Now This is Machiavellian

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050924/ap_on_re_us/arctic_refuge

feel free to comment at will....

[King PSYZ]

He just looks like a callous greedy fuck and I hope he chokes on his fucking steak and lobster.

I worked and lived in a National Park, and these places need to be protected from people like him. In fact that's the WHOLE FUCKING REASON THEY WERE MADE NATION PARKS!

Lincoln feared lunatics like this one when he drafted the national park bill, looks like his fears are being realised...

[sam i am]

He just looks like a callous greedy fuck and I hope he chokes on his fucking steak and lobster.

I worked and lived in a National Park, and these places need to be protected from people like him. In fact that's the WHOLE FUCKING REASON THEY WERE MADE NATION PARKS!

Lincoln feared lunatics like this one when he drafted the national park bill, looks like his fears are being realised...

True story. BUT, he makes a point, completely by accident I'm sure, as to where do the cuts come from? How about those on the Left in this forum...where do we cut national services to cover the costs of Rita and Katrina? Where do we find more oil to lower our dependence on foreign sources?

[King PSYZ]

It's not about finding more oil, that's the whole thing. It's about taking the hard line and forcing the auto biz and energy biz to move forward on the big projects.

fuel cells could have been ready to roll by 2010, but since the energy bills have laxed, no need to rush. I know Toyota is pushing for the technology to meet the demand, because they see the future for what it is. If they don't change the high oil prices will effectively shut down the auto industry.

Push the big three into Hybrid Production, the tech is soild now and they should require no less than 25% of a production lineup to be hybrid.


But aside from that, the best thing we can do to help raise money for Katrina and what if any Rita victims will be by cutting where we can afford to, ie; all the pork barrel spending going on in Alaska. Let's work hard on decreasing forces in Iraq, it's high time to make home a priority. And do what they did in CA after big earthquakes, small raises to sales tax brought a signifigant income.

I bet if we could get every state to say ok we all raise our sales tax by .10% and set that money aside for rebuilding the gulf coast region. Think about the amount of money spent on a daily basis and how much such a small increase could generate. But standard budgetting won't be effective, because you still have the same irresponsible people holding the checkbook.

[sam i am]

It's not about finding more oil, that's the whole thing. It's about taking the hard line and forcing the auto biz and energy biz to move forward on the big projects.

fuel cells could have been ready to roll by 2010, but since the energy bills have laxed, no need to rush. I know Toyota is pushing for the technology to meet the demand, because they see the future for what it is. If they don't change the high oil prices will effectively shut down the auto industry.

Push the big three into Hybrid Production, the tech is soild now and they should require no less than 25% of a production lineup to be hybrid.


But aside from that, the best thing we can do to help raise money for Katrina and what if any Rita victims will be by cutting where we can afford to, ie; all the pork barrel spending going on in Alaska. Let's work hard on decreasing forces in Iraq, it's high time to make home a priority. And do what they did in CA after big earthquakes, small raises to sales tax brought a signifigant income.

I bet if we could get every state to say ok we all raise our sales tax by .10% and set that money aside for rebuilding the gulf coast region. Think about the amount of money spent on a daily basis and how much such a small increase could generate. But standard budgetting won't be effective, because you still have the same irresponsible people holding the checkbook.

I kinda like your sales tax idea. What income would it produce and how would it be administered to avoid the huge costs generally associated with the bureaucracy necessary to manage that income?

[King PSYZ]

I kinda like your sales tax idea. What income would it produce and how would it be administered to avoid the huge costs generally associated with the bureaucracy necessary to manage that income?
I couldn't give you an exact figure, but think about how much is spent every single day in taxable sales in teh US. Now take .10% of that and that's the daily income for the relief efforts.

I would even say keep this in effect 'til we've cancelled out the outrageous debt created by Bush. But with stipulations, the debt continues to be funded by this increase as long as;
a) it's not used as part of any budgeting
b) Bush must present a valid and balanced budget proposal
c) the money is distributed by an independent firm
d) all rebuilding efforts are to be done by government agencies, not congolmerates, and using local out of work residents and paying at the community standard for wages. All income earned by the work force will be income tax free as opposed to "handouts" as valvano would put it.

