If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
I don't want to be the one subsidizing someone else's better deal. Since I
am not going to get on the phone to negotiate a lower magazine subscripiton price, I just won't subscribe. Mike MU-2 "Jeff" wrote in message ... Why does that bother you ? Its a sales technique, we start high, when someone does not buy, we lower it, then lower it some more. After 6 months to a year, we try to sell them again. Works great. No such thing as a fair deal. Companies who sell to individuals and to businesses will double and triple the price when it comes to selling to business's. I wont even get into that evil empire called Visa/Mastercard. Merchants just do what they can to survive. Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to different customers. "Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt Mike MU-2 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want! Pork spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain it. Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read (I think it was by the CBO or GAO). In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government spending was pork/waste. But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what your NEIGHBOR wants. "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J. O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_. I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues, defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have to pay for. I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for. Mike MU-2 These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in California. Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of the illegal immigration. Mike MU-2 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Gig Giacona" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Gig Giacona" wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but people don't want to do it. In round figures: We import about a third of our Petroleum Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning. The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning. Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my wife how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner. And she said, "so what"? Actually it usually ends the argument because when what starts the argument is her saying she didn't have time to do something or other. I show her where the time went and Poof. I'm off the hook for whatever and I go back to working on the plane. Whatever works. If it works, let me know -- I've been try for nearly 25 years to get my wife to combine trips. It only works if she is in the "how do you expect me to get all this done" mode. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but people don't want to do it. In round figures: We import about a third of our Petroleum Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning. The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning. My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are living great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles, better trip planning. The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is about it. What about the price of food? |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in California. No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle Joe. Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it went into effect. Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended consequences. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote: wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want! Pork spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain it. Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read (I think it was by the CBO or GAO). In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government spending was pork/waste. But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what your NEIGHBOR wants. "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J. O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_. I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues, defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have to pay for. I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for. Mike MU-2 These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in California. Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of the illegal immigration. Mike MU-2 Bull**** back pal. If the feds had done their job in the first place, we wouldn't be agruing about what California has, or has not, done. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in California. No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle Joe. Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it went into effect. Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended consequences. It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for illeagl's medical bills and schooling. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in California. No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle Joe. Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it went into effect. Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended consequences. It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for illeagl's medical bills and schooling. Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. If California was not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous influx of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including Arnold. Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California is having? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message . .. "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in California. No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle Joe. Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it went into effect. Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended consequences. It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for illeagl's medical bills and schooling. Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. The People of California passed Prop 187 to stop the hemorraging and the Ninth Circuit struck it down. If California was not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous influx of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including Arnold. Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California is having? Arizona has a worse problem. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but people don't want to do it. In round figures: We import about a third of our Petroleum Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning. The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning. My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are living great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles, better trip planning. The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is about it. So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative to FORCE them to abide by your whims? There's a name for that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate | Luo Zheng | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 04 03:50 AM |
Donald Campbell Bluebird helmet sold | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 1 | May 3rd 04 05:11 PM |
Japanese firm sold Libya uranium conversion plant | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 2 | March 17th 04 03:47 PM |
Sold out by IFR | Mike Rapoport | Instrument Flight Rules | 129 | February 9th 04 10:47 PM |
SOLD Becker ATC-4401-175 and SigmaTek ARC EA-401A Servoed Encoding Alt | Juan E Jimenez | Home Built | 0 | August 11th 03 05:03 AM |