You're issue isn't with electric or gas, your issue is with energy storage/refueling ability.
How about a vehicle with electric motors that run off a gas generator? That would do exactly what you ask for and still be much more efficient. Sort of like how diesel electric locomotives work. The electric motors are MUCH more efficient that ICE's, so you use a gas generator to power the electric motors.
That is an idea I would be open to, though I'd be leery aobut it in a car I have to depend on every day to get to work. I don't like the added complexity and maintenance vs. the simple vehicles I currently own that are cheap to own, operate, and repair. I find the technology very interesting though and would consider a diesel/electric for my boat. Epic is the only boat manufacturer making sucha system for wake boats. Have a look:
Epic has a truly usable design that can replace tradition gas wake boats. I'm not rich so I don't own waterfront property. That means I trailer to the water and will be out for 4-10 hours typically. It's not convenient to just go out for an hour or two due to all the work getting the boat ready, hooked up, towed to water, cleaned up afterwards, etc. It'll burn about 6-7 GPH and has a 46 gallon tank. So if I'm out all day, and go far from the ramp, say, down to the city to get lunch on the water, I might need to refuel. I can stop anywhere along the river and refuel quickly and easily. With Epic's hybrid design I could use the boat the same way... So it's a practical replacement... Granted, new wake boats are in teh $50k-$80k range and I could enver afford one. I'm sure the 23e is another $30k at least. The problem becomes figuring the break even point for someone who can afford to spend over $100k on a new wake boat. Will it save them money in the 1-5 years your typical new boat buyer will own it? Or is it cheaper for them to just run a conventional gas engine boat? If the latter, these hybrids will never get on the used market where guys like me might consider them.
Nautique has made an all electric towboat. While a neat idea, it's not a wake boat and isn't suitable to run ballast and put out a large wake. It's a slalom boat and can only do a couple pulls through a slalom course before needing to be charged for 4 hours. This is the biggest problem with electric vehicles. This type of boat would be alright for someone who lives on the water, typically takes a couple quick sets in teh morning before work or in the evening after work, and has a dock with 220v power to it (most places you can't do this as local government or Army Corps won't let you run 220v to your dock or shoreline, or have lots of restrictions on it). It's not practical for how the vast majority of watersports enthusiasts use their boats since it won't even get a couple hours from a charge. This type of electric vehicle is an expensive novelty.
I could turn this statement around and say, Oil/Gas might be ok for now, but they will run out. Let alone the environmental damage they are doing.
So we can either spend the time twiddling our thumbs until fossil fuels are much more expensive, or we can start investing and researching in electrics now so that the time when they do 'get there' gets here quicker and we don't have to pay $10/gallon for gas.
I'm not worried about this. We won't run out in my lifetime and I think any environmental damage is overstated. It's a concern to me of course, and I deal with that concern by riding my mo
I'll grant you that. I'm not opposed to the technology itself (though I am opposed to being forced to subsidize it), I find it interesting and it's getting better as time goes on. I'm sure there will be a point at which they have are feasible alternatives to gas/diesel vehicles... At which point I would consider driving one.
I'm a motorhead and I don't want an electric car. I like my truck that gives me a 700+ mile range or a 550+ mile range towing and can be refueled and ready to go in a few minutes. I like my motorcycle that's fuel efficient at nearly 50 MPG. I like my '60s econobox that is knocking on 40 MPG.
Electric cars are cool and I'd consider one just for a daily driver econobox if it could get me a cost of under $.09/mile for a purchase cost of $10k or less, range of 400+ miles, 5-10 minutes to full charge, while having no luxury emenities, power accessories, etc. Just a bare bones econobox similar to a '60s econobox but with a lower cost per mile. Electric cars might get there, but it'll be a while. Sure they're neat for the novelty and I know a few guys who have converted cars to electric by making a custom bellhousing to a normal 4 or 5 speed transmission with a huge bank of batteries. It's cool, but 20-40 mile range and long charge times aren't gonna do it for me.
55* is enough to keep the pipes from freezing. I don't have the money to justify a cozy 68*-72*. Want it warmer? That's why they make clothes and blankets.
Some of this I gather since I have a friend who is a "sex offender" for frivolous reasons, amounting to talking to a girl online that he met at a party who lied about her age. The parents checked her computer and filed charges against him. They never actually had sex, to which both him and the girl testified. But because it was "suspicious" the State came down hard on him. Talking to my friend he has had to do counceling and psychiatric evaluations and all sorts of crazy stuff. He says at the group meetings most of the people we convicted just like him when they were young for stupid situations with a girl a couple years younger, or for doing something stupid (and harmless) while drunk, taking a leak and someone taking offense, and all sorts of nonsense.
