http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets - 19 messages, 8
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
* supreme court to determine obama presidential eligibilty - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/546a49e0512f561c?hl=en
* useing a curved pot with an induction heater? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8510c23808cd8a87?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:37 pm
From: Dan
Dave wrote:
> If you CUT taxes, GDP will rise.
> When GDP rises, tax income increases also, even though the tax rate (by
> percentage) is lower.
Ah, yes, Voodoo economics. THAT works well... [NOT]
> Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the short
> term and hurt a lot in the long term.
actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
> If you want to spur the economy to
> get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
> drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
Any EVIDENCE that might work?
> If you do that
> (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S. government
> will actually INCREASE over time.
Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself by
citing "the Reagan years.")?
> The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
> (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the economy
> makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
Faith-based economics. No thanks.
Dan
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:38 pm
From: Dan
Rod Speed wrote:
> So stupid that it cant even manage to work out that it was FDR that did the socialism.
What industries did FDR nationalize?
Dan
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:39 pm
From: "Dave"
)
> >> How would cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and slashing
procurement
> >> boost GDP?
> >>
> >
> > It wouldn't, without corresponding tax cuts. But with corresponding tax
> > cuts, there will be more money available to private companies to use to
grow
> > their businesses.
> >
> > Or put another way...government, as an employer, is VERY inefficient.
The
> > same money in non-government business use will create more jobs. -Dave
>
> Ah, yes, the George Bush economic growth plan on steroids. History has
> been ever so kind to that one...
>
> Didn't anyone ever talk to you about "stop digging?"
>
> Dan
Dan - I take it you believe our government can more efficiently create jobs
by raising taxes and forcing employers out of the country? Do tell...-Dave
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:43 pm
From: "Dave"
>
> Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
>
> Considering about half the federal budget goes to the military, do you
> believe the military "produces nothing"?
Well by definition the military produces nothing. Unless you advocate that
we increase arms exports. Even then, it's not the military producing more,
it is arms manufacturers producing more. -Dave
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:46 pm
From: "Dave"
> >
> > the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
> >
> > govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
> > on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
> >
> >
> > Phil scott
>
> Interesting opinion, but nothing more.
>
> Dan
Dan - With high taxes, producers have two choices.
1) Be less competitive, leading to lower profits, or operating at a loss
2) Move to a location with lower operating expenses, most specifically to
include lower taxes.
This is basic economics that only a moron would TRY to dispute.
The "interesting opinion" you speak of is RIGHT ON. -Dave
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:52 pm
From: Jeff
Dan wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>> If you CUT taxes, GDP will rise.
>> When GDP rises, tax income increases also, even though the tax rate (by
>> percentage) is lower.
>
> Ah, yes, Voodoo economics. THAT works well... [NOT]
>
>> Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the
>> short
>> term and hurt a lot in the long term.
>
> actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
>
>> If you want to spur the economy to
>> get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
>> drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
>
> Any EVIDENCE that might work?
>
>> If you do that
>> (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S.
>> government
>> will actually INCREASE over time.
>
> Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself by
> citing "the Reagan years.")?
>
>> The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
>> (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the economy
>> makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
>
> Faith-based economics. No thanks.
>
> Dan
If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
spending, among the best ways to do it are expanding food stamp and
unemployment benefits.
However, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
infrastructure would address two problems at once.
Jeff
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:54 pm
From: Jeffrey Turner
phil scott wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:50 am, EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>> In misc.survivalism Dave <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> what would you suggest to Obama?
>>> I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes.
>> That was Hoover's strategy.
>>
>> --
>> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
>> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
>> -- Bertrand Russel
>
> not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
> currency now for instance,
You think so? Fine, just send me yours.
> and vast bloat in
> govt now relative to then.
>
> the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
>
> govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
> on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
Which explains why Somalia, which has almost nothing in the way of
gov't, is the wealthiest nation on earth. Why don't you move there?
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:59 pm
From: Jeff
Dave wrote:
>>> the cuts now would be govt 70% to balance the budget.
