth control, but there are too many fools
pushing mindless expansion over steady-state economics. The economy is
driven by constant labor increases. It's hard to convince
tunnel-visioned mobs that the world is actually finite. Like the WTC,
our ecological "towers" are falling in slow motion, but folks are too
busy catering to growth to care.
Thanks for all your opinions over the years.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
| |
|
|
| Jack May 2006-03-19, 10:21 pm |
|
"Don Libby" <never.spam@tds.net> wrote in message
news:441de2ca$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
> "Enough Already". Need we say more? No.
He is just a typical Chicken Little type that has zero ideas of how to solve
any problems. All he can do is just say nothing will change and everything
will go to hell in a hand basket. Essentially the bottom of the gene pool
While he is totally incapable of making life better, there are a lot of
people out there solving the problems and some of them are getting rich as
they provide solution that people want.
| |
|
| "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:U9KdnW6H__bFmIPZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Don Libby" <never.spam@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:441de2ca$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
> He is just a typical Chicken Little type that has zero ideas of how to
> solve any problems. All he can do is just say nothing will change and
> everything will go to hell in a hand basket. Essentially the bottom of
> the gene pool
False. Go to: http://enough_already.tripod.com/actions.htm
> While he is totally incapable of making life better, there are a lot of
> people out there solving the problems and some of them are getting rich as
> they provide solution that people want.
What are your solutions for AGW?
It's easy to criticize. In fact, it's all right-wingers know how to do. They
never solve problems. Mounting debt? Cut taxes. Global warming? Increase
deductions on huge SUVs. Terrorism? Invade a country that wasn't part of the
terrorism. Oh, wight-wingers do REACT to problems, it's just that their
solutions are idiotic and counterproductive. And then when more rational
people propose solutions that aren't the equivalent of giving extra sugary
ice cream to a toddler, the right-wingers criticize those solutions as
unworkable.
Yeah, cutting CO2 emissions will be hard. But the correct solution isn't to
ignore it, like Bush and Republicans suggest by their inaction.
| |
| Neil Brooks 2006-03-19, 11:21 pm |
| On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:50:32 -0700, <dan@dan.com> wrote:
>"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:U9KdnW6H__bFmIPZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>False. Go to: http://enough_already.tripod.com/actions.htm
>
>
>What are your solutions for AGW?
>
>It's easy to criticize. In fact, it's all right-wingers know how to do. They
>never solve problems. Mounting debt? Cut taxes. Global warming? Increase
>deductions on huge SUVs. Terrorism? Invade a country that wasn't part of the
>terrorism. Oh, wight-wingers do REACT to problems, it's just that their
>solutions are idiotic and counterproductive. And then when more rational
>people propose solutions that aren't the equivalent of giving extra sugary
>ice cream to a toddler, the right-wingers criticize those solutions as
>unworkable.
>
>Yeah, cutting CO2 emissions will be hard. But the correct solution isn't to
>ignore it, like Bush and Republicans suggest by their inaction.
>
Unfair characterization. The Bush administration DID do something
about CO2 emissions:
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction.htm
Any questions?
| |
| Just Cocky 2006-03-20, 12:21 am |
| On 19 Mar 2006 15:18:29 -0800, "Enough Already"
<enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>I have decided to put off my five-year Usenet war against
>growth-addiction until the day when "I told you so" becomes
>self-evident.
>
Good!
| |
| Jack May 2006-03-20, 4:21 am |
|
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:Z7WdnWgzgLfmhYPZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:U9KdnW6H__bFmIPZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> False. Go to: http://enough_already.tripod.com/actions.htm
>
>
> What are your solutions for AGW?
>
> It's easy to criticize. In fact, it's all right-wingers know how to do.
I am a Democrat and an engineer. I solve problems for a living
They
> never solve problems. Mounting debt? Cut taxes.
Increasing the growth of the economy increases revenue into the Government.
The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that cutting taxes
stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the Government.
Global warming?
There are multiple solutions for green house gasses that are under
development by scientist and engineers. They work far better than trying to
force people to conserve.
Oh, wight-wingers do REACT to problems, it's just that their
> solutions are idiotic and counterproductive. And then when more rational
> people propose solutions that aren't the equivalent of giving extra sugary
> ice cream to a toddler, the right-wingers criticize those solutions as
> unworkable.
So far everything you have said has proven to be wrong. You have nothing to
contribute.
>
> Yeah, cutting CO2 emissions will be hard.
Actually the technology being developed will radically reduce CO2 far more
than the stupidity of Kyoto.
| |
|
| "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:Z7WdnWgzgLfmhYPZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> I am a Democrat and an engineer. I solve problems for a living
>
> They
>
> Increasing the growth of the economy increases revenue into the
> Government. The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that
> cutting taxes stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the
> Government.
Of course cutting taxes stimulated the economy! The question to ask is at
what cost? They most certainly did not increase NET revenues (i.e. new
revenues minus money lost through tax cuts), or the deficit wouldn't have
gone up like it immediately did even discounting new anti-terrorism
spending. The tax cuts have increased our debt tremendously. Tax cuts
costing much less, targeting the middle and lower classes only would have
done the same thing, and might have actually increased NET revenues.
Remember, deficits are just tax increases at a later date, with compound
interest.
> Global warming?
>
> There are multiple solutions for green house gasses that are under
> development by scientist and engineers. They work far better than trying
> to force people to conserve.
No they don't. Our emissions are rising, not falling.
> Oh, wight-wingers do REACT to problems, it's just that their
>
> So far everything you have said has proven to be wrong. You have nothing
> to contribute.
The only thing I've said that was wrong was implying your party affiliation.
You have nothing to contribute.
> Actually the technology being developed will radically reduce CO2 far more
> than the stupidity of Kyoto.
Not enough. We will need every possible tool and then some to do what's
necessary to really address AGW. Kyoto was stupid - it wasn't nearly enough
to make any difference at all.
You just don't get, DINO, there are no market forces that are going to
reduce CO2 emissions on the scale necessary to make one whit of difference.
| |
|
| "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:Z7WdnWgzgLfmhYPZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> I am a Democrat and an engineer. I solve problems for a living
By the way, I am also a (real) Democrat and an engineer. I just don't feel
the competitive need to beat my chest and announce it to the world, as if
I'm better than everyone else with whom I might disagree.
> They
>
> Increasing the growth of the economy increases revenue into the
> Government. The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that
> cutting taxes stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the
> Government.
>
> Global warming?
>
> There are multiple solutions for green house gasses that are under
> development by scientist and engineers. They work far better than trying
> to force people to conserve.
>
> Oh, wight-wingers do REACT to problems, it's just that their
>
> So far everything you have said has proven to be wrong. You have nothing
> to contribute.
> Actually the technology being developed will radically reduce CO2 far more
> than the stupidity of Kyoto.
>
>
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-20, 10:21 am |
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> I am a Democrat and an engineer. I solve problems for a living
Both unlikely since you appear to be very ignorant, and a fool.