More waste of taxpayer money. Ignoring all the moral and legal sisues of stealing from people and giving to those who didn't earn it... The companies making solar cells have a vested interest in making them as cheap as possible to manufacture. It allows them to lower prices and still make more profit, making their product more competitive. Government intervention is unnecessary and wasteful, and as with Solyndra can have unintended consequences and outcomes. Stop with these subsidies and lower taxes by a proportionate amount. Maybe when I have more money in my pocket I can afford to do some alternative energy projects of my own to be less dependant on the grid. The more government intervenes, the less I can afford such things.
I don't care about riding a glorified bus being enjoyable. The point is to get me quickly and cheaply from point A to point B. I'd do standing room only if it was an option and got me a cheaper ticket.
Now I have yet another source to see where every dude in town who had to take a leak really bad and went in the bushes lives. Newsflash, the vast majority of "sex offenders" haven't violated anyone's rights. They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that. This "war" on sex offenders is getting to be as ridiculous as the "war" on drugs. The "sex offender" label is just another way to collect taxes and ruin people's lives, which seems to be the goal of the police and courts anymore. There are already laws against assault, abduction, and other truly violent crimes. No need for "sex offender" laws as it's already covered under so many other laws.
I'll keep driving my old carbureted vehicles. They just plain work every time. I only owned one fuel injected vehicle and it was the worst vehicle I ever owned. Carbureted vehicles with no computers just plain work every time, so that's what I'll stick with. Technology is great and I enjoy working with it in my career, but I flat out do not need a computer or any fancy electronics in my vehicles.
I wish I would have been "locked out college", it would ahve saved me wasting over $100k to not learn a damn thing that I could apply at work, and not even have a degree since I ran out of money... After being lied to, classes cancelled, overbilled, changed $21k for six months of not being allowed to sign up for classes, and tuition hikes around $10k per year. Ron Paul is on the money, attack the problem at the source by cutting taxpayer funding for these schools, then they will have to bring prices back to reasonable levels.
Student loans SUCK, but they are the only thing that allows a large number of low to middle income people get into the career they want and need.
Speaking as a successful systems administrator who dropped out of college after running out of money and refusing to take on any more loans after they crested $100k due to overbilling, lies, tuition increasing by $5k-12k per year, etc. by the university I was attending... Bullshit. Student loans are not what it takes for lower and middle income people to get into the career they want and/or need. I did it and was a successful sysadmin before going back to college in my early 20s. Depsite doing well at work, I am now at the brink of financial ruin, have no degree, and haven't learned anything at school useful to my career.
The best thing that could have happened for my career would have been to never go back to school. I could change jobs and be making more money working for another company, which I can't do since I have huge student loan payments and taking a change on a new job that might not work out means taking a chance on a bit over $100k in debt turning into a few hundred thousand or more, none of which is ever dischargeable in bankruptcy. I simply cannot afford to take chances leaving a secure decent paying job to try to get a better job to pay off these loans quicker and increase my quality of life. Forget about relocating to another part of the country, too risky. So many things I can't do. Student loans amount to slavery and prevent people from advancing to their desired level in the career they want and need.
Ron Paul's plan to eliminate federal student loans is an excellent one and might allow some truly smart kids to avoid becoming slaves to student loans and after colleges adjust prices and structure they will be able to pay cash as they go. Of course this would get the federal government out of something it has no business being in: Making unsecured loans, or any loans at all... The federal government is not a bank.
Because a smartphone is not a pleasant way to use bandwdith at all times and it is assumed people would prefer to use a laptop, desktop, tablet, etc., thus lowering the load on their network and shifting it to someone else's when using those devices.
The electric and water company don't care how you use their resources because they bill you by the unit, and each of those units has a cost for them to produce and deliver to you. That 2 MB you just used on your smartphone did cost them any more than if you had not used that 2 MB... Which makes selling bandwidth different as you are (or should be) more concerned with having enough for peak load, and keeping your network fairly saturated, though not so much as to adversely affect performance. What good is having a large expensive and fast data network if it is not bieng used? I think the cell companies ahven't realized the answer to that question just yet.
Regardless, I have two phones. My personal phone is just voice, and my work phone is "unlimited" data. I ahve gotten used to having internet with me anywhere, google maps, a browser, etc. but I don't need it and if I changed jobs and didn't have a company smartphone then I would not be willing to pay more to get those features on my personal phone... Certainly not with all the nonsense with limits and overage charged for data on already very expensive plans. Give me a simple cheap unlimited plan (even at a slow 2G speed) and I'll consider it. I don't need fast. If I can google something for every now and again when I want to look something up when I'm not near a computer, and have GPS display my position on a map with roads and satellite imagery (not locked, pay our monthly BS fee to unlock your phones built in GPS) then I'd be happy. My old 2G company phone did that and would be fine for my personal wants (note, wants not needs... I don't NEED a smartphone at all).
I would consider government subsidy resulting in increased cost and often decreased quality of whatever is being subsidized to be its own proof and evidence.
