War on Terror [Archive] - AviationBanter

Paul Tomblin

May 22nd 05, 01:48 PM

In a previous article, George Patterson > said:
>Mike W. wrote:
>> Anyone remember the 'War on Drugs'? They sure kicked the **** out of that
>> problem, didn't they?
>
>Yeah, and they spent next to nothing doing it too.

They couldn't have done it so cheaply if they hadn't won the War on
Poverty first.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Harry very carefully read the manual - four times - because Snape would
cut off his breathing privs if he asked him a question that the manual
could answer..." -- Harry Potter and the Book Of The BOFH

AES

May 22nd 05, 03:45 PM

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, George Patterson > said:
> >Mike W. wrote:
> >> Anyone remember the 'War on Drugs'? They sure kicked the **** out of that
> >> problem, didn't they?
> >
> >Yeah, and they spent next to nothing doing it too.
>
> They couldn't have done it so cheaply if they hadn't won the War on
> Poverty first.

Have to decide which wars are really worth fighting.

Montblack

May 23rd 05, 06:35 AM

("AES" wrote)
> Have to decide which wars are really worth fighting.

Energy .................1977

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
(This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" --)

Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem
unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is
the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The
energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act
quickly.
It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to
get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our
children and grandchildren.
We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking
resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the
future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its
members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of
valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause
you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may
be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our
power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and
the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult
effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be
uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The
1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy
problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead
of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has
passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every
day until we act.

[snip]

Montblack

Jose

May 23rd 05, 02:28 PM

Maybe we should have a war on reason. It would ensure the survival of
brains.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger

May 24th 05, 06:01 AM

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:35:09 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("AES" wrote)
>> Have to decide which wars are really worth fighting.
>
>
>Energy .................1977
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
>(This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" --)
>
>Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy
>Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
>
The sad part is we had a really good start on conserving energy.
People were moving to smaller cars, better mileage, learning to
conserve, car pool... and a whole list of things.

We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. The result was
gas became cheap(relatively speaking) and plentiful. People went back
to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
building them and why not. We wanted them and they make more money on
them. Car pooling was too inconvenient, as were most of the other
methods of conserving and ... here we are and for that we can't blame
the government. Now if, instead of conserving they build subsidized
refineries to increase the output... Then we can blame the
government..

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Larry Dighera

May 24th 05, 11:17 AM

On Tue, 24 May 2005 01:01:36 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::

>People went back
>to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
>building them and why not.

Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as
light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates.

Bob Noel

May 24th 05, 12:17 PM

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.

we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not really
cheap).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Neil Gould

May 24th 05, 12:27 PM

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Tue, 24 May 2005 01:01:36 -0400, Roger
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>> People went back
>> to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
>> building them and why not.
>
> Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as
> light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates.
>
Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra
taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks.
So, now our infrastructure is in serious decline and our resources are
being drained. For this kind of wanking of the common good, I can only
blame the sleazebags that we've put in office over the last 40 years. That
is to say, we can only blame ourselves.

Neil

George Patterson

May 24th 05, 02:42 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra
> taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks.

Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the license fees
to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car or truck, the more
you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on weight. When I lived in
Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight and half on value. When I
lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get
commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there,
though.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Matt Barrow

May 24th 05, 03:14 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> >Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy
> >Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
> >
> The sad part is we had a really good start on conserving energy.
> People were moving to smaller cars, better mileage, learning to
> conserve, car pool... and a whole list of things.
>
> We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. The result was
> gas became cheap(relatively speaking) and plentiful.

Ah, Roger...conservation maybe contributed 2% to the price reductions in
fuel prices. Increased production contributed the other 98%.

In 1977, average fuel economy was, what?, 18-20 MPG? Today, even with SUV's
,etc, it's much higher.
http://www.geohive.com (Pew Research data)

> People went back
> to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
> building them and why not. We wanted them and they make more money on
> them. Car pooling was too inconvenient, as were most of the other
> methods of conserving and ... here we are and for that we can't blame
> the government. Now if, instead of conserving they build subsidized
> refineries to increase the output...

What refineries are those? None have been built in the US in something like
20 years.

> Then we can blame the
> government..

Roger, you're babbling.

Matt Barrow

May 24th 05, 03:15 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Roger > wrote:
>
> > We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.
>
> we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
> This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
> supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
really
> cheap).
>
What would you define "really cheap" as being?

Matt Barrow

May 24th 05, 03:28 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> So, now our infrastructure is in serious decline and our resources are
> being drained. For this kind of wanking of the common good, I can only
> blame the sleazebags that we've put in office over the last 40 years. That
> is to say, we can only blame ourselves.

"It must be remembered that, in a democracy, the whores are us" -- PJ
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_

>
IIRC, in the 1950's it cost $300K per mile to build the interstate highways.

This past year, in a town near here, a quarter mile lane resurfacing project
cost, $2.1 million and took ten months to complete.

The vast majority of taxes that are supposed to go into road construction
and maintenance actually wind up in the general fund. Actual highways
projects are paid for by bond issues or special sales taxes.

Neil Gould

May 24th 05, 03:50 PM

Recently, George Patterson > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the
>> extra taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact
>> of trucks.
>
> Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the
> license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the
> car or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based
> completely on weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee
> was based on weight and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all
> trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags,
> regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there,
> though.
>
Good points. I wonder how effective this scaling has been? For example, is
there a different rate for vehicles licensed as "trucks" than for those
rated as "cars" in such states as NJ (which has some of the worst
infrastructure, btw)?

Neil

Bob Noel

May 24th 05, 04:02 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > > We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.
> >
> > we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
> > This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
> > supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
> really
> > cheap).
> >
> What would you define "really cheap" as being?

Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Matt Barrow

May 24th 05, 04:13 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > > > We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.
> > >
> > > we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in
consumption.
> > > This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased
the
> > > supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
> > really
> > > cheap).
> > >
> > What would you define "really cheap" as being?
>
> Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right?

"Cheap" to me means "poor quality"; we could have cheap gas by watering it
down. :~)

$.35 a gallon is what gas was going for in 1971; in todays $$$'s that
something like $3.25.

There's just no pleasing some people!! :~(

Want to calculate how much the price reductions were attrbutable to
conservations reducing demand versus deregulations vastly increasing supply?

(Americans want varying forms of socialism (particularly regarding their
"jobs"), but want to consume an abundance of inexpensive goods like free
market capitalists.)

W P Dixon

May 24th 05, 04:30 PM

Yep in Georgia my huge 83 Bronco was registered as "truck" , here in TN. my
big truck is registered as "truck", just costs alot less here due to
Georgia's ad valorem taxes. I don't know if the wannabe SUV's are
registered as trucks or cars however. I got specialty plates this year so I
think they costed all of 50 bucks or so.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:mbGke.3$2b.1@trndny05...
> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the
>> extra
>> taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks.
>
> Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the
> license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car
> or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on
> weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight
> and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including
> pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't
> know how they classify SUVs there, though.
>
> George Patterson
> "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't
> got
> no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

George Patterson

May 24th 05, 04:37 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> For example, is
> there a different rate for vehicles licensed as "trucks" than for those
> rated as "cars" in such states as NJ (which has some of the worst
> infrastructure, btw)?

There is a different rate for commercial versus non-commercial vehicles, and
there are several categories (for example, cabs and limos have "omnibus" tags).
Things like pickup trucks and SUVs are licensed the same as cars. They base the
fee on the maximum gross vehicle weight, and there are several classes. My small
pickup falls into class 8 below. The larger SUVs would also be in that class.
Here are the fees for non-commercial passenger-carrying vehicles.

1 1970 or older Under 2700 lbs. $32.50
2 1970 or older 2700 lbs--3800 lbs. $41.50
3 1970 or older Over 3800 lbs. $62.50
4 1971 – 1979 Under 2700 lbs. $35.50
5 1971 - 1979 2700 lbs--3800 lbs. $46.50
6 1971 - 1979 Over 3800 lbs. $69.50
7 1980 and newer Under 3500 lbs. Fewer than 2 years old $56.00
More than 2 years old $43.50
8 1980 and newer Over 3500 lbs Fewer than 2 years old $81.00
More than 2 years old $68.50
9 Commuter Van* ** Fewer than 2 years old $81.00
More than 2 years old $68.50

You can get more details than you would want to know by checking out
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/bc_vehicles/bc_registration_fees.html

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Matt Barrow

May 24th 05, 04:47 PM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9THke.23$4b.10@trndny07...
> Neil Gould wrote:
> >
> > For example, is
> > there a different rate for vehicles licensed as "trucks" than for those
> > rated as "cars" in such states as NJ (which has some of the worst
> > infrastructure, btw)?
>
> There is a different rate for commercial versus non-commercial vehicles,
and
> there are several categories (for example, cabs and limos have "omnibus"
tags).
> Things like pickup trucks and SUVs are licensed the same as cars. They
base the
> fee on the maximum gross vehicle weight, and there are several classes. My
small
> pickup falls into class 8 below. The larger SUVs would also be in that
class.

Same here (CO) except (??) a truck that is used for commercial purposes has
a "TRUCK" license plate and pays higher fees. An SUV used commercially would
have a "CMRL" (commercial) plate. I had to register my Tundra and our SUV as
commercial vehicles even though I don't use them for business inside the
state, but merely because they're owned/registered to my company.