Now certainly Republicans have no monopoly on stupidity, but it is their
stock and trade. You might only aspire to make it yours.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> Increasing the growth of the economy increases revenue into the
Government.
Not necessarily. It depends on how Government taxes that economy. If
Government does so with less vigour then it is entirely possible - as it is
now - that govenment revenue's would fall as the economy grows.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that cutting
taxes
> stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the Government.
Sorry, wrong again. Reagans tax cuts resulted in revenue reductions after
corrected for inflation. The same is true for Bushie's tax reductions.
Eventually tax revenues went up under Reagan but that was <after> he
<INCREASED> taxes after his first few years in office.
The incompetents running the current government are not interested in
fiscal restraint, their purpose is to bring the government into fiscal
crisis as rapidly as possible. WHich is exactly what they are doing.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> There are multiple solutions for green house gasses that are under
> development by scientist and engineers. They work far better than trying
to
> force people to conserve.
People will conserve naturally when conservation is presented in an
appropriate manner that is convenient and palletable.
Pressure should for the most part be placed on industry and corporations
though regulation so that buildings and products are compatible with energy
reducing strategies. For example, requiring homes to be built with a large
south facing wall and adequate roof design to support passive solar heating.
Minimal requirements for the insulating characteristics of windows and
doors, etc. Bascially enforced CAFE standards for homes and other
buildings.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> So far everything you have said has proven to be wrong. You have nothing
to
> contribute.
Actually, everything he said was correct. You have provided nothing.
How typically Republican of you.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> Actually the technology being developed will radically reduce CO2 far more
> than the stupidity of Kyoto.
Kyoto requires reduction. How nations get there is not specified. If you
feel you can do better than Kyoto, then you have no reason not to support
it. If you feel you can not support Kyoto then you have just illustrated
that the current technology being developed can't meet Kyoto requirements,
and you have contrdicted yourself.
Are you just a stupid Republican? Or are you a dishonest Republican?
| |
| Eric Swanson 2006-03-20, 12:21 pm |
| In article <nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, jack.may@comcast.net says...
>
>
><dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:Z7WdnWgzgLfmhYPZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
>I am a Democrat and an engineer. I solve problems for a living
I'm an engineer and have been trying to work with solar energy for about 30
years. Lacking funds, I had to wait until retirement to build the solar house
I designed. Have you built a super efficient solar house yet?
>
>Increasing the growth of the economy increases revenue into the Government.
>The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that cutting taxes
>stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the Government.
Given an unlimited credit card, anybody can look real good, until the bank
pulls the plug. If the economy is doing so great, how come the real income
for the average American is declining? Those of us who are Democrats tried
to point out that you can't cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance
the budget...back when Ronnie RayGun first proposed his cuts. The National
Debit ballooned from $1 Trillion to $4 Trillion as a result. Now, the Bush
man has bumped it up again, with the latest debit ceiling at $9 Trillion.
When the interest rates go up again, there won't be anything left over after
the payments for interest are made. Guess who holds all that debit?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2006-03-20, 12:21 pm |
| >>>back when Ronnie RayGun first proposed his cuts. The National
Debit ballooned from $1 Trillion to $4 Trillion as a result.<<<
I see you Democrats are STILL telling/believing that lie.
The reason the deficits balloned was because the DEMOCRAT controlled
congress passed huge budgets, not because of Reagan's policies.
Many more dollars came into the treasury during Reagan's presidency but the
Democrats spent it faster than it came in.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-20, 12:21 pm |
|
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
> Guess who holds all that debit?
Currently the Pacific Rim nations hold about 50%, and the wealthiest
AmeriKKKans about 30%. Pensions and retirement funds (U.S.) make up the
bulk of the remainder.
Now when interests rates go to 10%, who is going to benefit from the 70% tax
rate that will have to be imposed on the U.S. middle class to maintain
AmeriKKKan society?
Isn't it obvious?
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-20, 12:21 pm |
|
> Debit ballooned from $1 Trillion to $4 Trillion as a result.<<<
"JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote
> I see you Democrats are STILL telling/believing that lie.
> The reason the deficits balloned was because the DEMOCRAT controlled
> congress passed huge budgets, not because of Reagan's policies.
In every year, this "democrat controlled congress spent <LESS> than Ronald
Reagan's budget requested.
If Republicans had control then as they do now, then the deficit would
have balooned as rapidly under Reagan as it has under the current
incompetent BUSH regime.
"JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote:
> Many more dollars came into the treasury during Reagan's presidency but
the
> Democrats spent it faster than it came in.
Nope. Sorry, Government revenues fell under reagan once you correct for
inflation and particularly once you remove the stimulatory effect of
spending money you don't have.
Once again, the Republican is caught lying through his teeth.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-20, 1:21 pm |
|
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote in message
news:12ATf.11131$Da7.3157@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Pull those numbers out of your XXX?
[color=darkred]
>
> I see you Democrats are STILL telling/believing that lie.
> The reason the deficits balloned was because the DEMOCRAT controlled
> congress passed huge budgets,
Remember they promised $2 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases?
They tax hikes came, but never the spending cuts.
>not because of Reagan's policies.
> Many more dollars came into the treasury during Reagan's presidency but
> the Democrats spent it faster than it came in.
Damn near double by the end of his term. Oh, and before he barfs the bildge
about military spending, the defense budget never got over 29% of the budget
(up from 13% in 1980). This year it will be about 17% and about 4% of GNP.
From 1950 to around 1970, it was 50% of the fed budget and 10% of GNP.
BTW! What ever happened to that "Peace Dividend" that Clinton inherited from
the fall of the Soviet Union?
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-20, 1:21 pm |
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:RvATf.3573$Hk1.110@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
> "JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote
>
> In every year, this "democrat controlled congress spent <LESS> than
> Ronald
> Reagan's budget requested.
For HIS programs.
>
> If Republicans had control then as they do now, then the deficit would
> have balooned as rapidly under Reagan as it has under the current
> incompetent BUSH regime.
>
>
> "JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote:
> the
>
> Nope. Sorry, Government revenues fell under reagan once you correct for
> inflation and particularly once you remove the stimulatory effect of
> spending money you don't have.
Famous lie that your got from Paul Krugman. Donald Luskin made mincemeat of
that pile of crap.
>
> Once again, the Republican is caught lying through his teeth.
Once again the accussor is the true liar and/or naieve as hell.
| |
|
| "JerryD(upstateNY)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote in message
news:12ATf.11131$Da7.3157@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Debit ballooned from $1 Trillion to $4 Trillion as a result.<<<
>
> I see you Democrats are STILL telling/believing that lie.
> The reason the deficits balloned was because the DEMOCRAT controlled
> congress passed huge budgets, not because of Reagan's policies.
> Many more dollars came into the treasury during Reagan's presidency but
> the Democrats spent it faster than it came in.
>
> --
> JerryD(upstateNY)
Then why didn't it happen under Carter?
| |
| Joe Jared 2006-03-20, 7:21 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:04:45 -0700, dan wrote:
> Then why didn't it happen under Carter?