Agreed, excellent points. The problem is costs and the only reason late teen and early 20s "kids" are able to afford $30-$40k/yr school is becuase government (and private banks, reacting to government influence) and making these huge unsecured loans to people who often times don't have any income at all. These young adults don't yet understand finances and just how big those loans are, or how big their payments will be, how much they'll make in a job they might realistically get after school, or heck, how much government will take out of their paycheck before they can even think about paying rent, buying food, or paying those huge student loan payments. They are told the lies, by self serving people working at these institutions, among others, that college" is worth it no matter the cost", "you'll always be in debt or making payments on something, this is no different", etc...
Schools have no interest in lowering prices so long as as the government and banks enable them to charge these ludicrously high prices and keep raising prices thousands or even tens of thousands a year.
Maybe if the naysayers actually had over $100k in student loan debt to pay back over 10 years, dropped out of college from running out of money due to rapidly increasing tuition costs on top of already inflated costs and worked a job paying below average market rate, and are taxed out the wazoo while trying to pay back these loans what were supposed to get me "raised up", they would stop endorsing stealing (taxing) so much money from hard working people to subsidize student loans and college education for people who haven't earned it.
There is no competition since government will give loans to anyone, and government backing of private student loans (not dichargeable in bankruptcy, etc.) makes an incentive for banks to give easy loans for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, unsecured, to people who mostly don't even have jobs and have nothing to secure the loan with as collateral. After being a year or two in and seeing priced skyrocket each year frmo already insane costs, people (like myself) feel trapped and as though there is no choice but to pay the new price of $20k more than last year's tuition cost since you're already in the hole $60k or wahtever amount... And it's only one more year. Then the school screws you over on scheduling the classes you need to finish so it will require more tahn one additional year of tuition, bills you full time rate for the quarters they only offered classes in your program part time, and bills you $21k for 6 months they wouldn't let you take classes at all and just went to work every day like you did when you were taking classes. They then call this a cooperative internship experience and you're left with a huge bill to pay for absolutely nothing of value learned in any classes and no degree to "open doors" to higher paying jobs. Welcome to my hell, I blame myself for being young and foolish in believing the lies I was fed by several colleges and for believing higher education was affordable for middle class people like myself, but most of all I blame government for enabling and supporting this price gouging of young people.
Without government intervention the cost of a college degree would be affordable and I could have easily paid cash, but thanks to big government nonsense about making sure people are "raised up", I'm pretty much screwed for the next decade. Paying almost $2k/mo for a college degree I didn't get and living a miserable life of poverty while making significantly more money than most of my friends with college degrees. I'm supporting Ron Paul 100% on this issue. Without government subsidies college costs would return to affordable levels quickly. Without government favoritism for unsecured private student loans to banks would get out of student loans or be more strict with requirements and amounts, further forcing down college costs. This would be the best thing possible for college students.
Also note that if Ron Paul were to be elected he would be working for approx $40k/yr as president... The approximate median wage in this country. Ron Paul has never voted to increase congressional pay. If you look up his financials he is obviously rich by any average American's standard, but he is quite poor by most congressman's, senator's, or president's standard. He also has no debt. Ron Paul practices what he preaches and it works well for him. He is consistent and respectable. So far as I see he is the only candidate with integrity, valid priciples and logical speeches and debate.
Ah, Finland. A good part or my heritage is Finish. I do not approve of such socialism though. I wish for America to return to a country that respects individual liberty. Sorry friend, but you have no right to medical treatment. Any assumption of that is an assumption of slavery, as that treatment must come at the expense of another man's labor. You, as an individual, have no right to the fruit of another man's labor. That doesn't mean he may not be generous enough to offer his services to you for free or for a reduced rate, but that is between you and him... Government need not be involved stealing the fruit of my labor at gunpoint so you may have medical care.
Agreed. Much of Ron Paul's reasoning for eliminating these federal agencies is because they are duplicates on state level functions. The states will handle most of these functions themselves, as they do now and have done before those federal agencies existed, and wahtever is left that has value will be taken over by private companies, who may already do such things. I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul's plans. Cutting federal spending, and taxes too, is the only way to fix this economy.
Perhaps you should read more about Ron Paul and listen to him speak. He is for all of those things and has put forth bills to end the TSA, cut military spending, and end the wars. He has spent his life fighting for things like getting rid of TSA, DHS, and cutting military spending by something meaningful.
Higher education is free for all? Wonder how they acquire free buildings to use, free equipment to use, free energy to heat those buildings, and perhaps most curious is how they get people to teach those classes for free. Something makes me suspect this "free" education is not at all free and actually quite expensive, and not something which should be adopted in the US, or even could be adopted in the US. Here in the States we have certain natural rights outlined in the framing documents of our government which must be respected and preserved, or tyranny will have won and there will be no liberty at all.
That being that, higher education is not necessary or desirable for everyone. I am doing well enough in IT without a degree. That is after dropping out after racking up over $100k in student loans while working full time in my field the whole time I was in classes. My school screwed me over on scheduling, overbilled, and billed for two quarters they would not allow me to take classes. That burned theough the rest of my budget and I had to drop out with only a few classes left as I ran out of money. I'm not rich but I manage fine and once my loans are paid off I'll be doing very well without having that nearly $2k/mo student loan bill.