>>>
>>> govt bloat has killed the US...govt produces nothing, it runs taxes up
>>> on producers, who then become non compeitive in world markets.
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil scott
>> Interesting opinion, but nothing more.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Dan - With high taxes, producers have two choices.
> 1) Be less competitive, leading to lower profits, or operating at a loss
> 2) Move to a location with lower operating expenses, most specifically to
> include lower taxes.
>
> This is basic economics that only a moron would TRY to dispute.
>
> The "interesting opinion" you speak of is RIGHT ON. -Dave
Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35
percent of their profits in income taxes.
But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from
2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is
publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes
anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid
considerably less.
In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of
these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate.
Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of
-59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.
Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275
companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent
in 2002-2003.
The statistics are startling:
* Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total,
paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001
to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned
$102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion
in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to
require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they
received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling
$12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they
made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
* Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax
rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax
U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among
others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial
(-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent),
Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the
company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
* In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income
taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S.
pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates
totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in
2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9
billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax
companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
* In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax
refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
* Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax
subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax
breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average
of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.
Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World
War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes
dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since
World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration
was lower.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of
showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed
tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the
overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to
26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory
corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the
1986 reforms.
In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the
1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting
firms.
Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush
administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued
corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and
White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate
tax-sheltering activities.
Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the
1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon
administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate
taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of
federal expenses.
Billions and billions
Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were
profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly
available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United
States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate,
then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over
the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of
their profits - $557 billion - to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax
rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of
only 18.4 percent.
In 2002 and 2003, the 275 companies sheltered more than half of their
profits from tax. They told their shareholders they earned $739 billion
in those two years, but they paid taxes on less than half of that, only
$363 billion.
Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by
$43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003,
for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years.
Half of the total tax-break dollars over the three years - $87.1 billion
- went to just 25 companies, each with more than a billion-and-a-half
dollars in tax breaks.
General Electric topped the list of corporate tax break recipients, with
$9.5 billion in tax breaks over the three years.
Industrial divide
Effective tax rates varied widely by industry. Over the 2001-2003
period, industry effective tax rates for the 275 corporations ranged
from a low of 1.6 percent to a high of 27.7 percent.
In 2003, the range of industry tax rates was even greater, ranging from
a low of -30.0 percent (a negative rate) up to a high of 27.9 percent.
* Aerospace and defense companies enjoyed the lowest effective tax
rate over the three years, paying only 1.6 percent of their profits in
federal income taxes. This industry's taxes declined sharply over the
three years, falling to -30.0 percent of profits in 2003.
* Other very low-tax industries, paying less than half the
statutory 35 percent tax rate over the entire 2001-2003 period,
included: transportation (4.3 percent), industrial and farm equipment
(6.2 percent), telecommunications (7.5 percent), electronics and
electrical equipment (10.8 percent), petroleum and pipelines (13.3
percent), miscellaneous services (14.4 percent), gas and electric
utilities (14.4 percent), computers, office equipment, software and data
(16.0 percent), and metals & metal products (17.4 percent).
* Not a single industry paid an effective tax rate of more than 29
percent, either for the entire three-year period or in any given year.
Within industries, effective tax rates also varied widely. For example,
over the three-year period, average tax rates on oil companies ranged
from 3.0 percent for Devon Energy up to 31.4 percent on Marathon Oil.
Among aerospace and defense companies, three-year effective tax rates
ranged from a low of -18.8 percent for Boeing up to a high of 25.0
percent for General Dynamics."
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
Jeff
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:58 pm
From: clams_casino
Dave wrote:
>>Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
>>
>>
>
>Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
>
>
Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
against GW's war. You are a rarity.
>
>
>>Considering about half the federal budget goes to the military, do you
>>believe the military "produces nothing"?
>>
>>
>
>Well by definition the military produces nothing. Unless you advocate that
>we increase arms exports. Even then, it's not the military producing more,
>it is arms manufacturers producing more. -Dave
>
>
>
>
The military produces a service - safety.