We were too busy experiencing a recession, and as usual, the president
gets accolades or blame for the economy. Under ideal representation, the
democrats and republicans are equally represented, such that no one can do
anything and ultimately, not much damage gets done.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
| |
| Anonyma 2006-03-20, 10:21 pm |
| On Sun, Mar 19 2006 3:18 pm, "Enough Already", bowing out, wrote:
> It may take decades to reach a carrying-capacity threshold that few
> will deny, but there's no way our quality of life will improve up to
> that point. I have focused on the U.S. and California in particular,
> since it's the fastest growing State with 500,000+ annually. Traffic
> will keep getting worse. Crowds will keep thickening. Wilderness will
> keep being compromised. Peace and quiet will become rarer. Crime rates
> will rise in rural areas. And money will keep being made off the whole
> MLM scheme. Common sense still ends where the buck stops.
Usenet is quite the maddening place so one can't blame you for walking. In some ways it's possible to forgive your "addicts" for knowing not what they do. However, environmentalists who dismiss the population dynamic are being criminally disingenuous. It
would be a poor pest inspector who insisted that the volume of termites had no bearing on a home's salvageability. Offense at comparisons between men and insects is purely emotional and snobbish. I stopped donating to the Sierra Club after their initial r
ow on immigration. Methodological corruption in the environmental movement has hurt its underpinnings. Worse still, it has given naysayers an easy opening for criticism.
I was a teenager in '68 when biologist Paul R. Ehrlich was on the Tonight Show more than once. He did a fine job of rousing support for lower numbers and jump-started local environmental projects--a powerful speaker--and still in demand. He didn't predict
at the time that there was still leeway for new technology to fend off the worst scenarios and he's taken misdirected heat for that. There is no fatal flaw in his or Malthus' fundamentals, just timing delays, so to speak. There are tipping points on ever
y depletion curve and diminishing returns that can't be corrected at today's intake levels. Large human numbers should be taken as seriously as global warming because they are, in effect, causing it. A global petrol economy could subsist for centuries wit
h a fraction of today's consumers.
R. Lander
| |
|
| "Joe Jared" <joejared@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.20.23.14.47.672408@osirusoft.com...
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:04:45 -0700, dan wrote:
>
>
> We were too busy experiencing a recession, and as usual, the president
> gets accolades or blame for the economy. Under ideal representation, the
> democrats and republicans are equally represented, such that no one can do
> anything and ultimately, not much damage gets done.
>
> --
> Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
> Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
> http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
We were too busy experiencing a recession for the deficit to rise? HUH??
I do agree, in general, that the best situation is divided government.
Though sometimes you really do need goverment to do something, such as
provide leadership on global warming and the planet's imminent energy
shortage (not necessarily peak oil, though I do think that's coming soon,
but just the fact that demand for oil, at present rates of increase, will
soon outstrip supply).
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thank you...i looked at your website and i love it. I hope that you
will keep it up, as i would love to link to it.
| |
| Jack May 2006-03-21, 1:21 am |
|
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message
news:K8qdnUxjk5qD7YPZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Of course cutting taxes stimulated the economy! The question to ask is at
> what cost? They most certainly did not increase NET revenues (i.e. new
> revenues minus money lost through tax cuts), or the deficit wouldn't have
> gone up like it immediately did even discounting new anti-terrorism
> spending. The tax cuts have increased our debt tremendously. Tax cuts
> costing much less, targeting the middle and lower classes only would have
> done the same thing, and might have actually increased NET revenues.
> Remember, deficits are just tax increases at a later date, with compound
> interest.
Your basic assumption is that the size of the economy is static and never
grows. That assumption is not true.
>
>
> No they don't. Our emissions are rising, not falling.
Your basic assumption is that technology never advances and what is
happening now will never change. That assumption is not true.
> You just don't get, DINO, there are no market forces that are going to
> reduce CO2 emissions on the scale necessary to make one whit of
> difference.
The market forces are very large to come up with alternative fuels that are
cheaper than oil. People do want to buy fuel that will not harm the planet
especially when it is cheaper than oil. That is a major market force.
| |
| Jack May 2006-03-21, 2:21 am |
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:T4yTf.41245$fd.130@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
>
> Both unlikely since you appear to be very ignorant, and a fool.
You just want to insult and not provide any basis for you comment?
>
> People will conserve naturally when conservation is presented in an
> appropriate manner that is convenient and palletable.
There are no examples of large conservation efforts by masses of people .
Unless conservation makes their personal lives better, they will not
conserve for the good of society.
>
> Pressure should for the most part be placed on industry and corporations
> though regulation so that buildings and products are compatible with
> energy
> reducing strategies. For example, requiring homes to be built with a
> large
> south facing wall and adequate roof design to support passive solar
> heating.
> Minimal requirements for the insulating characteristics of windows and
> doors, etc. Bascially enforced CAFE standards for homes and other
> buildings.
That is not even a good approach. It just says keep doing with less and
less as the oil runs out. People do not want to suffer. It is far easier
to get people to use alternative fuels that are cheaper than oil.
Decreasing suffering is the most successful way to change society for the
better.
>
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> to
>
> Actually, everything he said was correct. You have provided nothing.
>
> How typically Republican of you.
>
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
>
> Kyoto requires reduction. How nations get there is not specified. If
> you
> feel you can do better than Kyoto, then you have no reason not to support
> it. If you feel you can not support Kyoto then you have just illustrated
> that the current technology being developed can't meet Kyoto requirements,
> and you have contrdicted yourself.
Kyoto is mainly framed to use economic penalties an transfer of funds from
rich countries to poor countries. Such approaches are politically
impossible to implement. Simulations after Kyoto show that it will have
almost no effect on CO2 levels. Technologies that are being will produce
dramatic reductions in green house gasses.
Political solutions have a long track record of being not very effective.
Technology has a track record of producing major changes in society
>
> Are you just a stupid Republican? Or are you a dishonest Republican?
Your bigotry and hatred gets in the way of any message you want to say. I
don't follow the guidance of either party. I support what works, not what
I am told to support.
| |
| Jack May 2006-03-21, 2:21 am |
|
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
news:dvmhgv$1rhs$1@news3.infoave.net...
> In article <nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> jack.may@comcast.net says...
> I'm an engineer and have been trying to work with solar energy for about
> 30
> years. Lacking funds, I had to wait until retirement to build the solar
> house
> I designed. Have you built a super efficient solar house yet?
Certainly not. I am a highly creative engineer. I don't try to implement
failed solutions. I prefer solutions that don't require large amounts of
raw materials at a high cost with no real innovation..
>
| |
|
|
dan@dan.com wrote:
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Of course cutting taxes stimulated the economy! The question to ask is at
> what cost? They most certainly did not increase NET revenues (i.e. new
> revenues minus money lost through tax cuts), or the deficit wouldn't have
> gone up like it immediately did even discounting new anti-terrorism
> spending. The tax cuts have increased our debt tremendously. Tax cuts
> costing much less, targeting the middle and lower classes only would have
> done the same thing, and might have actually increased NET revenues.