The funny thing is though, I'm doing a lot better than all my friends from school who were blessed with rich parents or being poor/unemployed/minority/etc. to qualify for more loans and grants and able to finish school either with as much or more debt than me or with little or no debt. I have a better job and make more than them, that is the few who were fortunate enough to find an IT job at all. Aside from that, I didn't really learn much in college. About 95% or more was boring useless things you don't use in the real world or that were too basic. The classes were always brought down to the dumbest common denominator. Biggest waste of time and money in my life.
I know plenty of people making decent money doing mechanic work, building permance engines, transmissions, auto body, plumbing, and electrical work. None have college degrees or any higher education and none would have benefited from it. Food for thought, and goes to show you can make a good living without a degree both as white collar and blue collar. Not everyone fits the same mold.
Clearly whoever wrote this has not been to the 1/4 mile drags when rotaries are running. They are loud as hell and it only gets louder when they spin to the moon. Though it is fun watching them blow up, as for ever few rotaries that make a pass one will have a catastrophic failure. Shame it shuts the track down for at least 15-20 minutes while they clean up the mess, leaving all of us waiting to make passes bitching about how much rotaries suck.
A big part of this is how vague they are about the fee. Let's say I want to pay $150 to a person for an item I bought. There is no simple way to do this with PayPal. I must go search to find what PayPal's fee structure of the day is or use a calculator from a third party to figure the amount I need to send. That's just plain asinine. Why does PayPal want to hide their fee instead of making it very cisible for everyone? Why is the fee a percentage of the money sent? I would imagine they have a fixed transaction cost. It doesn't cost me more to send a check for $1 or $1000. So why have some integrity and charge a fixed fee for the service? $.50 per transaction, that's more than banks needed for credit card/debit card transactions to be profitable. Heck, even $1. A simple fixed fee would make sense. Regardless, you asked so I'm telling why I hate eBay and PayPal and what it would tkae for me to use PayPal.
I hate them because of their large fee, especially when purchasing something on eBay. First we bend you over with a insanely huge eBay fees, then we rape you some more with some vague PayPal (eBay) fees. I will not use eBay or PayPal anymore to buy or sell items. Make the PayPal fee a fixed 50 cents per transaction and I'd use it. Until then I'll just send payment in the mail.
I don't understand how this would result in the poorest being taxed higher. If you are genuinely poor you don't buy things like TVs, stereos, new cars, or even new ovens. Heck, I'm not poor, but I have over $100k in student loans to pay off with my meager earnings after the government takes over 50%... I don't own a TV or an air conditioner, I don't buy new things like cars, ovens, refridgerators, or plates/glasses/silverware. The necessities that are infrequent purchases, appliances, plates, etc. can all be had second hand for VERY cheap (sometimes free), without paying any taxes. It would remain that way under a system where sales tax was the primary means of government revenue.
Poor people do not buy many new things, they don't pay a lot of sales tax. That would not change, unless poor people chose to buy new things that they don't really need. A sales tax is an optional tax. If you cant' afford it, or don't like how the money is spent it becomes very easy to not pay taxes. As far as distribution of taxes among the rich and poor, I believe the well to do would be paying a lot more taxes as they can't hide from them. Many genuinely rich people don't pay any income tax at all, as they have no income (on paper). They do purchase things though, to enjoy the extravagant lifestyle they may have... Flat screen TVs, home theater setups, all the latest gee-whiz iWhatevers, new cars every couple years, and all sorts of things. Those who can afford those things will not stop buying them just because their tax has been shifted from being taken from their income to being taken from their expenses or spending. Clearly you believe otherwise, please cite some theories or examples of how such a tax structure would tax the poor more than the rich. I believe this system would tax everyone fairly, as it would tax them only as much as they are willing to pay.
It sounds to me like you want a truly fair taxation system, without inequalities. If you want to do that sort of system, there is another that would be better than an income tax and would be very simple. Take the total government budget for the year and divide by number of people in the country. Children's taxes must be paid by the parents. It's only $11,370 per person. Seems very affordable to me. I currently get taxed more than that. So I get taxed less and absolutely unquestionably pay my fair share... As does everyone else. The nice benefit of a tax system like this is entitlement and redistribution of wealth programs would quickly end as people who normally receive such stolen moneys became irate about how much it was costing them. Military spending on unconstitutional wars would quickly end, and lots of other spending that is plain unnecessary and not the role of government. I could see those per person taxes, if distributed truly evenly and fairly, dropping to well under $2500/person. This would be a great way of fixing the federal tax structure.
Agreed. Prohibition never works. It only breeds crime and violent criminal organizations which would never exist without prohibition. Legalize drugs and pull the rug out from under these violent gangs.
Slashdot Mirror
You're issue isn't with electric or gas, your issue is with energy storage/refueling ability. How about a vehicle with electric motors that run off a gas generator? That would do exactly what you ask for and still be much more efficient. Sort of like how diesel electric locomotives work. The electric motors are MUCH more efficient that ICE's, so you use a gas generator to power the electric motors.
That is an idea I would be open to, though I'd be leery aobut it in a car I have to depend on every day to get to work. I don't like the added complexity and maintenance vs. the simple vehicles I currently own that are cheap to own, operate, and repair. I find the technology very interesting though and would consider a diesel/electric for my boat. Epic is the only boat manufacturer making sucha system for wake boats. Have a look:
http://23e.epicboats.com/
http://23e.epicboats.com/
http://www.boatingmag.com/boats/sport/epic-23e
http://www.gizmag.com/epic-23e-electric-hybrid-sport-boat/11107/
Epic has a truly usable design that can replace tradition gas wake boats. I'm not rich so I don't own waterfront property. That means I trailer to the water and will be out for 4-10 hours typically. It's not convenient to just go out for an hour or two due to all the work getting the boat ready, hooked up, towed to water, cleaned up afterwards, etc. It'll burn about 6-7 GPH and has a 46 gallon tank. So if I'm out all day, and go far from the ramp, say, down to the city to get lunch on the water, I might need to refuel. I can stop anywhere along the river and refuel quickly and easily. With Epic's hybrid design I could use the boat the same way... So it's a practical replacement... Granted, new wake boats are in teh $50k-$80k range and I could enver afford one. I'm sure the 23e is another $30k at least. The problem becomes figuring the break even point for someone who can afford to spend over $100k on a new wake boat. Will it save them money in the 1-5 years your typical new boat buyer will own it? Or is it cheaper for them to just run a conventional gas engine boat? If the latter, these hybrids will never get on the used market where guys like me might consider them.
Nautique has made an all electric towboat. While a neat idea, it's not a wake boat and isn't suitable to run ballast and put out a large wake. It's a slalom boat and can only do a couple pulls through a slalom course before needing to be charged for 4 hours. This is the biggest problem with electric vehicles. This type of boat would be alright for someone who lives on the water, typically takes a couple quick sets in teh morning before work or in the evening after work, and has a dock with 220v power to it (most places you can't do this as local government or Army Corps won't let you run 220v to your dock or shoreline, or have lots of restrictions on it). It's not practical for how the vast majority of watersports enthusiasts use their boats since it won't even get a couple hours from a charge. This type of electric vehicle is an expensive novelty.
I could turn this statement around and say, Oil/Gas might be ok for now, but they will run out. Let alone the environmental damage they are doing. So we can either spend the time twiddling our thumbs until fossil fuels are much more expensive, or we can start investing and researching in electrics now so that the time when they do 'get there' gets here quicker and we don't have to pay $10/gallon for gas.
I'm not worried about this. We won't run out in my lifetime and I think any environmental damage is overstated. It's a concern to me of course, and I deal with that concern by riding my mo
I'll grant you that. I'm not opposed to the technology itself (though I am opposed to being forced to subsidize it), I find it interesting and it's getting better as time goes on. I'm sure there will be a point at which they have are feasible alternatives to gas/diesel vehicles... At which point I would consider driving one.
I'm a motorhead and I don't want an electric car. I like my truck that gives me a 700+ mile range or a 550+ mile range towing and can be refueled and ready to go in a few minutes. I like my motorcycle that's fuel efficient at nearly 50 MPG. I like my '60s econobox that is knocking on 40 MPG.
Electric cars are cool and I'd consider one just for a daily driver econobox if it could get me a cost of under $.09/mile for a purchase cost of $10k or less, range of 400+ miles, 5-10 minutes to full charge, while having no luxury emenities, power accessories, etc. Just a bare bones econobox similar to a '60s econobox but with a lower cost per mile. Electric cars might get there, but it'll be a while. Sure they're neat for the novelty and I know a few guys who have converted cars to electric by making a custom bellhousing to a normal 4 or 5 speed transmission with a huge bank of batteries. It's cool, but 20-40 mile range and long charge times aren't gonna do it for me.
55* is enough to keep the pipes from freezing. I don't have the money to justify a cozy 68*-72*. Want it warmer? That's why they make clothes and blankets.
Some of this I gather since I have a friend who is a "sex offender" for frivolous reasons, amounting to talking to a girl online that he met at a party who lied about her age. The parents checked her computer and filed charges against him. They never actually had sex, to which both him and the girl testified. But because it was "suspicious" the State came down hard on him. Talking to my friend he has had to do counceling and psychiatric evaluations and all sorts of crazy stuff. He says at the group meetings most of the people we convicted just like him when they were young for stupid situations with a girl a couple years younger, or for doing something stupid (and harmless) while drunk, taking a leak and someone taking offense, and all sorts of nonsense.
