Typical. Fucking typical.> > -- > Hummers do not get any tax breaks. That was a loophole in the tax law that> was supposed to apply to trucks used in a business, but gave the same

Way to go Bush! Record profits for Oil companies and now cuts in tax>> breaks for multi-fuel vehicles while keeping cuts for Hummer owners.>>

Typical. Fucking typical.>> -- >Hummers do not get any tax breaks. That was a loophole in the tax law that>was supposed to apply to trucks used in a business, but gave the same break>to hummers. That loophole has been closed.

Way off base here. The left has been pushing for restrictions on SUV gas> >guzzlers but the Right so far has refused to push the issue, with the> >exception of a hand full of reps.>

Way off base here. The left has been pushing for restrictions on SUV gas>>guzzlers but the Right so far has refused to push the issue, with the>>exception of a hand full of reps. >

Hummers do not get any tax breaks. That was a loophole in the tax law that>>was supposed to apply to trucks used in a business, but gave the same break>>to hummers. That loophole has been closed.>>

So maybe you can explain exactly what Bush did to increase profits for the>>oil companies? >>

He wants to drill in Northern Alaska, which will increase>>supply and decrease prices.>>

But the Dems have opposed that at every turn. So>>blame the left wing for high oil prices.>>

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:55:38 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com­>>> wrote:>>

Actually, that's false. According to the Energy Information>> Administration in the Department of Energy, the $25,000 tax write-off>> for a Hummer (10mpg) will remain while the $2000 tax credit fo bying a>> hybrid vehhicle that can get more than 50mpg will be phased out.>>

He sets the policies. He's the president. Or did you forget that? He>> decides reserves, he decides to go to war with countries that weren't>> a threat to us (aka killing our soldiers for no good reason).>>

As has been pointed out several times, the North Alaska drill will do>> little to help the problem.>>

Nice try. They're not the ones with stakes in oil companies, among>> other big businesses. Bush/Cheney are.>>

Aren't you even curious as to why Bush isn't complaining about the>> high oil prices?>>

Way to go Bush! Record profits for Oil companies and now cuts in tax>> breaks for multi-fuel vehicles while keeping cuts for Hummer owners.>>

ROFL>

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:55:38 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com­>>> wrote:>>

Actually, that's false. According to the Energy Information>> Administration in the Department of Energy, the $25,000 tax write-off>> for a Hummer (10mpg) will remain while the $2000 tax credit fo bying a>> hybrid vehhicle that can get more than 50mpg will be phased out.>>

He sets the policies. He's the president. Or did you forget that? He>> decides reserves, he decides to go to war with countries that weren't>> a threat to us (aka killing our soldiers for no good reason).>>

As has been pointed out several times, the North Alaska drill will do>> little to help the problem.>>

Nice try. They're not the ones with stakes in oil companies, among>> other big businesses. Bush/Cheney are.>>

Aren't you even curious as to why Bush isn't complaining about the>> high oil prices?>>

Recycling is NOT the answer!>

I already beat you with that one, but sure here's another: I recycle>>everything­ I possibly can. Heh, the company that picks up the stuff>>for our towm HATES our house.>

Gary L. Burnore wrote:>>

Gary - no one is forcing you to buy a Hummer. Why don't you do >>something positive? Lead by example, show us how to save the planet by >>setting an example.>>

I will start - I telecomute from home three days a week - saving 180 >>miles a week of driving. I work in the office the other three days ­>>Yes, this means I work 6 days a week on salary. I am doing my part in >>saving gas and helping the productivity of the nation!>>

Your turn Gary . . .>>

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:00:49 -0400, Gary L. Burnore>><gburnore@­databasix.com> wrote:>>

Our county is finding out that it takes more energy to recycle some>>things than just putting them in the land fill.>>

Recycling is NOT the answer!>

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:00:49 -0400, Gary L. Burnore> ><gburnore@databasi­x.com> wrote:> >

Our county is finding out that it takes more energy to recycle some> >things than just putting them in the land fill.> >

Recycling is NOT the answer!>

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix­.com> wrote in >>news:d2seou$l9a$2­@dimpledchad.databas­ix.com:>>

There has not been a refinery built in the US since 1976. At least a>>couple have even closed in the meantime. Demand continues to grow as>>the economy and the population grows.>

The main reasons for the lack of new refining capacity are>>environmental regulations that make it nearly impossible to build, and>>NIMBY-ism by those who live somewhere near where a proposed new>>refinery. >

Since it is difficult to find refining capacity in the US, it is >>increasingly common to have refided gasoline base stock imported by>>tanker, rather that crude. Base stock sells for more than crude and>>carries a higher margin.>

The effect of all the above is to cause artificial shortages of>>gasoline, with the attendant escalating prices that shortages cause.>>

In the 1970s, the shortages and high prices were caused by Nixon's>>price controls. The shortages and high prices ended quite abruptly>>when Reagan finally removed the price controls in 1982. These days,>>it's environmental laws accomplishing exactly the same thing.>>

Economically, Bush has been one of the worse Presidents, but blaming>>Bush for this is like blaming wet streets for making it rain.>