Do you also believe teachers, police & fireman produce nothing?
How about the workers at retail stores, insurance companies, banks,
health care, entertainment, etc?
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:59 pm
From: Jeffrey Turner
Dave wrote:
> <EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:gh6rg6$oqh$3@reader1.panix.com...
>> In misc.survivalism phil scott <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
>>
>>> a crucial difference between then and now Ted, is that cash was backed
>>> by gold and silver then...
>>> today the cash is pure hot air, backed by zip...and 8 trillion more of
>>> it issued in the last month.
>> So how will cuting federal spending boost GDP?
>
> It won't, unless there is corresponding tax cuts. -Dave
Keep repeating your mantra. It won't make what you're saying any less
of a religious faith. You won't find any examples in reality, though.
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:20 pm
From: "Dave"
> > Obama's strategy to rebuild infrastructure will help a little in the
short
> > term and hurt a lot in the long term.
>
> actually, it will help enormously in the long run.
Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes to
employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
long run, the only significant employment growth will be in infrastructure
improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to the
government. More money going out, less coming in. A strategy for
guaranteed economic disaster in other words.
On a side note, where are we going to get all the workers to build roads and
bridges? The only people really qualified to do that type of work are
1) Already employed doing that type of work
2) Not "technically" allowed to do that type of work, or any other work in
the U.S. (read: illegal aliens)
3) Both 1 and 2
You think all these unemployed financial sector (not to pick on the
financial sector, just tossing them out as an example) workers are going to
jump at the chance to build roads and bridges? If so, are we going to
increase taxes further to train them to do that type of
work?????????????????????? I'm lucky enough to be employed, and not
under-employed. But if I needed a job, I could probably build roads and
bridges. But I'd need significant and (I'm sure) expensive training first,
to do that type of work. That's what I'm talking about. This re-build the
infrastructure with increased taxes to create jobs strategy is just plain
bizarre, and will not work.
>
> > If you want to spur the economy to
> > get it out of this depression and KEEP it out of this depression, you
> > drastically cut all government programs and lower taxes.
>
> Any EVIDENCE that might work?
Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
including lower taxes. You can't drastically lower taxes (which is what is
necessary to spur economic growth) without drastically cutting all
government programs.
>
> > If you do that
> > (and this is counter-intuitive to some) tax revenue to the U.S.
government
> > will actually INCREASE over time.
>
> Any EVIDENCE that might happen (and PLEASE do not embarrass yourself by
> citing "the Reagan years.")?
Obama's strategy will lead to many employers leaving the country. How do
YOU figure this will increase tax revenue? Keeping current employers in the
U.S. and attracting new ones to the U.S. will increase tax revenue. That is
self-evident to anybody with half a brain.
>
> > The goal is to make the U.S. business friendly with low operating costs
> > (most specifically including low taxes). If you can do that, the
economy
> > makes positive gains and tax revenue increases dramatically. -Dave
>
> Faith-based economics. No thanks.
You'd rather the country remain in depression mode indefinitely? No
hanks. -Dave
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:31 pm
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
In misc.survivalism Jeff <nospam@nothanks.org> wrote:
> If you want to stimulate the economy quickly through government
> spending, among the best ways to do it are expanding food stamp and
> unemployment benefits.
Interesting ideas.
I'd be inclined to support R&D, along with infrastructure spending to
get long term benefits. Increase student aid?
> Howver, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
rastructure would address two problems at once.
Yes.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:34 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:58:02 -0500, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>
>>>Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
>>
>>
>
>
>Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
>against GW's war. You are a rarity.
Not rare at all. In fact, there is a whole political party with those
ideas among its central platform:
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:34 pm
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
In misc.survivalism Dave <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
> Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes to
> employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
> though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
> long run, the only significant employment growth will be in infrastructure
> improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to the
> government.
Why won't improved infrasructure make our businesses more efficient?
Better access to ports, better rail service, better access to roads and
electricity and other necessary inputs?