Bob Noel

May 24th 05, 06:21 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > > What would you define "really cheap" as being?
> >
> > Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right?
>
> "Cheap" to me means "poor quality"; we could have cheap gas by watering it
> down. :~)
>
> $.35 a gallon is what gas was going for in 1971; in todays $$$'s that
> something like $3.25.
>
> There's just no pleasing some people!! :~(

I think you misunderstood my intent or tone of my reply. I don't really
think we'll ever see gas costing so little unless it becomes nearly useless.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Matt Barrow

May 24th 05, 08:38 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > > > What would you define "really cheap" as being?
> > >
> > > Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right?
> >
> > "Cheap" to me means "poor quality"; we could have cheap gas by watering
it
> > down. :~)
> >
> > $.35 a gallon is what gas was going for in 1971; in todays $$$'s that
> > something like $3.25.
> >
> > There's just no pleasing some people!! :~(
>
> I think you misunderstood my intent or tone of my reply. I don't really
> think we'll ever see gas costing so little unless it becomes nearly
useless.
>

Maybe not "we" who sit here today, but I can see it in the distant future
when others fuels replace it because internal combustion engines have been
rendered obsolete. Of course, that doesn't help things in the "here and
now".

OTOH, gasoline costs less per gallon than such critical things as Evian
Drinking Water (about $5.25 a gallon) or beer ($6.50 a gallon for certain
moderately priced brands) so you could say gas is still relatively "cheap".

Now I'm just hoping that McCallans Scotch could be done "cheaper". :~)

Roger

May 25th 05, 02:43 AM

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:44 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 May 2005 01:01:36 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::
>
>>People went back
>>to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
>>building them and why not.
>
>Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as
>light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates.

Not all SUVs. I have one (Toyota 4-Runner)that is classified as a
station wagon. Why? I don't know. It's as big or bigger than some
that are classified as trucks.

Again, it's what "we" wanted. Detroit was selling lots of trucks,
people wanted more seats and inside room which led to the SUV. It
wasn't so much Detroit pushing them as us pulling for them. Do you
supposed a big push for econo cars by Detroit would have been
successful under the consumer climate at that time?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger

May 25th 05, 02:49 AM

On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:15:41 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Roger > wrote:
>>
>> > We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.
>>
>> we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
>> This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
>> supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
>really
>> cheap).
>>
>What would you define "really cheap" as being?

To the point where it was no longer echonomical to persue alternative
fuels and exploratory drilling. It was far cheaper to import the
stuff.

Actually, with all the complaining when you figure in the average wage
Vs the cost of gas in the US compared to the same in Europe, even
$3.00 gas is cheap. They make less and pay at least twice as much...
or there abouts.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>

Larry Dighera

May 25th 05, 03:59 AM

On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:49:57 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::

>
>Actually, with all the complaining when you figure in the average wage
>Vs the cost of gas in the US compared to the same in Europe, even
>$3.00 gas is cheap. They make less and pay at least twice as much...
>or there abouts.

Europeans have viable alternatives to automobile travel, unlike Los
Angelenos.

AES

May 25th 05, 04:40 AM

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> >
> >Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as
> >light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates.
>
> Not all SUVs. I have one (Toyota 4-Runner)that is classified as a
> station wagon. Why? I don't know. It's as big or bigger than some
> that are classified as trucks.
>

Your response (all of it) I'd agree contains correct statements.

But the first sentence above, to which you're responding, is still a key
factor in the situation. Because (most) SUVs can be classified as light
trucks, they (and their manufacturers) are exempted from multiple
regulations, in addition to just clean air mandates.

Matt Barrow

May 25th 05, 04:02 PM

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:44 GMT, Larry Dighera > babbled:
>
>>People went back
>>to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
>>building them and why not.
>
>Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as
>light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates.

So did Japan (Pathfinders, 4-Runners, etc.) as did Germany (whatever those
goose-steppers are pushing nowadays).

Detroit could push anything they wished but that doesn't explain why people
bought them.

They've pushed a lot of stuff over the years and quite often they took a
beating.

Good 'ol Larry, head up ass again.

Matt Barrow

May 25th 05, 04:07 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:15:41 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> >>
> >What would you define "really cheap" as being?
>
> To the point where it was no longer echonomical to persue alternative
> fuels and exploratory drilling. It was far cheaper to import the
> stuff.
>
> Actually, with all the complaining when you figure in the average wage
> Vs the cost of gas in the US compared to the same in Europe, even
> $3.00 gas is cheap. They make less and pay at least twice as much...
> or there abouts.
>

With 1971 baseline prices, gas today would be something like $3.25-3.50 a
gallon.

Yet people whine!!

1980 prices are a lot of the reason Peanut Carter got bounced out of the
White House.