Sold out by IFR

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.


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.

Sounds like a formula for marital bliss

Gig Giacona wrote:

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.

Gig Giacona

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"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.

Mike
MU-2

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

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

"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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.