It solves several large issues all at once really, those looking for a way to donate yet not knowing which charity to choose. Paying for the rebuilding efforts without any further strain on the already out of control deficit. But more importantly this could really help bring together a nation quite divided right now.

[Ali]

where do we cut national services to cover the costs of Rita and Katrina? Where do we find more oil to lower our dependence on foreign sources?Is this a trick question?

How about STOP USING SO MUCH ENERGY. Drive smaller cars and don't air-condition every single building to zero kelvin in the summer and the reverse in the winter.

Divert some of the funds being spent on searching for oil/paying for coups in oil-rich nations/weapons development/proving that Global Warming doesn't exist, etc. to building more and better wind turbines, solar panels, biodiesel, hydrogen production... I could go on.

Also, pumping millions of dollars a day into Iraq and subsidising four Chapter 11 airlines (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4274006.stm) can't be helping.

Please note: I am not criticising the Bush Administration in any way. I am trying to help.

[sam i am]

Is this a trick question?

How about STOP USING SO MUCH ENERGY. Drive smaller cars and don't air-condition every single building to zero kelvin in the summer and the reverse in the winter.

Divert some of the funds being spent on searching for oil/paying for coups in oil-rich nations/weapons development/proving that Global Warming doesn't exist, etc. to building more and better wind turbines, solar panels, biodiesel, hydrogen production... I could go on.

Also, pumping millions of dollars a day into Iraq and subsidising four Chapter 11 airlines (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4274006.stm) can't be helping.

Please note: I am not criticising the Bush Administration in any way. I am trying to help.

No. It really wasn't a trick question. I was attempting to elicit some real responses and you gave some. The bigger question is how is the political willpower going to be found to accomplish what you propose, ali? I know you don't live in the US, so one of the biggest issues that people throughout Europe, and the world, really, don't get is Americans' love afair with their cars. Americans MIGHT be the most independent and pig-headed people when it comes to personal freedom in this regard.

Most Americans, I'd wager, are much more willing to give up their rights to free speech, religion, etc., before they'd give up their vehicles. Mass transit, except in highly-concentrated urban areas like New York, invariably fails to be profitable and has to be subsidized (read : higher local and municipal taxes) in order to continue to operate.

So, the bottom line comes down to mass reeducation. In Europe, from what I gather, there is much more national will to employ mass transit, but at the expense of the convenience that Americans have grown up enjoying. A painful paradigm shift has not even begun to truly gather monemntum, again except in places like New York or Los Angeles. Trying to convey that message of giving up personal freedom in the form of individual or family vehicles is going to be an EXCEPTIONALLY hard seel in the wide open spaces of the West, South, and even Midwest. Ingrained American views on personal freedom are probably nmot going to be overcome, allowing for more Socialistic tinkering, in this generation or the next, without massive reeducation.

[Ali]

Trying to convey that message of giving up personal freedom in the form of individual or family vehicles is going to be an EXCEPTIONALLY hard seel in the wide open spaces of the West, South, and even Midwest. They don't have to "give up" anything more than a few litres of engine capacity. French people also love their cars, as do Poms and Germans and all the rest. The difference is that the price of fuel is so high that nobody buys a car with more than 2 litre engine capacity and most of the cars are 1.0 to 1.5 Diesel, even the larger 6 seater MPV's don't often have anything larger than a 2.0. Streets are narrow, parking is limited and at a premium, so the cars have to be much smaller if you want find parking. Only the larger cities have subway or tram systems, in smaller towns and villages people either take the bus or train or use their own cars. Mass transit, except in highly-concentrated urban areas like New York, invariably fails to be profitable and has to be subsidized (read : higher local and municipal taxes) in order to continue to operate.No shit!?!

Of C:rolleyes:URSE public transport has to be subsidised. It will never operate profitably and always needs public funds to keep it affordable to the people who use it. This is why Europeans pay so much tax! The poms are discovering this. The UK govt sold off the railways to fill their coffers and keep taxes low and now the trains in the UK are in the most shocking state. The response of the public was to use their cars more and the govt response was to impose an even higher tax on fuel and charge motorists for driving into city centres. The train and bus companies charge more and more for people to use public transport, so they use their cars more, leading to congestion, pollution, fuel shortages... and taxes stay the same!!!

I don't know why you are so worried about subsidising unprofitable companies in the US... you're doing it with your Airlines already :p

[sam i am]

Of C:rolleyes:URSE public transport has to be subsidised. It will never operate profitably and always needs public funds to keep it affordable to the people who use it. This is why Europeans pay so much tax!

Exactly my point. Americans might hate taxes even more than the thought of giving up their vehicles (or going to diesel/hybrid).

I don't know why you are so worried about subsidising unprofitable companies in the US... you're doing it with your Airlines already :p

I'm not worried about subsidizing unprofitable companies. I'm worried about subsidizing the government. I heartily dislike that we run so much welath and money through governmental bureaucracies, with all of the subsequent waste and unnecessary regulation. Plus, you've gotta pay health insurance and pensions and 403(b)'s, etc. for EACH and EVERY SINGLE bureaucrat who is "regulating" the fucking industry! It pisses my shit off!

Sorry. Hot button issue for me. :o

[Ali]

I'm not worried about subsidizing unprofitable companies. I'm worried about subsidizing the government. I heartily dislike that we run so much welath and money through governmental bureaucracies, with all of the subsequent waste and unnecessary regulation. Plus, you've gotta pay health insurance and pensions and 403(b)'s, etc. for EACH and EVERY SINGLE bureaucrat who is "regulating" the fucking industry! It pisses my shit off!Necessary evil?

[Ace42X]

Plus, you've gotta pay health insurance and pensions and 403(b)'s, etc. for EACH and EVERY SINGLE bureaucrat who is "regulating" the fucking industry! It pisses my shit off!

Sorry. Hot button issue for me. :o

Actually, numerous re-privatised industries here have become significantly less efficient than they were while nationalised. An obvious example is British Rail, which was much safer and cheaper than its current sucessors are.

It's ideological propoganda to imply that laissez-faire governance means greater efficiency.

[Ali]

Actually, numerous re-privatised industries here have become significantly less efficient than they were while nationalised. An obvious example is British Rail, which was much safer and cheaper than its current sucessors are.That's because profit is now the priority. Shoddy maintenance = less money spent = more profit for shareholders (especially major shareholders, like executives... who decide what money should be spent where, when :rolleyes: ). Result: Hatfield and other disasters, people dead, speed restrictions, delays and a sudden rush to repair the rest of the track. All at a vastly increased price. It's cheaper to fly to Scotland from London than take the train!!! Much!!!

Ahhh, Capitalism. Don't you just love it? Smell the freedom!!! How nice to pay the same taxes and then pay more to use a shitty, dangerous train which is always, always delayed.

Same thing happened with Yorkshire Water, remember? I'm not sure about the NHS, but I think that a lot of the services, like food, etc. are now handled by contractors. Don't be suprised when Gordon Brown (texture like sun) sells London Underground, the NHS, the Armed Services and his grandmother's false teeth to keep up the appearance of a bouyant economy!!!

How can the government sell something which was paid for by the taxpayers? Surely it's not theirs to sell in the first place?

Fucking Gordon Brown and Snotnose Blair crowing about the economy when the coffers were filled with ill-gotten gains from selling stuff that wasn't theirs!!! The chickens are coming home to roost and Blair is going to bail out and leave Gordon holding the baby. Evil little cnut. :mad:

If that sort of shit happened over here, there'd be hell to pay. EVERYTHING is subsidised. Everything works well and you don't have to pay a fortune for it. Sarko tried to privatise EDF and it may have cost him the presidency. People here know what happens when you sell a public utility, les Rosbif are just finding out.

[sam i am]

That's because profit is now the priority. Shoddy maintenance = less money spent = more profit for shareholders (especially major shareholders, like executives... who decide what money should be spent where, when :rolleyes: ). Result: Hatfield and other disasters, people dead, speed restrictions, delays and a sudden rush to repair the rest of the track. All at a vastly increased price. It's cheaper to fly to Scotland from London than take the train!!! Much!!!