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:00:49 -0400, Gary L. Burnore>><gburnore@­databasix.com> wrote:>>

Our county is finding out that it takes more energy to recycle some>>things than just putting them in the land fill.>>

Recycling is NOT the answer!>

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:24:25 GMT, Scott in Florida> > <NotInTheNextLifeti­me@nope.ucan't> wrote:> >

That's one of the most idiotic things you've said yet.>

Incinerators make so much more sense. Places with little available> > land, such as Japan, Hong Kong and Britain, rely heavily on> > incinerators.>

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message> > news:Xns962EE1A0119­Etegger@207.14.113.1­7...>

I think you guys are missing the big point of recycling.>

Which is?>

Which is?>

Incinerators make so much more sense. Places with little available land,>> such as Japan, Hong Kong and Britain, rely heavily on incinerators.>

air pollution reduction, water pollution> > prevention,>

rain forest preservation...>

it goes on and on. Even at the> > cost of the recycler it is worth the benefits, don't you think?> >

"TeGGerВ®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message>> news:d2strf$rud$0@p­ita.alt.net...>>> Josh wrote:>>>

Land fill consumption,>

Landfills are under a similarly artificially-create­d shortage situation.>> http://www.texasep.­org/html/wst/wst_1ms­w_lndfll.html >>

Landfills occupy a microscopic amount of land.>>

Typical example: Indiana (38 states are bigger).>> Total area: 36,420 square miles>> Landfills: 5 square miles.>> Percentage of land occupied by landfills: 0.1%>>

http://www.in.gov/i­dem/soe2002/land/lan­dfills.html>>

And now Texas, the biggest state:>> Total area: 262,000 square miles>> Landfills: 49 square miles>> Percentage of land occupied by landfills: 0.02%>>

Some problem. Big deal.>>

Ever seen (smelled) a paper recycling mill? Did you know that for every 100 >> tons of recycled paper you get 40 tons of useless, toxic sludge that must >> be burned or buried?>>

And how much more diesel do you burn sending around TWO trucks to collect >> the garbage that used to be collected by one? Did you know how much nitric >> oxide diesels produce?>

Productivity is growning because companies are forcing fewer workers>> to do the same amount of work as when there were more.>

I should have>> said the economy isn't growing at a proportionate rate to the rise in>> oil/gas prices.>

And that justifies prohibiting it? Non sequitur, Gary.>

Your statement is incomplete. Please give sources of Republican Party>> funding. A tidbit: Labor unions are the #1 source of Democrat funds.>

Landfills are under a similarly artificially-create­d shortage situation.>

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message>>news:d2sv9­9$rud$1@pita.alt.net­...>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:>>> > Simple fact: The amount of oil in the ANWR wouldn't make a dent.>>>

Of course it does.>>

In article <d2sv99$rud$1@pita.­alt.net>, TeGGer® <tegger@istop.c0m> >>wrote:>>

Adjusted for inflation, gas is still cheaper today than in 1981.>

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:23:06 -0400, "Josh">> <nospam@anywherebut­rightoverthere.net> wrote:>>

May as well face it, Josh. They've been so totally brainwashed by>> their republican shill parents that they'll never admit that the Bush>> administration has fucked up more than its done right.>

The will forever deny that he lied. They will forever deny that he>> took us into an unjust war>

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:10:04 GMT, dbu'' <nospam@spam.com> wrote:>>

That line doesn't cut it. Fuel prices of all kinds have shot up at>> frightening rates.>

The money isn't going to companies to pull it from>> the ground like it did in 81. It's going to shareholders and CEO's.>

Absolutely. So let's fix it by making it easier for oil companies to>>build more refineries so the price of gas can go down.>

Your statement is incomplete. Please give sources of Republican Party>> funding. A tidbit: Labor unions are the #1 source of Democrat funds.>

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:10:04 GMT, dbu'' <nospam@spam.com> wrote:>>

That line doesn't cut it. Fuel prices of all kinds have shot up at>> frightening rates.>

"Josh" <nospam@anywherebut­rightoverthere.net> wrote in>> news:25mdnT18JeTCYc­zfUSdV9g@ptd.net:>>

Landfills are under a similarly artificially-create­d shortage>> situation.>

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message>> news:Xns962EE1A0119­Etegger@207.14.113.1­7...>>> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix­.com> wrote in>>> news:d2solf$ecs$3@m­3t00.databasix.com:>­>>

I think you guys are missing the big point of recycling.>>

High oil prices following from environmental laws are not Bush's>> fault.>

On 5 Apr 2005 13:18:36 GMT, "TeGGerВ®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote:>>

That'd work if the price of gas was high because of the lack of>> refineries. That's not why it went up so fast. They claim is demand>> causes the increases but when demand is low, the price doesn't EVER go>> back down to where it was.>

The Oil Companies are all reporting record>> PROFITS. They're not spending the money on ways to make safer, more>> environment friendly refineries, they're lining their pockets.>

Were an oil company to want to build a refinery in my town (doubtful>> given there's no direct access to a coastline), I'd be all for it and>> do what I could to make it so.>>

But I'm also an advocate for finding alternatives to fossil fuels.>> That's something Bush is dead set against. What reason, other than>> greed, could there be for such a position?>

As they should be. Making garbage and burying it is NOT a good thing.>

Yes, because of environmental laws.>>

TeGGerВ® wrote:>>> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix­.com> wrote in>>> news:d2u2fe$s9v$9@d­impledchad.databasix­.com:>>>

Environmental laws are been in effect for a long time so. Look to>> China's incredible ramp up in crude oil purchase on world markets as>> the single largest source of increased oil per barrel pricing.>>

So you drive your own trash to the dump in protest or do you use the>> trucks that come by?>

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix­.com> wrote in>>news:d2u1rr$s9v­$6@m3t00.databasix.c­om: >>

Well, since we're now on a two-bag limit, I drive the excess to the dump >>myself. Some other people are simply discarding their excess in the ditches >>around here.>

TeGGer® wrote:>>> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix­.com> wrote in>>> news:d2u2fe$s9v$9@d­impledchad.databasix­.com:>>>

Environmental laws are been in effect for a long time so. Look to>> China's incredible ramp up in crude oil purchase on world markets as>> the single largest source of increased oil per barrel pricing.>>

Gary L. Burnore wrote:>>> On 5 Apr 2005 03:30:22 GMT, "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote:>>>

It the best thing to do. Obviously YOU have NOT thought out the>> alternatives. When I drove linehaul, I hauled quite a bit of paper>> trash to OTHER STATES for ... burial.>

That opportunity passed.>> -->>

- Philip

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix­.com> wrote in>>news:d2u1rr$s9v­$6@m3t00.databasix.c­om: >>

Well, since we're now on a two-bag limit, I drive the excess to the>>dump myself. Some other people are simply discarding their excess in>>the ditches around here.>

Burial is not the best thing for our earth. Much better alternatives>> exist. They're just more expensive. Meaning they'd take money out of>> the pockets of CEO's.>

China's demand has been rising since 1986.>> http://tinyurl.com/­zgy1>>

It's a factor in the current price, but a small one. Demand that>> occurs over such a long time could have been easily dealt with in the>> form of additional capacity, if it were the only factor.>>

But as you can see, output has been fairly steady over time.>> http://tinyurl.com/­yprlk>>

There are many factors that have raised the price.>

Since you're quite handy with the websites so, might you look up the>> status of oil refinery construction and destruction in CA and Texas>> over the past 40 years? Most recently, there is a Shell refinery>> near Bakersfield that Shell wants to close down with no plans of>> replacement. BIG hoopla over that desire. Not a crude shortage,>> rather a refining shortage they want to in order to drive up pricing>> just like the contrived "shortage in the '70's. >

China's demand has been rising since 1986.> > http://tinyurl.com/­zgy1> >

It's a factor in the current price, but a small one. Demand that> > occurs over such a long time could have been easily dealt with in the> > form of additional capacity, if it were the only factor.> >

But as you can see, output has been fairly steady over time.> > http://tinyurl.com/­yprlk> >

There are many factors that have raised the price.>

I said: "There has not been a refinery built in the US since 1976. At>>least a couple have even closed in the meantime.>

Gary L. Burnore wrote:>>

Gary - no one is forcing you to buy a Hummer. >>

Why don't you do something positive? Lead by example, show us how to save the planet by >>setting an example.>>

I will start - I telecomute from home three days a week - saving 180 >>miles a week of driving. >>

I work in the office the other three days ­>>Yes, this means I work 6 days a week on salary. I am doing my part in >>saving gas and helping the productivity of the nation!>>

Your turn Gary . . .>>

Gary L. Burnore wrote:>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:19:25 GMT, "Philip">>> <1chip-state1@earth­link.n0t> wrote:>>>

I suppose you have had council with Mother Earth? She talks to>> you, does "She?" RUBBISH ... is good for earth.>

Decomposition. Be sure you are>> buried. Worm food. Get over your class warfare BS (your infatuation>> with CEOs ....>

a failed career aspiration of yours).>

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:57:02 -0400, ma_twain <ma_twain@yahoo.com­>>> wrote:>>

No one is stopping people from wasting money by buying a hummer _AND_>> getting a credit to do so. Someone is, however, taking away the>> credit for people who would move away from our dependence on oil.>> That someone is the current administration.>>

I work from home EVERY day. Saving LOTS of miles driving.>>

I already beat you with that one, but sure here's another: I recycle>> everything I possibly can. Heh, the company that picks up the stuff>> for our towm HATES our house.>>

You are WAY behind the curve. I started noticing the offshore move>> back in the 1960's. GW Bush was not in Office then.>

The state of NC didn't move it's recuiters offshore until 2003. Nor>> did several firms I'm directly familiar with. Yeah, it started in>> the 60's, but it has picked up drastically in the last 5 years.>

gburnore@databasix.­com wrote:>>> Philip <1chip-state1@earth­link.n0t> wrote:>>>

Sorry. You are in error about the past 5 years.>