Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Yes you are an idiot.
The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Yes you are an idiot.
The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
#4242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Yes you are an idiot.
The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Yes you are an idiot.
The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
#4243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Yes you are an idiot.
The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Yes you are an idiot.
The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
#4244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 9 Nov 2003 17:50:35 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?
Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.
Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.
>I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?
Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.
Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.
#4245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 9 Nov 2003 17:50:35 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?
Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.
Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.
>I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?
Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.
Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.
#4246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 9 Nov 2003 17:50:35 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?
Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.
Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.
>I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?
Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.
Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.
#4247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
This is such a weak minded argument.
Population has nothing to do with production.
We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.
How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.
>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
This is such a weak minded argument.
Population has nothing to do with production.
We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.
How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.
#4248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
This is such a weak minded argument.
Population has nothing to do with production.
We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.
How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.
>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
This is such a weak minded argument.
Population has nothing to do with production.
We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.
How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.
#4249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
This is such a weak minded argument.
Population has nothing to do with production.
We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.
How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.
>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
This is such a weak minded argument.
Population has nothing to do with production.
We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.
How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.
#4250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:03:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
>>change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
>
>Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
>which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
Thanks for admitting I am right. Since the Earth is cooling, adding
CO2 will result in a slowing of the rate of change.
wrote:
>>The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
>>change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
>
>Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
>which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
Thanks for admitting I am right. Since the Earth is cooling, adding
CO2 will result in a slowing of the rate of change.