Ahhh, Capitalism. Don't you just love it? Smell the freedom!!! How nice to pay the same taxes and then pay more to use a shitty, dangerous train which is always, always delayed.

Same thing happened with Yorkshire Water, remember? I'm not sure about the NHS, but I think that a lot of the services, like food, etc. are now handled by contractors. Don't be suprised when Gordon Brown (texture like sun) sells London Underground, the NHS, the Armed Services and his grandmother's false teeth to keep up the appearance of a bouyant economy!!!

How can the government sell something which was paid for by the taxpayers? Surely it's not theirs to sell in the first place?

Fucking Gordon Brown and Snotnose Blair crowing about the economy when the coffers were filled with ill-gotten gains from selling stuff that wasn't theirs!!! The chickens are coming home to roost and Blair is going to bail out and leave Gordon holding the baby. Evil little cnut. :mad:

If that sort of shit happened over here, there'd be hell to pay. EVERYTHING is subsidised. Everything works well and you don't have to pay a fortune for it. Sarko tried to privatise EDF and it may have cost him the presidency. People here know what happens when you sell a public utility, les Rosbif are just finding out.

Who gives a crap about efficiency anyways? Sure, the trains all ran on time when Mussolini was in charge in Italy, but look at the price that was paid in personal freedom. As much as corporations might TRY to run your life (I know, I know, I'll get a bunch of crap about how I've been brainwashed since birth by the eeeee-vil corporations and capitalism :rolleyes: ), at least they don't have the commensurate LEGAL power to enforce it like the state-run apparati.

[Ali]

Who gives a crap about efficiency anyways? Sure, the trains all ran on time when Mussolini was in charge in Italy, but look at the price that was paid in personal freedom. I'm speechless.

Please tell me you're being facetious (nothing to do with faeces).

Please tell me you don't really believe in the things you say here, that you just want to wind the liberals up (like Qtip).

Please.

[sam i am]

I'm speechless.

Please tell me you're being facetious (nothing to do with faeces).

Please tell me you don't really believe in the things you say here, that you just want to wind the liberals up (like Qtip).

Please.

Ok, ali. You called me out. On occasion, it's fun to point out absurdity with absurdity.

Just like most things, though, there is at least of kernel of truth at the root of my statement. We DO give up some measure of personal freedom every time we allow someone else to make decisions for us (in this case, allowing the government to be in control of public transit gives them the ability, if not the right, to track our movements). Now, one argument is that if you're not doing anything wrong, who cares if you're being tracked? Or, alternatively, if you're doing wrong, by having tracking measures in place, it's much easier to find you (ala the London bombers).

In the US, unlike Western Europe, though, we do have a different measure of personal freedom. You might argue we're not as "advanced" in our social thinking because we'd rather not give up freedom for security in MOST instances, but it's the American way. There's a long, proud tradition of laissez faire capitalism that is firmly ingrained in most Americans. Like our previous discussion regarding vehicles, it's quite unlikely, in our lifetimes, that most US citizens will be willing to give up rights for greater security to the extent that it happens in France, Britain, etc. Part of living under a more conservative, republican way of life than a more liberal, socialistic (not socialist, I hope you're noting the distinction I am making here) is that you allow for a bit more uncertainty with efficiencies brought on by government entitites commandeering industries or services. We'd USUALLY rather let private companies do the work than give the beast the opportunity to put it's foot in the door, so to speak.

We can certainly argue, again, which system is truly better or more efficacious, but I believe we've already beaten that dead horse, so why don't we just agree to disagree and let sleeping dogs lie? Agreed?

[Ali]

In the US, unlike Western Europe, though, we do have a different measure of personal freedom. You might argue we're not as "advanced" in our social thinking because we'd rather not give up freedom for security in MOST instances, but it's the American way. There's a long, proud tradition of laissez faire capitalism that is firmly ingrained in most Americans. Like our previous discussion regarding vehicles, it's quite unlikely, in our lifetimes, that most US citizens will be willing to give up rights for greater security to the extent that it happens in France, Britain, etc.Like the Patriot Act?