ISTM that wigthout infrastructure, businesses are less efficient.
> Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
> including lower taxes.
Why do you discount the effect of good infrastructure?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:38 pm
From: "Dave"
>
> >>Most who hate paying income taxes tend to be in favor of GW's war.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Huh??? Without GW's war, income taxes could be dramatically cut.
> >
> >
>
>
> Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
> against GW's war. You are a rarity.
>
I'm a Conservative Republican, not to be confused with MOST Republicans who
call themselves conservative while being NEITHER Republican NOR
Conservative. If most Republicans held the same views I do, the Republicans
would have won all elections this time around in a landslide. McCain lost
because his liberal views scared the shit out of people like me (he
alienated the Center Right). Obama is no worse (which is not a reflection
on Obama, at all) which is why Obama won.
I honestly believe we need someone like Sarah Palin, I hope she runs for
PRESIDENT in 2012.
> >Well by definition the military produces nothing. Unless you advocate
that
> >we increase arms exports. Even then, it's not the military producing
more,
> >it is arms manufacturers producing more. -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The military produces a service - safety.
And a service-based economy can not remain viable in the long run, unless it
is also an economy with significant manufacturing income. Think about the
word service. It implies that you are doing work of some kind for someone,
that you are performing a function of some kind, without producing anything.
If everyone is performing services, where is the money coming from to
finance all these services? Somewhere along the line, someone has to SELL
something (that you can touch) and sell a shitload of that (whatever) to
provide the seed money to keep the service workers employed.
>
> Do you also believe teachers, police & fireman produce nothing?
Ummm... YES!!!! And that's not a bad thing. Teachers, Police and Fire
personnel are also service workers. I'd argue that they are NECESSARY
service workers. Problem is, without manufacturing to keep the economy
healthy, how are we (as a society) going to continue to pay for these
necessary services? Again, if everybody is a service worker, the economy
will eventually collapse, as it is a kind of pyramid scheme. You can't have
EVERYBODY trying to sell nothing but services to everybody else. There has
to be income from something OTHER than services (such as manufacturing) to
keep the money flowing.
>
> How about the workers at retail stores, insurance companies, banks,
> health care, entertainment, etc?
Same as I wrote about teachers, police and firemen. Except that we can
argue about how each of these individuals are "necessary" or not, and to
what degree. These service workers do not survive in the long run without a
manufacturing based economy to inject the money to keep the services
running. -Dave
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:39 pm
From: Jeff
Dave wrote:
> "'nam vet." <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
> news:georgewkspam-8D4FB6.07173903122008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <ihtcj4tf7d9sttl0ffgrg3n2jvl7vbgjh7@4ax.com>,
>> wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Some advice from someone who lived and profitted during one. Stay in
>>> cash, safe investments. Safe deposit box or treasuries. Safe CD's at a
>>> safe bank. Protect your capital so it doesn't drop in value.
>>> Depressions result in long deflationary period. Just check Japan out,
>>> over decade of declining asset values. Cash was the only thing that
>>> held value and relatively increased compared to real estate, stocks,
>>> bonds, etc.
>>>
>>> During the 1930's, my mother saw the average guy trying to pick
>>> bottoms, in 1930, 1931, 1932 ......1939, all lost. Market didn't show
>>> a gain until 1954. The only people who made out were people in cash.
>>> Real estate, stocks, bonds dropped 90% or more in value. Ten years
>>> from now if you have exactly what you have today, you will be the new
>>> rich. The masses will be penniless, homeless and hungry. It is the
>>> 1930's all over again. Obama will be playing the modern day Herbert
>>> Hoover, raise taxes on the rich and business and socialism.
>>>
>>> ted
>> what would you suggest to Obama?
>> He seems to be open to suggestions. Positive ones.
>> OK?
>> --
>
> I would tell him to balance the budget,
The time to have balanced the budget was when times were good.
no matter what it takes. And to
> decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
When has that ever worked?
This whole mess was created by cheap money blowing up the credit and
real estate bubbles.