Rethinking registries
I'd hate ot be this guy
Don't take a leak
More waste of taxpayer money. Ignoring all the moral and legal sisues of stealing from people and giving to those who didn't earn it... The companies making solar cells have a vested interest in making them as cheap as possible to manufacture. It allows them to lower prices and still make more profit, making their product more competitive. Government intervention is unnecessary and wasteful, and as with Solyndra can have unintended consequences and outcomes. Stop with these subsidies and lower taxes by a proportionate amount. Maybe when I have more money in my pocket I can afford to do some alternative energy projects of my own to be less dependant on the grid. The more government intervenes, the less I can afford such things.
I don't care about riding a glorified bus being enjoyable. The point is to get me quickly and cheaply from point A to point B. I'd do standing room only if it was an option and got me a cheaper ticket.
Now I have yet another source to see where every dude in town who had to take a leak really bad and went in the bushes lives. Newsflash, the vast majority of "sex offenders" haven't violated anyone's rights. They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that. This "war" on sex offenders is getting to be as ridiculous as the "war" on drugs. The "sex offender" label is just another way to collect taxes and ruin people's lives, which seems to be the goal of the police and courts anymore. There are already laws against assault, abduction, and other truly violent crimes. No need for "sex offender" laws as it's already covered under so many other laws.
I'll keep driving my old carbureted vehicles. They just plain work every time. I only owned one fuel injected vehicle and it was the worst vehicle I ever owned. Carbureted vehicles with no computers just plain work every time, so that's what I'll stick with. Technology is great and I enjoy working with it in my career, but I flat out do not need a computer or any fancy electronics in my vehicles.
I wish I would have been "locked out college", it would ahve saved me wasting over $100k to not learn a damn thing that I could apply at work, and not even have a degree since I ran out of money... After being lied to, classes cancelled, overbilled, changed $21k for six months of not being allowed to sign up for classes, and tuition hikes around $10k per year. Ron Paul is on the money, attack the problem at the source by cutting taxpayer funding for these schools, then they will have to bring prices back to reasonable levels.
Student loans SUCK, but they are the only thing that allows a large number of low to middle income people get into the career they want and need.
Speaking as a successful systems administrator who dropped out of college after running out of money and refusing to take on any more loans after they crested $100k due to overbilling, lies, tuition increasing by $5k-12k per year, etc. by the university I was attending... Bullshit. Student loans are not what it takes for lower and middle income people to get into the career they want and/or need. I did it and was a successful sysadmin before going back to college in my early 20s. Depsite doing well at work, I am now at the brink of financial ruin, have no degree, and haven't learned anything at school useful to my career.
The best thing that could have happened for my career would have been to never go back to school. I could change jobs and be making more money working for another company, which I can't do since I have huge student loan payments and taking a change on a new job that might not work out means taking a chance on a bit over $100k in debt turning into a few hundred thousand or more, none of which is ever dischargeable in bankruptcy. I simply cannot afford to take chances leaving a secure decent paying job to try to get a better job to pay off these loans quicker and increase my quality of life. Forget about relocating to another part of the country, too risky. So many things I can't do. Student loans amount to slavery and prevent people from advancing to their desired level in the career they want and need.
Ron Paul's plan to eliminate federal student loans is an excellent one and might allow some truly smart kids to avoid becoming slaves to student loans and after colleges adjust prices and structure they will be able to pay cash as they go. Of course this would get the federal government out of something it has no business being in: Making unsecured loans, or any loans at all... The federal government is not a bank.
Because a smartphone is not a pleasant way to use bandwdith at all times and it is assumed people would prefer to use a laptop, desktop, tablet, etc., thus lowering the load on their network and shifting it to someone else's when using those devices.
The electric and water company don't care how you use their resources because they bill you by the unit, and each of those units has a cost for them to produce and deliver to you. That 2 MB you just used on your smartphone did cost them any more than if you had not used that 2 MB... Which makes selling bandwidth different as you are (or should be) more concerned with having enough for peak load, and keeping your network fairly saturated, though not so much as to adversely affect performance. What good is having a large expensive and fast data network if it is not bieng used? I think the cell companies ahven't realized the answer to that question just yet.
Regardless, I have two phones. My personal phone is just voice, and my work phone is "unlimited" data. I ahve gotten used to having internet with me anywhere, google maps, a browser, etc. but I don't need it and if I changed jobs and didn't have a company smartphone then I would not be willing to pay more to get those features on my personal phone... Certainly not with all the nonsense with limits and overage charged for data on already very expensive plans. Give me a simple cheap unlimited plan (even at a slow 2G speed) and I'll consider it. I don't need fast. If I can google something for every now and again when I want to look something up when I'm not near a computer, and have GPS display my position on a map with roads and satellite imagery (not locked, pay our monthly BS fee to unlock your phones built in GPS) then I'd be happy. My old 2G company phone did that and would be fine for my personal wants (note, wants not needs... I don't NEED a smartphone at all).
I would consider government subsidy resulting in increased cost and often decreased quality of whatever is being subsidized to be its own proof and evidence.
