|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Mark Hickey wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: Mark Hickey wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: http://www.suntimes.com/special_sect...hijackers.html Wow. Almost all from Saudi Arabia. None from Iraq! What's up with that? [re-inserting what I said, and was trimmed:] Aren't we still buying lots of oil from Saudi Arabia? Isn't Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia frequently listed as one of the world's worst dictators? Did we attack the wrong country?? And that changes my (deleted) point exactly how? Well, I thought you were saying we were right in spending 100 billion dollars to take over Iraq, because Iraq might have been [partly? possibly?] behind the 9/11 attacks, and in any case, Saddam was an evil dictator. It's not clear why that doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------ Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble! -- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ---- |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
(JP) wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote... But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure. What act are you talking about? The rules you referenced were released as required under the existing Clean Air Act. Nothing new there, except for the rules that the Sierra Club forced the Bush administration to revise. Sure if you consider the portion of the Clean Air Act that the Clinton administration slipped in AFTER Bush was elected, but before he actually took office. Clinton did nothing to actually improve air quality. Bush reworked the act to make it both evironmentally AND economically viable, and turned it into law. Like it or not, it's the biggest improvement in over a decade (spin it as you will). Bush *must* just be a more environmentally friendly president than Clinton. In terms of the Clean Air Act, certainly. Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea. The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you. What's your point? For God's sake, that maybe the US Senate is not the last word on whether Kyoto "is a really, really bad idea". The whole premise of the Kyoto accord is to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As written, a HUGE portion of the cost for doing this falls to the US - a crippling amount, actually. And it would be different if reducing carbon dioxide actually did anything positive to reduce "global warming". Fact is, the hype surrounding the issue is SO blown out of proportion it would be funny if it wasn't for the possibility that someone will actually try to make it happen at the cost of many, many billions of (wasted) dollars. We went over (and over and over) this subject recently. In the end, carbon dioxide in the atmoshere - if the worst-case scenario is played out - will result in warming totalling a whopping 0.2 degrees C in the next century. The computer models used to justify Kyoto predict HUGE increases in temperature over the last 25 years - increases that simply didn't happen. Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over that well-plowed land again. Oh, brother. The only thing more costly than taking steps to slow global warming is not taking steps to slow global warming. You might wanna check with the folks at NASA to see what the real "warming trends" look like... http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d13aug98_1.htm The economy is not roaring. I'd disagree - and from the looks of the leading indicators, it's going to do nothing but continue to improve. See Paul Krugman ins today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html Can't - it requires a subscription. Besides, the NYT isn't the most reliable, unbiased source of news on the planet (akin to me posting a link to something on Rush's blog). ;-) I posted figures - investment increased dramatically following the tax cuts. What figures? From where? This isn't the link I used, but it has reams of information on the increasae in investment... http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...al/optimal.htm You gotta start updating that "jobs lost" number downward. ;-) I already did. It takes into account the 900k gained since last August. Again, see Krugman. Lessee... 2 million minus 900 thousand equals 2 million. Is Krugman the guy in charge of their subscription statistics? ;-) Funny thing - the alternative Democrat budget didn't have any more funding for NCLB. But it's still the most expensive education act in history (and not "severely underfunded" IMHO - just not funded to the limits set up, as is the case with most bills). The NCLB, like most other things in this country - has become a politicized issue meaning that you're going to get mass hysteria from both sides. In the end, it's the only thing I've seen that's likely to actually improve the horrendously bad performance of our public schools. It's a farce. It is severely underfunded because it does not do the fundamental thing that is needed to improve our public schools: provide money for teaching, as opposed to providing some (but not enough, even) money for testing students. You want the students to pass the tests, you gotta pay for the facilities and teachers they need to learn. (Or you could just cheat, like they do in Texas.) Or, you could just throw more money at the failing public schools and expect them to get better. They won't - it's clear there's little correlation between money spent and results. Washington DC has the highest spending per student and the worst results. Until the schools are held accountable to some measurable standard, it's NOT going to get better. I wish there was another alternative (one that would work, that is). Throwing money at the problem certainly won't fix it. I think we covered that pretty well. It was a broad based tax cut - top to bottom... what portion of the US taxpayers did it miss (other than - obviously - the large number who already didn't pay US federal income tax). The large number who don't pay federal income tax nevertheless pay Medicare and Social Security payroll tax. Their tax revenues are being used to cover part of the deficit created by the Bush taxcuts. In other words, those payroll taxes are being used as general tax revenue by the government. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a taxcut as well? Because the two programs are funded in expectation of receiving an eventual return. What happens to the premiums is an entirely different issue - you won't get a refund on your car insurance if part of the premiums are spent on something other than paying out accident claims, for example. Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character assisnation to defend its policies. Right... exposing the fallacies presented in O'Neill's and Clarke's books is "character assassination". Both of these guys were demoted of fired under the Bush presidency. Both made a lot of money writing a Bush-bashing book. O'Neill did not write a book, he gave extensive interview; and he was already incredibly wealthy. It strains credulity to suggest that he criticized the policy-making process in the Bush White House for the money. Money, power, fame - whatever. Clarke, well, yes you're right. In reality, Bush, after being informed by his national security advisors that an attack on the US by terrorists was imminent, cancelled the remainder of his month-long vacation at Crawford and rushed back to Washington, where he brow beat the members of his cabinet into piecing together the intelligence they had that would anticipate the the 9/11 hijackings. Thanks to Bush's strong leadership, the terrible tragedy that would have taken place on 9/11 was avoided. Clarke is just a liar, out for a quick buck. Clarke is obviously a liar, based on nothing more than his own statements. Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead, Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably weren't. How else are they going to get $750 ahead via the tax cut? Give them a refund on their Social Security Tax. Do we cut their benefit as well then? Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a trillion. What's your point? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only around 4% of the total US federal income taxes. How much less can they pay? They pay a lot more than 4% federal income taxes. Just because you refuse to admit that Social Security and Medicare taxes are income taxes does not mean that they are not. Social Security and Medicare taxes ARE federal income taxes. They are programs that return value directly to the investors - just like any other insurance policies / annuities. Are you suggesting that we should rework the system so that some pay in a lot more than others for the same benefits? But I'm not even saying that they should pay less; I'm saying that the top 2% should pay more. Those people making a quarter of a million a year under the old tax rates were actually living pretty comfortably. I think they'll survive. Probably won't even have to cut back on their maid service. What entitles you to demand that they subsidize your tax bill? Just curious. I personally think that ~28% is more than enough for anyone to pay. The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for many, many years. And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused fundamental, negative changes in US society. I'm not so convinced that's it's quite the crisis it's "grown into" during the current political silly season. It has been a crisis for at least three decades. It gets attention every election. Remember Perot? Good point. I don't think we can agree more on this issue. Oh my! The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"? I'm a bit more global in my outlook than most I suppose (having lived overseas in several countries). Ultimately creating opportunity in other countries isn't a bad thing. I have lived overseas in a couple of countries, and have a pretty global outlook myself. But let's be clear: the opportunity that is being created is at the expense of American workers. If I extrapolate this trend to its limit, I see an averaging of income and standards of living between US workers and the Third World. I would prefer to see opportunity created in Third World countries as a function of their improving standards of living, rather than as a function of the deterioration of ours. I don't see a direct connection - the jobs we're sending overseas tend to be those Americans don't really want to do. Yes, there are exceptions - some of which are getting a LOT of visibility (especially in the computer industry). But no matter what we do, the global economy will continue to change and adapt - the move will be away from the manufacturing sector to the service sector. We could impose artificial limits on sending production overseas, but that would only mean that our ability to remain competitive would dwindle. I guess I'm a believer that the economy will always adjust to the situation at hand. (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a total disaster for the American worker in 2004). There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near future. Those were the days. Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar. Those were the days all right - but they were being artificially bolstered by the dot-com bubble. There was not a significant bubble in 96. The market was priced beyond all reason, and it had to come to an end because there was simply nothing to back up the capitalization. The bubble popped and we were in a full-blown recession by the third month of the GWB presidency (which is really just a continuation of the trend from the previous year). The bottom line is - 5.7% unemployment is NOT a historically high figure. If you buy into the media frenzy - that's your choice. This is not a media frenzy. It is people knowing what their wage growth is, and what their job mobility is, and how hard it would be to find another equivalent paying job if they lost the one they have. You can sit there and try to tell us different until hell freezes over, but it ain't gonna change what we know. Permit me to suggest that it's just "what you've been told". There are certainly localized issues, but overall I don't see anything worthy of the word "crisis" going on. It's just that a dispassionate examination of the reality shows that it's lower than the average of the past several decades (and it's decreasing from that level). Oh, I guess if you insist hard enough that everything is all right, then it must be. I mean, you apply for a job in a place as miserable as Iraq is right now, and, even though you are very well qualified, you can't get hired. Yep, the job market's pretty tight, alright. I would hardly try to extrapolate a single anecdotal data point into a nationwide trend, personally. Besides, they are using me for something else I'm very good at (making me more valuable to them than I would be in Iraq). So if I were to extrapolate the trend, it would have to show 100% employment at higher-than-ever salaries. ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Tue, 25 May 2004 14:03:53 -0700,
, Mark Hickey wrote: \whack Lines: 312 "A really long post my reader didn't download (I have a limit of 300 lines - any post longer than that is wasting bandwidth)." 'kay -- zk |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Frank Krygowski wrote: David Kerber wrote: In article , says... ... For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages. At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.) People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger that sort of catastrophe. Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been discredited in it's then-popular form... And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even more irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark. David are you saying that an earlier eruption of Krakatoa caused the "Little Ice Age"? Can you post a reference? I thought it was just a ripple in a larger wave - the slow ending of the last real ice age. Bernie |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: And that changes my (deleted) point exactly how? Well, I thought you were saying we were right in spending 100 billion dollars to take over Iraq, because Iraq might have been [partly? possibly?] behind the 9/11 attacks, and in any case, Saddam was an evil dictator. It's not clear why that doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia. That wasn't my point at all. Sorry. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Zoot Katz wrote:
Tue, 25 May 2004 14:03:53 -0700, , Mark Hickey wrote: \whack Lines: 312 "A really long post my reader didn't download (I have a limit of 300 lines - any post longer than that is wasting bandwidth)." Yep, I just noticed that myownself. Apparently there's no limitation to the outbound size. Either way, it's a sure sign that the thread should be finished. Hitler. That oughta do it. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Frank Krygowski wrote:
David Kerber wrote: In article , says... For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages. At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.) People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger that sort of catastrophe. Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been discredited in it's then-popular form... And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even more irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark. I wasn't talking about "nuclear winter" but about the absolutely positively terrifying scientific reality of (drum roll...) "global cooling" that was just as popular in the 70's as the "global warming" theory is today. Give it another 30 years, and I predict we'll all be worried about hoarding polypro underwear again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#470
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
buying my first road bike | Tanya Quinn | General | 28 | June 17th 10 10:42 AM |
True Cost of a Supermarket Bike | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 41 | January 25th 04 04:18 AM |
Secure Bike Parking.? | M. Barbee | General | 14 | January 6th 04 02:00 AM |
my new bike | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | October 19th 03 03:00 PM |
Best Way to Travel with a Bike on an Airplane | F1 | General | 5 | August 14th 03 10:39 PM |