> Remember, deficits are just tax increases at a later date, with compound
> interest.
>
>
> No they don't. Our emissions are rising, not falling.
>
>
> The only thing I've said that was wrong was implying your party affiliation.
> You have nothing to contribute.
>
>
> Not enough. We will need every possible tool and then some to do what's
> necessary to really address AGW. Kyoto was stupid - it wasn't nearly enough
> to make any difference at all.
>
> You just don't get, DINO, there are no market forces that are going to
> reduce CO2 emissions on the scale necessary to make one whit of difference.
two words. hubbert peak.
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2006-03-21, 12:21 pm |
| >>>In every year, this "democrat controlled congress spent <LESS> than[color=darkred]
Another lie told so many times uninformed people (like you) believe it.
One year out of 8, (1984) Reagan proposed a larger budget than what was
passed.
The other 7 years, Congress passed a HIGHER budget than Reagan proposed.
Read it and weep !!!
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
| royls@telus.net 2006-03-21, 1:21 pm |
| On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:17:33 -0800, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
wrote:
>Increasing the growth of the economy increases revenue into the Government.
Generally true. Government revenue is a remarkably stable fraction of
GDP -- or was, until the Bush tax cuts.
>The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that cutting taxes
>stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the Government.
That claim is flat false. What the data show unambiguously is that
increasing the money supply stimulates the economy, budget deficits
_usually_ increase the money supply, and tax cuts _usually_ increase
budget deficits. A budget deficit that does not increase the money
supply does not stimulate the economy (see 1930-31), and a tax cut
that does not increase the budget deficit (see 1969-70)
does not stimulate the economy either.
-- Roy L
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2006-03-21, 1:21 pm |
| >>>Then why didn't it happen under Carter?<<<
This has nothing to do with the lies being told about Reagan.
The fact remains...the Democratic congress passed HUGH budgets during Reagan's administration and they caused the massive budget deficits.
It's always funny to hear the Democrats say Reagan was sleeping most of his term or had Alzheimer's and yet he snickered the whole Democrat Congress to pass budgets larger than they wanted.
Those Democrats must have been VERY stupid to have that happen to them.
hehehehehe
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2006-03-21, 1:21 pm |
| DAMN !!!!
I just noticed this thread is being cross-posted.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
| sinister 2006-03-21, 6:21 pm |
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
[snip]
> The data for the present and past tax cuts strongly shows that cutting
> taxes stimulated the economy and increased revenue for the Government.
(1) Then why are revenues as a fraction of GDP lower than before Bush's tax
cuts?
(2) Then why did revenues go up after Clinton's tax increases in 1993?
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-21, 6:21 pm |
|
JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>
> Another lie told so many times uninformed people (like you) believe it.
> One year out of 8, (1984) Reagan proposed a larger budget than what was passed.
> The other 7 years, Congress passed a HIGHER budget than Reagan proposed.
> Read it and weep !!!
> Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
> 1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
> 1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
> 1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
> 1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
> 1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
> 1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
> 1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
> 1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
The "Actual" figures aren't the budgets that Congress passed. Here is
the table comparing the budgets:
Fiscal Year Proposed Budget Enacted Budget
1982 695.3 695.5
1983 773.3 785.5
1984 862.5 863.5
1985 940.3 946.8
1986 973.7 967.6
1987 994.0 995.0
1988 1024.3 1040.8
1989 1094.2 1099.7
Congress passed budgets that were only $8B per year, or 0.5%, greater
than what Reagan proposed.
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-21, 9:21 pm |
|
"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ppadnRaq1d6n8r3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nYWdnbftde-ayoPZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> [snip]
>
>
> (1) Then why are revenues as a fraction of GDP lower than before Bush's
> tax cuts?
Because taxex are not based on GDP.
> (2) Then why did revenues go up after Clinton's tax increases in 1993?
They didn't until the Internet boom...take a look at 1998. The economy
slumped from 1993 to 1995.
Amazing, the naiveté of public school people.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 9:21 pm |
|
> "JerryD(upstateNY)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote in message
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote[color=darkred]
> Pull those numbers out of your XXX?
No, they are pulled out of the "USBudget Historical Tables" A PDF file
made available by the U.S. government.
You know, it's a publication made available by the U.S. printing office.
So Matt. How long have you been sucking on that elephant dick?
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote[color=darkred]
> Remember they promised $2 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases?
> They tax hikes came, but never the spending cuts.
What tax increases? I thought you said Reagan cut taxes.
Do you mean that Reagans tax cuts came at the same time as tax increases?
Stupid... Stupid Barrow.
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote[color=darkred]
> Damn near double by the end of his term. Oh, and before he barfs the
bildge
> about military spending, the defense budget never got over 29% of the
budget
> (up from 13% in 1980). This year it will be about 17% and about 4% of GNP.
> From 1950 to around 1970, it was 50% of the fed budget and 10% of GNP.
Wrong again mike. Under Reagans tax cuts, government revenues fell once
the stimulatory effects of deficit spending are considered. What is more,
the total increased revenue never exceeded Reagan's huge increase in deficit
spending.
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> BTW! What ever happened to that "Peace Dividend" that Clinton inherited
from
> the fall of the Soviet Union?
Bush has spent it, and several trillion dollars more. U.S. debt now 8.3
trillion and climibing. Debt inherited by reagan about 800 billion. Bush's
YEARLY deficit is almost as large as the accumulated debt from the origin of
AmeriKKKa until 1980.
Stupid... Stupid Matt.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 10:21 pm |
|
"Matt Barrow" wrote
> Nothing but stupidity <
Oh, by the way Republican Cock Sucker, under Reagan, government receipts
<DECLINED> from 19.5% of GDP to 18.1 % of GDP.
Lying... Lying... Republican...
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 10:21 pm |
|
> "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
[color=darkred]
> "Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> For HIS programs.
Correct. Given a free hand, Reagan would have greatly outspent the very
people you complain were responsible for that era's debt.
Fortunately, Liberals put limits on Reagans spending program and greatly
reduced the huge debt that Reagan foisted on the AmeriKKKan public.
> "Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> Famous lie that your got from Paul Krugman. Donald Luskin made mincemeat
of
> that pile of crap.
Donald who? Are you referring to the Donald Luskin who repeatedly
proclaimed that the tech bubble didn't exist, that economic bubbles don't
exist, and who repeatedly argued that continued explosive growth in the tech
sector of the late 90's would never end?
Are you referring to the same Donald Luskin who's own open market fund
lost 75 percent of it's value within two years of it's creation?
Only someone seeking to keep themselves poor and ignorant would listen to
that loser.
[color=darkred]
> "Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> Once again the accussor is the true liar and/or naieve as hell.
Yes you are. How typically Libertarian of you.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 10:21 pm |
|
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message news:hvOdnfW-
> We were too busy experiencing a recession for the deficit to rise? HUH??
Ya, that's what he said.
Spectacular ignorance isn't it?
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 11:21 pm |
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> You just want to insult and not provide any basis for you comment?
The basis is your self evident stupidity of course.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote[color=darkred]
> There are no examples of large conservation efforts by masses of people .