Throwing more money into the supply is a complete waste. The problem
is demand has fallen. You can not stimulate demand by giving rich people
more money they will just create another bubble or sit on it.
Jeff
>
> Failure to do those two things will prolong the depression. DOING those two
> things might shorten it. But failing to do those two things will definitely
> prolong the depression.
>
> Oh, and before some idiot screams "but it's only a recession", keep in mind
> that the actual unemployment rate right now is 16-17%, which is one STRONG
> indicator of a depression. So why is the "official" unemployment rate
> around 7%? Because that figure no longer counts discouraged workers...but
> discouraged workers are no less unemployed. In other words, if we were
> measuring unemployment in the 1970s, the figure would be about 17% right
> now. But as the formula has been fudged since then, the official figures
> for unemployment are very misleading. We are in a depression, a bad
> ne. -Dave
>
>
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:43 pm
From: "Dave"
> However, I believe that spending on the crumbling national
> infrastructure would address two problems at once.
>
> Jeff
In the short term, you are absolutely RIGHT. But do do that, we have to
increase taxes. So let's look ahead a few years or a few decades...
While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and bridges,
our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are leaving
the country in droves.
After all the roads and bridges, etc. are fixed? Now what do we do. Taxes
are sky high, all real employers have skipped the country, and we are all
unemployed.
Great plan, eh? -Dave
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:54 pm
From: "Dave"
> >
> >Fully agree, but you are one of the few who wants to cut taxes AND are
> >against GW's war. You are a rarity.
>
> Not rare at all. In fact, there is a whole political party with those
> ideas among its central platform:
>
> http://www.lp.org
>
Oh yeah, the libertarians. I have actually voted for some libertarian
candidates from time to time, but only because they were more "republican"
than the so-called republican candidate that they were running against. The
only reason the libertarians get any votes is that the Republicans are
acting too much like Democrats. The libertarians are like Republicans on
steroids, but at least they are somewhat republican. -Dave
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:57 pm
From: "Dave"
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh751q$a2r$2@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Dave <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
>
> > Really? Ok, Obama's plan boils down to, raise taxes and use those taxes
to
> > employ people building roads and bridges, etc. It's a pyramid scheme
> > though. You can't tax unemployed people to increase employment. In the
> > long run, the only significant employment growth will be in
infrastructure
> > improvement jobs which DO NOT contribute significantly to tax income to
the
> > government.
>
> Why won't improved infrasructure make our businesses more efficient?
> Better access to ports, better rail service, better access to roads and
> electricity and other necessary inputs?
>
> ISTM that wigthout infrastructure, businesses are less efficient.
Holy SHIT! You want the 3 or 4 remaining employers in the U.S. to be more
efficient? How do you figure that is going to help?
Ok, that was a sarcastic exaggeration of course. But what you fail to
consider is, while we are raising taxes to improve infrastructure, we are
ALSO giving employers strong incentives to CUT production and/or move
production out of the country. No doubt whatever employers who are stupid
enough to REMAIN here will enjoy the infrastructure improvements. But will
it matter when we are all unemployed? Not a damned bit.
>
>
> > Economics 101. Businesses will locate wherever operating costs are low,
> > including lower taxes.
>
> Why do you discount the effect of good infrastructure?
>
Because there won't be many employers left in the country to use it? Like,
DUH! -Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: supreme court to determine obama presidential eligibilty
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/546a49e0512f561c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:01 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"
In article <y4DZk.2657$us6.1370@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
> it's all over the blogs.
Yeah, that is like saying that everyone at the truck stop was talking
about it. Space aliens, 100 mile per gallon carburetors, and Obama's
birth certificate, please pass the ketchup.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:19 pm
From: Jeff
AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> it's all over the blogs.
Doubtless the same bloggers that think George W Bush has been a good
president. You guys will believe anything that a fellow wingnut spews.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Jeff
>
> http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=63&topic=53329.msg57474;topicseen
>
>
> http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
>
> overnight fedex supreme court w/ your concerns; only way to reach them:
>
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82449
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=supreme+court+obama+eligibility&aq=1&oq=supreme+court+obama+eli
>
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:50 pm
From: "Dave"
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-D208EF.17010503122008@news-3.octanews.net...