Agreed, excellent points. The problem is costs and the only reason late teen and early 20s "kids" are able to afford $30-$40k/yr school is becuase government (and private banks, reacting to government influence) and making these huge unsecured loans to people who often times don't have any income at all. These young adults don't yet understand finances and just how big those loans are, or how big their payments will be, how much they'll make in a job they might realistically get after school, or heck, how much government will take out of their paycheck before they can even think about paying rent, buying food, or paying those huge student loan payments. They are told the lies, by self serving people working at these institutions, among others, that college" is worth it no matter the cost", "you'll always be in debt or making payments on something, this is no different", etc...
Schools have no interest in lowering prices so long as as the government and banks enable them to charge these ludicrously high prices and keep raising prices thousands or even tens of thousands a year.
Maybe if the naysayers actually had over $100k in student loan debt to pay back over 10 years, dropped out of college from running out of money due to rapidly increasing tuition costs on top of already inflated costs and worked a job paying below average market rate, and are taxed out the wazoo while trying to pay back these loans what were supposed to get me "raised up", they would stop endorsing stealing (taxing) so much money from hard working people to subsidize student loans and college education for people who haven't earned it.
There is no competition since government will give loans to anyone, and government backing of private student loans (not dichargeable in bankruptcy, etc.) makes an incentive for banks to give easy loans for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, unsecured, to people who mostly don't even have jobs and have nothing to secure the loan with as collateral. After being a year or two in and seeing priced skyrocket each year frmo already insane costs, people (like myself) feel trapped and as though there is no choice but to pay the new price of $20k more than last year's tuition cost since you're already in the hole $60k or wahtever amount... And it's only one more year. Then the school screws you over on scheduling the classes you need to finish so it will require more tahn one additional year of tuition, bills you full time rate for the quarters they only offered classes in your program part time, and bills you $21k for 6 months they wouldn't let you take classes at all and just went to work every day like you did when you were taking classes. They then call this a cooperative internship experience and you're left with a huge bill to pay for absolutely nothing of value learned in any classes and no degree to "open doors" to higher paying jobs. Welcome to my hell, I blame myself for being young and foolish in believing the lies I was fed by several colleges and for believing higher education was affordable for middle class people like myself, but most of all I blame government for enabling and supporting this price gouging of young people.
Without government intervention the cost of a college degree would be affordable and I could have easily paid cash, but thanks to big government nonsense about making sure people are "raised up", I'm pretty much screwed for the next decade. Paying almost $2k/mo for a college degree I didn't get and living a miserable life of poverty while making significantly more money than most of my friends with college degrees. I'm supporting Ron Paul 100% on this issue. Without government subsidies college costs would return to affordable levels quickly. Without government favoritism for unsecured private student loans to banks would get out of student loans or be more strict with requirements and amounts, further forcing down college costs. This would be the best thing possible for college students.
Also note that if Ron Paul were to be elected he would be working for approx $40k/yr as president... The approximate median wage in this country. Ron Paul has never voted to increase congressional pay. If you look up his financials he is obviously rich by any average American's standard, but he is quite poor by most congressman's, senator's, or president's standard. He also has no debt. Ron Paul practices what he preaches and it works well for him. He is consistent and respectable. So far as I see he is the only candidate with integrity, valid priciples and logical speeches and debate.
Ah, Finland. A good part or my heritage is Finish. I do not approve of such socialism though. I wish for America to return to a country that respects individual liberty. Sorry friend, but you have no right to medical treatment. Any assumption of that is an assumption of slavery, as that treatment must come at the expense of another man's labor. You, as an individual, have no right to the fruit of another man's labor. That doesn't mean he may not be generous enough to offer his services to you for free or for a reduced rate, but that is between you and him... Government need not be involved stealing the fruit of my labor at gunpoint so you may have medical care.
Agreed. Much of Ron Paul's reasoning for eliminating these federal agencies is because they are duplicates on state level functions. The states will handle most of these functions themselves, as they do now and have done before those federal agencies existed, and wahtever is left that has value will be taken over by private companies, who may already do such things. I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul's plans. Cutting federal spending, and taxes too, is the only way to fix this economy.
Perhaps you should read more about Ron Paul and listen to him speak. He is for all of those things and has put forth bills to end the TSA, cut military spending, and end the wars. He has spent his life fighting for things like getting rid of TSA, DHS, and cutting military spending by something meaningful.
Higher education is free for all? Wonder how they acquire free buildings to use, free equipment to use, free energy to heat those buildings, and perhaps most curious is how they get people to teach those classes for free. Something makes me suspect this "free" education is not at all free and actually quite expensive, and not something which should be adopted in the US, or even could be adopted in the US. Here in the States we have certain natural rights outlined in the framing documents of our government which must be respected and preserved, or tyranny will have won and there will be no liberty at all.
That being that, higher education is not necessary or desirable for everyone. I am doing well enough in IT without a degree. That is after dropping out after racking up over $100k in student loans while working full time in my field the whole time I was in classes. My school screwed me over on scheduling, overbilled, and billed for two quarters they would not allow me to take classes. That burned theough the rest of my budget and I had to drop out with only a few classes left as I ran out of money. I'm not rich but I manage fine and once my loans are paid off I'll be doing very well without having that nearly $2k/mo student loan bill.
The funny thing is though, I'm doing a lot better than all my friends from school who were blessed with rich parents or being poor/unemployed/minority/etc. to qualify for more loans and grants and able to finish school either with as much or more debt than me or with little or no debt. I have a better job and make more than them, that is the few who were fortunate enough to find an IT job at all. Aside from that, I didn't really learn much in college. About 95% or more was boring useless things you don't use in the real world or that were too basic. The classes were always brought down to the dumbest common denominator. Biggest waste of time and money in my life.
I know plenty of people making decent money doing mechanic work, building permance engines, transmissions, auto body, plumbing, and electrical work. None have college degrees or any higher education and none would have benefited from it. Food for thought, and goes to show you can make a good living without a degree both as white collar and blue collar. Not everyone fits the same mold.
I'm poor, so to me, money is a LOT more important than the environment.
Clearly whoever wrote this has not been to the 1/4 mile drags when rotaries are running. They are loud as hell and it only gets louder when they spin to the moon. Though it is fun watching them blow up, as for ever few rotaries that make a pass one will have a catastrophic failure. Shame it shuts the track down for at least 15-20 minutes while they clean up the mess, leaving all of us waiting to make passes bitching about how much rotaries suck.
A big part of this is how vague they are about the fee. Let's say I want to pay $150 to a person for an item I bought. There is no simple way to do this with PayPal. I must go search to find what PayPal's fee structure of the day is or use a calculator from a third party to figure the amount I need to send. That's just plain asinine. Why does PayPal want to hide their fee instead of making it very cisible for everyone? Why is the fee a percentage of the money sent? I would imagine they have a fixed transaction cost. It doesn't cost me more to send a check for $1 or $1000. So why have some integrity and charge a fixed fee for the service? $.50 per transaction, that's more than banks needed for credit card/debit card transactions to be profitable. Heck, even $1. A simple fixed fee would make sense. Regardless, you asked so I'm telling why I hate eBay and PayPal and what it would tkae for me to use PayPal.
I hate them because of their large fee, especially when purchasing something on eBay. First we bend you over with a insanely huge eBay fees, then we rape you some more with some vague PayPal (eBay) fees. I will not use eBay or PayPal anymore to buy or sell items. Make the PayPal fee a fixed 50 cents per transaction and I'd use it. Until then I'll just send payment in the mail.
I don't understand how this would result in the poorest being taxed higher. If you are genuinely poor you don't buy things like TVs, stereos, new cars, or even new ovens. Heck, I'm not poor, but I have over $100k in student loans to pay off with my meager earnings after the government takes over 50%... I don't own a TV or an air conditioner, I don't buy new things like cars, ovens, refridgerators, or plates/glasses/silverware. The necessities that are infrequent purchases, appliances, plates, etc. can all be had second hand for VERY cheap (sometimes free), without paying any taxes. It would remain that way under a system where sales tax was the primary means of government revenue.
Poor people do not buy many new things, they don't pay a lot of sales tax. That would not change, unless poor people chose to buy new things that they don't really need. A sales tax is an optional tax. If you cant' afford it, or don't like how the money is spent it becomes very easy to not pay taxes. As far as distribution of taxes among the rich and poor, I believe the well to do would be paying a lot more taxes as they can't hide from them. Many genuinely rich people don't pay any income tax at all, as they have no income (on paper). They do purchase things though, to enjoy the extravagant lifestyle they may have... Flat screen TVs, home theater setups, all the latest gee-whiz iWhatevers, new cars every couple years, and all sorts of things. Those who can afford those things will not stop buying them just because their tax has been shifted from being taken from their income to being taken from their expenses or spending. Clearly you believe otherwise, please cite some theories or examples of how such a tax structure would tax the poor more than the rich. I believe this system would tax everyone fairly, as it would tax them only as much as they are willing to pay.
It sounds to me like you want a truly fair taxation system, without inequalities. If you want to do that sort of system, there is another that would be better than an income tax and would be very simple. Take the total government budget for the year and divide by number of people in the country. Children's taxes must be paid by the parents. It's only $11,370 per person. Seems very affordable to me. I currently get taxed more than that. So I get taxed less and absolutely unquestionably pay my fair share... As does everyone else. The nice benefit of a tax system like this is entitlement and redistribution of wealth programs would quickly end as people who normally receive such stolen moneys became irate about how much it was costing them. Military spending on unconstitutional wars would quickly end, and lots of other spending that is plain unnecessary and not the role of government. I could see those per person taxes, if distributed truly evenly and fairly, dropping to well under $2500/person. This would be a great way of fixing the federal tax structure.
Agreed. Prohibition never works. It only breeds crime and violent criminal organizations which would never exist without prohibition. Legalize drugs and pull the rug out from under these violent gangs.