I love it when someone who claims to be an engineer and who says they
"solve real problems for a living", argues that because in his experience
something hasn't been done, it can not be done.
And you wonder Jack, how your ignorance is self evident?
Moron.
corporations[color=darkred]
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote[color=darkred]
> That is not even a good approach. It just says keep doing with less and
> less as the oil runs out. People do not want to suffer.
Not at all, it's a reflection at the highly inefficient nature of western
society. You know what inefficiency is don't you Jack. You are an engineer
aren't you?
Certainly using less is what AmeriKKKa will be forced to do by nature.
Morons like yourself might argue that it is better to be forced to necessity
to reduc consumption, but the more intelligent among us will realize that
reduction by choice is preferable as it is controllable and not
catastrophic.
As to suffering, people must love suffering. Why else would dumb as fuck
AmeriKKKans spend so much time working to earn money and then burn that
money unnecessarily in their furnaces, appliances and automobile engines?
Oh ya.. I forgot. They are as dumb as fuck... Like you.
Dumb as fuck Jack May wrote:
> It is far easier to get people to use alternative fuels that are cheaper
than oil.
In the last three years, Bush's war for Oil has cost the AmeriKKKan public
250 billion, and estimates are that it will cost 1.4 trillion total.
Now isn't it odd that you don't include those kind of figures in your oil
costs, or any of the direct subsidies either.
Oh, ya.. I forgot the reason... You AmeriKKKans are as dumb as fuck.
Hahahaha... Silly me.
Dumb as fuck Jack May wrote:
> Decreasing suffering is the most successful way to change society for the
> better.
Ah, so this is why Bush's military campaign in Iraq is an abject failure.
It has done nothing but increase the suffering of the people of Iraq. Not
to mention murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians - largely children.
> Kyoto is mainly framed to use economic penalties an transfer of funds from
> rich countries to poor countries.
That's funny, because as we all know, Kyoto is a framework by which the
signatory nations reduce their emission of CO2 to predefined levels.
But I can understand how you can be upset. AmeiKKKans would be forced to
improve the efficiency of their economy while African dung burners living in
ambect poverty wouldn't be forced to reduce the amount of dung they use for
cooking.
How unfair. How totally unfair that those on the verge of starvation
shouldn't be forced to reduce the amount of cook stove dung they burn.
Your right. Kyoto must be fatally flawed, if the poor are not burdened
the most for the very henous act of being poor.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> Such approaches are politically impossible to implement.
Yet they are being implemented all over the world in the signatory
countries.
Perhaps you just don't understand what the word impossible means.
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> Simulations after Kyoto show that it will have almost no effect on CO2
levels.
Generally true. Kyoto is only a small reduction. More will be needed.
Is it your view that all motion is impossible, because any small step
towards a destination never reaches it's goal and hence can not succeed?
Stupid... Stupid... Little Boy...
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> Technologies that are being will produce dramatic reductions in green
house
> gasses.
Ya, the word you left out is "ignored".
Stupid... Stupid... Jacko.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 11:21 pm |
|
> "Eric Swanson" <swanson@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
> Have you built a super efficient solar house yet?
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Certainly not. I am a highly creative engineer. I don't try to implement
> failed solutions. I prefer solutions that don't require large amounts of
> raw materials at a high cost with no real innovation..
Ah, so the engineer holds that energy efficient homes require large
amounts of raw materials and are high cost and not innovative.
Jack... If you are an engineer, you are incompetent. But since you are
incompetent, you probably aren't.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-21, 11:21 pm |
|
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message[color=darkred]
> (1) Then why are revenues as a fraction of GDP lower than before Bush's
tax
> cuts?
> (2) Then why did revenues go up after Clinton's tax increases in 1993?
(3) Why did revenues as a fraction of GDP drop during Reagan's tax cut?
Answer to all three questions.
Because Jack May has Republican shit for brains.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 1:21 am |
|
"JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote[color=darkred]
> Another lie told so many times uninformed people (like you) believe it.
> One year out of 8, (1984) Reagan proposed a larger budget than what was
> passed.
> The other 7 years, Congress passed a HIGHER budget than Reagan proposed.
> Read it and weep !!!
> Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
> 1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
> 1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
> 1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
> 1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
> 1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
> 1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
> 1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
> 1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
Jerry is of course lying. Comparing Reagans proposed budget with the actual
government spending for that year, <NOT> the proposed spending by congress.
Like any budget, the U.S. government budget always comes in a little higher
than the forecast.
Lying... Lying... Republican...
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 9:21 am |
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:xx2Uf.3644$Hk1.2986@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
> "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> tax
>
> (3) Why did revenues as a fraction of GDP drop during Reagan's tax cut?
>
> Answer to all three questions.
>
> Because Jack May has Republican shit for brains.
>
Typical adolescent idiot response (hey, it's redundant).
Not to mention "ignorant" as well.
Hey, go back and suck your teachers cock....
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-22, 10:21 am |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ppadnRaq1d6n8r3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> They didn't until the Internet boom...take a look at 1998. The economy
> slumped from 1993 to 1995.
Real tax revenues grew by 7% and 5% in the first two years (fiscal 1994
and 1995) respectively after the Clinton tax increase. The economy
grew at 3.6% and 3.0% in fiscal 1994 and 1995 respectively.
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-22, 10:21 am |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "JerryD(upstateNY)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Remember they promised $2 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases?
Citation?
>
> Damn near double by the end of his term.
Real revenue grew at only 2.4% per year over the 8 Reagan years. That
rate is much slower than either before or after.
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 11:21 am |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1143036350.861353.17310@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Citation?
When I provide it, will you change your stance and admit it?
>
>
> Real revenue grew at only 2.4% per year over the 8 Reagan years. That
> rate is much slower than either before or after.
>
Citation?
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 11:21 am |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1143036350.861353.17310@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Real revenue grew at only 2.4% per year over the 8 Reagan years. That
> rate is much slower than either before or after.
Get that from Paul Krugman?
>
Let's see: they were falling under Carter even with 14% inflation....
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-22, 11:21 am |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> news:1143036350.861353.17310@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> When I provide it, will you change your stance and admit it?
If the source is credible (primary, contemporaneous), then I will
calculate how much Congress promised to cut spending but did not, and
blame Congress for that part of the deficit.
> Citation?
Table 1.3 of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budge...07/pdf/hist.pdf
contains the raw figures by fiscal year in the column labeled "In
Constant (FY 2000 Dollars) - Receipts". Reagan's 8 fiscal years are
1982-1989.
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-22, 11:21 am |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> news:1143036350.861353.17310@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Get that from Paul Krugman?
>
> Let's see: they were falling under Carter even with 14% inflation....
>From Table 1.3 of
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budge...07/pdf/hist.pdf real revenue
under Carter (fiscal years 1978-81) grew by 4.5% per year.
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 1:21 pm |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1143038968.735092.323240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If the source is credible (primary, contemporaneous), then I will
> calculate how much Congress promised to cut spending but did not, and
> blame Congress for that part of the deficit.
>
Obviously you didn't live through that era, kiddo.
>
> Table 1.3 of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budge...07/pdf/hist.pdf
> contains the raw figures by fiscal year in the column labeled "In
> Constant (FY 2000 Dollars) - Receipts". Reagan's 8 fiscal years are
> 1982-1989.
Hmmm...
1981
................................................................................
599,272
1982
................................................................................
617,766
1983
................................................................................
600,562
1984
................................................................................
666,486
1985
................................................................................
734,088
1986
................................................................................
769,215
1987
................................................................................
854,353
1988
................................................................................
909,303
1989
................................................................................
991,190
From $600B to $991B is 2.4%, huh.
Can't do math, either, can ya?
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 1:21 pm |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1143039324.057796.225470@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budge...07/pdf/hist.pdf real revenue
> under Carter (fiscal years 1978-81) grew by 4.5% per year.
>
1977
................................................................................
355,559
1978
................................................................................
399,561
1979
................................................................................
463,302
1980
................................................................................
517,112
1981
................................................................................
599,272
Do you remember what happened in 78-79? A particular added tax?
Gee...you are smarter than 95% of economists. You should be in
Washington...or High School
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-22, 2:21 pm |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> news:1143038968.735092.323240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Hmmm...
> 1981
> ...............................................................................
> 599,272
> 1982
> ...............................................................................
> 617,766
> 1983
> ...............................................................................
> 600,562
> 1984
> ...............................................................................
> 666,486
> 1985
> ...............................................................................
> 734,088
> 1986
> ...............................................................................
> 769,215
> 1987
> ...............................................................................
> 854,353
> 1988
> ...............................................................................
> 909,303
> 1989
> ...............................................................................
> 991,190
>
> From $600B to $991B is 2.4%, huh.
> Can't do math, either, can ya?
Your figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation). The real
(adjusted for inflation) revenue (the column labeled "In Constant FY
2000 Dollars"):
1981: 1077.4
1989: 1298.9
Cumulative average annual growth rate = { (1298.9/1077.4) ^ (1/8) } -
1.0 = 2.4%
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| jrosenbluth@att.com 2006-03-22, 3:21 pm |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> news:1143039324.057796.225470@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> 1977
> ...............................................................................
> 355,559
> 1978
> ...............................................................................
> 399,561
>
> 1979
> ...............................................................................
> 463,302
>
> 1980
> ...............................................................................
> 517,112
>
> 1981
> ...............................................................................
> 599,272
Once again, you are mis-using nominal revenue. Real revenue:
{ (1077.4/903.8) ^ (1/4) } - 1.0 = 4.5%.
Josh Rosenbluth
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
|
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote[color=darkred]
> Get that from Paul Krugman?
From government federal stats. Same place as Krugman gets his numbers.
| |
|
|
| royls@telus.net 2006-03-22, 7:21 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
<mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote:
>"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ppadnRaq1d6n8r3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>Because taxex are not based on GDP.
?? Of course they are. The biggest component of GDP is wage income,
which of course is taxed. So are most other components of GDP, to one
degree or another. You are flat wrong, and appear to be
comprehensively ignorant of this subject.
What the data prove beyond any possible doubt is that government
revenue declined below its trend line following the Bush tax cuts, as
it did following the Reagan tax cuts, and has not recovered, despite
all Republican dittohead lying to the contrary.
>
>They didn't until the Internet boom...
That is a flat-out lie.
>take a look at 1998. The economy
>slumped from 1993 to 1995.
That is simply another flat-out lie.
>Amazing, the naiveté of public school people.
Amazing, the brazen dishonesty of the apologists for Republican
incompetence and duplicity.
Oh, and Matt? I don't know where you are posting from, and I couldn't
care less, but sinister is known as one of the more knowledgeable
people here on sci.econ.
You just been busted, man.
-- Roy L
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 7:21 pm |
|
"Matt Barrow" wrote
> Hmmm...
> 1981 .. 599,272
> 1982 .. 617,766
> 1983 .. 600,562
> 1984 .. 666,486
> 1985 .. 734,088
> 1986 .. 769,215
> 1987 .. 854,353
> 1988 .. 909,303
> 1989 .. 991,190
That's the wrong column you fucking incompetent moron. That data isn't in
constant dollars, it's not been adjusted for inflation.
The correct data (constant 2000 dollars) is...
1981 .. 1077.4
1982 .. 1036.9
1983 .. 961.7
1984 .. 1016.8
1985 .. 1082.6
1986 .. 1107.3
1987 .. 1196.1
1988 .. 1235.6
1989 .. 1298.9
But revenues increased in 1987 as a result of Reagans tax <INCREASES>.
Over the period of Reagans tax reductions, Government revenue rose by a
total of 30 billion over 5 years. A rate of one half of one percent. .5
percent.
Over the same period Reagan borrowed and spent 1 trillion dollars.
The only people I know of who consider going into debt by 1 trillion to earn
..03 trillion are Republicans, NeoCons and Libertarians.
"Matt Barrow" wrote
> From $600B to $991B is 2.4%, huh.
> Can't do math, either, can ya?
Unlike you, I can not only do the math, I know what the numbers mean.
You have now proven yourself to be an incompetent fool and spectacularly
ignorant.
Now go slit your own throat traitor.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 7:21 pm |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> Real revenue grew at only 2.4% per year over the 8 Reagan years. That
> rate is much slower than either before or after.
And that is primarily a result of Reagan's tax increases in the last three
years of his term in office where he spent his time drueling on himself and
wondering what his own name was. Others ran the show.
Reagan was almost as incompetent as Bush.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 7:21 pm |
|
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> Hey, go back and suck your teachers cock....
Yes, exactly as I said. You have shit for brains. How typically Republican
of you.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 7:21 pm |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> Real tax revenues grew by 7% and 5% in the first two years (fiscal 1994
> and 1995) respectively after the Clinton tax increase.
That is 14 and 10 times faster than revenue grew under Reagan over his
entire first 5 years in office.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 8:21 pm |
|
"Matt Barrow" <mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote[color=darkred]
> Because taxex are not based on GDP.
Yes they are, at least very closely so. Taxes are based on earnings,
corporate and private and those earnings sum to the GDP of the nation you
Stupid, Incompetent, XXXXXXX.
"Matt Barrow" <mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote[color=darkred]
> They didn't until the Internet boom...take a look at 1998. The economy
> slumped from 1993 to 1995.
GDP
1990 5735
1991 5935 % change 3.48
1992 6239 % change 5.12
1993 6575 % change 5.39
1994 6961 % change 5.88
1995 7325 % change 5.23
1996 7694 % change 5.04
1997 8182 % change 6.34
1998 8627 % change 5.44
1999 9125 % change 5.78
2000 9709 % change 6.4
"Matt Barrow" <mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote
> Amazing, the naiveté of public school people.
Making you an incompetent preschooler or just another incompetent whining,
Shit for brains, NeoCon Moron.
| |
| royls@telus.net 2006-03-22, 8:21 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:47 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
<matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote:
><jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
>news:1143038968.735092.323240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>Obviously you didn't live through that era, kiddo.
I did. You are lying about it.
>
>Hmmm...
>1981
>...............................................................................
>599,272
>1982
>...............................................................................
>617,766
>1983
>...............................................................................
>600,562
>1984
>...............................................................................
>666,486
>1985
>...............................................................................
>734,088
>1986
>...............................................................................
>769,215
>1987
>...............................................................................
>854,353
>1988
>...............................................................................
>909,303
>1989
>...............................................................................
>991,190
>
>From $600B to $991B is 2.4%, huh.
>Can't do math, either, can ya?
<sigh> Constant FY 2000 dollars.
Can't read English either, can ya?
-- Roy L
| |
| royls@telus.net 2006-03-22, 8:21 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:59:05 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
<matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote:
><jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
>news:1143039324.057796.225470@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>1977
>...............................................................................
>355,559
>1978
>...............................................................................
>399,561
>
>1979
>...............................................................................
>463,302
>
>1980
>...............................................................................
>517,112
>
>1981
>...............................................................................
>599,272
>
>Do you remember what happened in 78-79? A particular added tax?
>
>Gee...you are smarter than 95% of economists. You should be in
>Washington...or High School
95% of real economists are fully aware that the claims you have been
making here are utter garebage, the claims of a lying sack of
Republican $#!+. You have been proved wrong on every claim you have
made, with official figures. Every single one. You have offered no
data whatever that Josh has not instantly refuted.
Yet this fact does not prompt you to reconsider the validity of your
beliefs.
Remarkable.
-- Roy L
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 8:21 pm |
|
<jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
news:1143051524.971504.248080@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Once again, you are mis-using nominal revenue. Real revenue:
>
> { (1077.4/903.8) ^ (1/4) } - 1.0 = 4.5%.
Damn right, noinal numbers, in the pre-tax-indexing days.
>
Nominal revenue explined by Carters massive inflation rate and it's
influence on the numbers.
By the way, you have not responded to my question of your being around to
remember the Senate Bill that ostensibly cut spending in return for tax
increases. If you were (or at least had your head out of your XXX) you'd
remember the news from that issue in 1986 +/-.
You're a fake and a fraud and not worth my time trying give your a real
education, rather than your post-modernist indoctrination.
Go ahead and spin yourself into a posthole.
Kid, (at least you come off like one) you have only a grasp of high school
arithmetic, but no grasp of somany other factors that com einto play.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-22, 8:21 pm |
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4421d8c2.38303171@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:47 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote:
>
>
> I did. You are lying about it.
GFY, cunt.
>
>
> <sigh> Constant FY 2000 dollars.
>
> Can't read English either, can ya?
Adjusted dollars is NOT the measurement when you have one period with 14%
inflation , shitbag; it only is adequate for contrasting the CURRENT era.
Goddamn, what do they teach in publik skools?
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-22, 11:21 pm |
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote
> 95% of real economists are fully aware that the claims you have been
> making here are utter garebage, the claims of a lying sack of
> Republican $#!+. You have been proved wrong on every claim you have
> made, with official figures. Every single one. You have offered no
> data whatever that Josh has not instantly refuted.
>
> Yet this fact does not prompt you to reconsider the validity of your
> beliefs... Remarkable...
The first person a Republican must lie to is themselves.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-23, 12:21 am |
|
"Matt Barrow" <mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote
> Adjusted dollars is NOT the measurement when you have one period with 14%
> inflation , shitbag; it only is adequate for contrasting the CURRENT era.
>
> Goddamn, what do they teach in publik skools?
In public school, high school, college and university we are taught to
compare apples to apples. Hence we are smart enough to know that when you
are comparing dollars, you compare dollars of equal value.
That you reject the usage of inflation currected dollars, says much about
your lack of education, lack of intelligence, and lack of honesty.
How typically Libertarian of you.
| |
| Just Cocky 2006-03-23, 1:21 am |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:15 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
wrote:
>
>How typically Libertarian of you.
>
As opposed to an authoritarian like yourself?
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-23, 1:21 am |
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
"Just Cocky" <just@cocky.com> wrote[color=darkred]
> As opposed to an authoritarian like yourself?
You were caught lying - again. Do you really think your personal attack
will cover up your exposed lies?
Stupid... Stupid... Libertarian.
| |
| Jack May 2006-03-23, 1:21 am |
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:Lu2Uf.41295$fd.3497@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
[color=darkred]
>
> Ah, so the engineer holds that energy efficient homes require large
> amounts of raw materials and are high cost and not innovative.
I made no such statement. I was talking about the specific approach where
solar energy is used to produce energy. Solar energy is becoming much more
efficient and cost effective with large amounts of money being spent by
major companies so there is hope.
Trying to solve such a problem on a single home with little money invariably
will lead to an installation with old technology which takes more energy to
produce it than will be recovered in its life time.
The technologies that seem to be a better solution is where genetic
engineering to produce organisms that take CO2 from power plants, for
example, before the CO2 gets into the atmosphere. The genetically
engineered "bugs" grow rapidly on the CO2 which could also be used to
produce biodiesel as the power plant could be used to produce electrical
energy.
Apparently a lot of money is going into producing alcohol from plant waste
cellulose. Again genetic engineering is used to produce "bugs" that use
sunlight to produce the alcohol very efficiently for use in vehicles. At
this time five times more alcohol energy is produced than the oil used in
the process for example to collect and transport the cellulose.
These type solutions are what I consider real engineering, not some hobbyist
playing with old ideas.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-23, 2:21 am |
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> Trying to solve such a problem on a single home with little money
invariably
> will lead to an installation with old technology which takes more energy
to
> produce it than will be recovered in its life time.
With 1KW per square meter there is more than enough energy there for the
average home owner to exploit, either with canned, prefab solutions or
something tinkered on their own (not recommended).
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote
> These type solutions are what I consider real engineering, not some
hobbyist
> playing with old ideas.
You should really look into systems engineering. The lesson to be learned
is an old one, but the lesson is essentially, a problem avoided is a problem
solved.
| |
| Just Cocky 2006-03-23, 2:21 am |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:56:55 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
wrote:
>
>"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
>
>
>"Just Cocky" <just@cocky.com> wrote
>
> You were caught lying - again. Do you really think your personal attack
>will cover up your exposed lies?
>
> Stupid... Stupid... Libertarian.
>
I didn't lie. You are an authoritarian. You also appear to be
psychotic, which fits nicely with authoritarianism.
| |
|
| "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0LqdncOxyZRCF4LZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <dan@dan.com> wrote in message
> news:K8qdnUxjk5qD7YPZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> Your basic assumption is that the size of the economy is static and never
> grows. That assumption is not true.
Your basic assumption, apparently, is that making a vague, oblique criticism
of my statement, an incorrect one at that, is in any way related to a
substantive criticism of my statement. That assumption is not true.
>
> Your basic assumption is that technology never advances and what is
> happening now will never change. That assumption is not true.
Wrong. I made a statement about what is out there now. I was responding to
the statement that the solutions "work far better ...". "Work" is present
tense, and my response countered that statement about the present tense.
Clearly the solutions do not "work" better than conservation. They may at
some future point, though I doubt it. Having a low emissions vehicle to go
to the store is never going to be as good as riding your bike to the store.
>
>
> The market forces are very large to come up with alternative fuels that
> are cheaper than oil. People do want to buy fuel that will not harm the
> planet especially when it is cheaper than oil. That is a major market
> force.
And it is a good one. The market will move and is moving in the right
direction, but not nearly enough to achieve the kind of reductions we need
if we are going to take global warming seriously.
| |
|
| "bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142946372.250829.108010@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> dan@dan.com wrote:
>
> two words. hubbert peak.
One word: coal.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-23, 11:21 am |
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4421c737.33811076@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:17:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> <mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
> ?? Of course they are. The biggest component of GDP is wage income,
> which of course is taxed. So are most other components of GDP, to one
> degree or another. You are flat wrong, and appear to be
> comprehensively ignorant of this subject.
Show me in the law or tax code where GDP is taxed.
Your comprehension of tax law is ZERO. A tax accountant would be laughing
his XXX off at your stupidity.
PLONK
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-23, 11:21 am |
|
"Just Cocky" <just@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:i78422lnp1s9uu5hkta1ou4ai82qiq607l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:54:15 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
> wrote:
>
> As opposed to an authoritarian like yourself?
NOTE: Authoritarian = Tyrant
Sic Semper Tyrannus.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-23, 11:21 am |
|
"Just Cocky" <just@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:4jc4229e50lih75cek1r1qjvk75pbhnou1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:56:55 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
> wrote:
>
> I didn't lie. You are an authoritarian. You also appear to be
> psychotic, which fits nicely with authoritarianism.
Interestingly enough, the left denies that there is anything we normally
call "truth" (see: post-modernism), so, correspondingly, there can be no
_lies_.
IOW: post-modernism is virtually schizophrenia.
| |
| royls@telus.net 2006-03-23, 12:21 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:09:08 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
<mattbarrow@qwest.net> wrote:
><royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:4421d8c2.38303171@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
>
>Adjusted dollars is NOT the measurement when you have one period with 14%
>inflation , shitbag; it only is adequate for contrasting the CURRENT era.
OTC, double-digit inflation makes it much _more_ necessary to use
adjusted dollars to compare the years in question. You are again
proved flat wrong.
>Goddamn, what do they teach in publik skools?
Probably nothing very useful. But they can't be worse than wherever
you went to school.
-- Roy L
| |
| royls@telus.net 2006-03-23, 12:21 pm |
| On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:33:17 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
<matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote:
><royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:4421c737.33811076@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
>
>Show me in the law or tax code where GDP is taxed.
?? I just did, stupid.
>Your comprehension of tax law is ZERO. A tax accountant would be laughing
>his XXX off at your stupidity.
A tax accountant might not know any more about GDP than you obviously
do -- i.e., nothing.
>PLONK
ROTFLMAO! "Run away!!"
-- Roy L
| |
| Michael Scheltgen 2006-03-23, 4:21 pm |
| royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>
> ?? I just did, stupid.
>
>
>
>
> A tax accountant might not know any more about GDP than you obviously
> do -- i.e., nothing.
>
>
>
>
> ROTFLMAO! "Run away!!"
It is interesting how people react when their egotistical world
view is smashed to pieces.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-24, 6:21 am |
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
[color=darkred]
Another lie.
[color=darkred]
> You are an authoritarian. You also appear to be
> psychotic, which fits nicely with authoritarianism.
So claims the dishonest 12 year old.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-24, 6:21 am |
|
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> Interestingly enough, the left denies that there is anything we normally
> call "truth" (see: post-modernism), so, correspondingly, there can be no
> _lies_.
Certainly there is no Truth or Justice in the AmeriKKKan way, and not a
single word of truth has been spoken by the current AmeriKKKan
administration.
The Native AmeriKKKans who were killed by the millions my early
AmeriKKKans had the AmeriKKKans pegged from day one.
White man speak with forqued tongue.
| |
| Scott Nudds 2006-03-24, 6:21 am |
|
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> Show me in the law or tax code where GDP is taxed.
He just did, you pathetic LIbertarian moron.
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> Your comprehension of tax law is ZERO. A tax accountant would be laughing
> his XXX off at your stupidity.
Maybe an ignorant one. But certainly not an economist.
By demonstrating your ignorance, you prove yourself to be neither.
"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
> PLONK
Translation: "I surrender."
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-24, 9:21 am |
|
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message
news:YJCUf.176867$B94.33098@pd7tw3no...
> royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>
> It is interesting how people react when their egotistical world view is
> smashed to pieces.
It's more interesting when people know what they hell they're talking about.
Life's too short to deal with idiots...especially when you've had to deal
with them a dozen times and found their capacity to process data is lacking
or non-existent.
I've already raised three kinds; I'm not going to try to educate another
couple of them.
| |
| Just Cocky 2006-03-24, 2:21 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:39:36 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
wrote:
>
>"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
>
>
> Another lie.
>
You need to ask your master for more lithium.
>
>
> So claims the dishonest 12 year old.
>
Beg, instead of asking.
--
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it
would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland,
Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter
takes aim at a classmate.
| |
| Just Cocky 2006-03-24, 2:21 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:50:55 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
wrote:
>
>"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote
>
>He just did, you pathetic LIbertarian moron.
>
Given that you are a commie, it's no wonder to call everybody else
libertarian.
--
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it
would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland,
Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter
takes aim at a classmate.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-03-25, 12:21 am |
|
"Just Cocky" <just@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:bdb822tm4m8j0vacodctgo33v496d4pirg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:50:55 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void@void.com>
> wrote:
-> Scott Nutcase: You're psycho. And a statist thug. And a parasite.
[color=darkred]
>
> Given that you are a commie, it's no wonder to call everybody else
> libertarian.
He's more than a commie, he's a shrill shill.
I can just picture him ripping the arms off his chair.
You mentioned lithium; there's not enough out there for the moonbat.
Sic semper tyrannus.
| |
| Jack May 2006-03-25, 1:21 am |
|
<dan@dan.com> wrote in message
news adnRLvEaOTp7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0LqdncOxyZRCF4LZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Your basic assumption, apparently, is that making a vague, oblique
> criticism of my statement, an incorrect one at that, is in any way related
> to a substantive criticism of my statement. That assumption is not true.
>
>
> Wrong. I made a statement about what is out there now. I was responding to
> the statement that the solutions "work far better ...". "Work" is present
> tense, and my response countered that statement about the present tense.
> Clearly the solutions do not "work" better than conservation. They may at
> some future point, though I doubt it. Having a low emissions vehicle to go
> to the store is never going to be as good as riding your bike to the
> store.
We are talking about the future which is what we can change. The past can
not be changed.
You really think people are going to go to Costco, Home Depot, big box
stores on a bike? That is totally n | | |