> In article <y4DZk.2657$us6.1370@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it's all over the blogs.
>
> Yeah, that is like saying that everyone at the truck stop was talking
> about it. Space aliens, 100 mile per gallon carburetors, and Obama's
> birth certificate, please pass the ketchup.
>
> -john-
>
John - I'll only state this once, as many people who SHOULD know better have
a tendency to flame me when I point this out...
Obama was a citizen of Indonesia at one time in his life. Only Indonesia.
No dual-citizenship allowed there, at the time.
Now review the "natural born citizen" clause, which is one of the
requirements to be President.
If you are a citizen of Indonesia and only Indonesia today, you can not
tomorrow, or at any time in the future, be a natural born citizen of the
U.S. or any other country, other than Indonesia.
I don't think the case that the Supremes are considering will amount to
much. The odds of the Supremes ruling against their supreme commander (!)
are slim and none.
But only a fool would dismiss the court case outright, as it can be argued
that the case has REAL merit. Either you are a natural born citizen, or you
aren't. There is no dispute that Obama is a citizen, but being a citizen
does not qualify one to be President of the U.S. -Dave
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:52 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:19:30 -0500, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> it's all over the blogs.
>
> Doubtless the same bloggers that think George W Bush has been a good
>president. You guys will believe anything that a fellow wingnut spews.
I do find it interesting that the Obama camp has so far spent almost a
million dollars in legal fees to avoid simply releasing a piece of
paper that would put this whole issue to bed. What could their
reasoning possibly be?
(And don't even try to suggest some mythical "right to privacy".
Recent campaigns have proven that there is no such thing in the
political area.)
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: useing a curved pot with an induction heater?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8510c23808cd8a87?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 3:01 pm
From: Jeff
James Silverton wrote:
> john wrote on Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:32:48 -0000:
>
>> The cast iron pot traditionally used for this is one that we
>> already have. It is though designed for use over a *gas*
>> burner and it does not have a *flat* bottom. So the surface
>> area in contact with the induction heater would be much
>> reduced.
>
> I've never used an induction cooker but I can't see that contact is
> necessary since the fluctuating magnetic field heats the pot (magnetic).
It's not, but the closest parts will have a greater induced field.
The formula is complex and depends on the radius of the induction coil
and the distance from the coil (wikipedia has it). The question is how
much hotter will the feet get and will that cause undue thermal stress.
I don't know but suspect that there are easier methods to cook this goose.
Jeff
>
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 2:57 pm
From: azazello@koroviev.de (Victor Sack)
john zeiss <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote:
> The pot looks like a miniature witches cauldron with a curved bottom and
> three tiny little stumpy legs to rest on. The fact that the pot surface
> area in contact with the induction heater surface is reduced to three little
> legs, would that mean that electricity is actually being wasted in heating
> such a pot or is it that it just would not heat up very much using an
> induction heater ?
To achieve a measurable - in practice - effect, there will have to be
some contact and, with a concave pot bottom, there will be hardly any.
So, an induction heater will have to be concave, too, something on these
lines: <http://www.trendir.com/archives/000363.html>. However, to be at
all efficient, the curvature of the pot will have to match that of the
heater - and that can be a problem with any pot not specifically matched
with the heater. Besides, those little legs will probably make it
impossible anyway.
Victor
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 4:04 pm
From: Mark Thorson
john zeiss wrote:
>
> The pot looks like a miniature witches cauldron with a curved bottom and
> three tiny little stumpy legs to rest on. The fact that the pot surface
> area in contact with the induction heater surface is reduced to three little
> legs, would that mean that electricity is actually being wasted in heating
> such a pot or is it that it just would not heat up very much using an
> induction heater ? Thanks for any advice.
You could place a flat pot on the induction heater,
half-full that pot with water or oil, then place the
cauldron in the water or oil.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment