Not sure where you guys are from that teachers make $30k-$40k but here in NJ the range is more like $50k-$70k. Older teachers who'd been doing it forever, tenure, etc... There are many parts of the state where teachers are making over $100k, or at least putting the "underpaid" teachers in the rest of the state to shame. Oh, and I wish I got a 2-3 month vacation like teachers do, especially in prime summer weather. Bottom line is teachers here in NJ make a ludicrous amount of money for what they do and the amount of vacation they get, not to mention the great benefits. All of this is paid for by you and me. I can't wait to get out of this miserable state.
I would say fair share means the same specific amount. Divide federal government expenses by number of adults in this country, and there you have your fair tax burden. I firmly believe in small government with a primary role of protection of individual liberty and property rights. Other roles would include major infrastructure, defense, and others... All of which could be run successfully at much lower levels. Taxing the same dollar amount from every adult citizen to cover a given years expenses would fix government rather quickly as everyone would have a vested interest in keeping government spending at reasonable and justifiable levels.
For example...
2010 Federal spending: $3,552,000,000,000
2010 population: 308,745,538
2010 population excluding under 18: 234,564,071
2010 population excluding under 18 and over 62: 184,591,890
So under a truly fair and equal tax, ever adult from 18-62 years old would pay $19,242.45. Alternatively, make the fair and equal share of taxes payable by everyone, and it's only $11,504.62 per person. In this scenario paresnts would have to be liable for childrens taxes up to age 18. This would work as a great disincentive for the poor to have children.
This isn't a ridiculously unreasonable amount when fairly divided.People would be very angry and would quickly become interested in what government is spending money on instead of what the latest celebrity wore or said. What if we cut a few entitlement programs and other government waste we can see how that might affect the tax burden...
Eliminate Social Security: $724 billion savings
Eliminate Medicare: $462 billion savings
Eliminate Medicaid: $293 billion savings
Eliminate unemployment: $158 billion savings
Eliminate food stamps: $69 billion savings
Cut defense spending by 2/3 (probably could do more): $482 billion savings
Just those big ticket entitlements and defense spending amounts to $2,188 billion in savings... How does this apply to the tax burden on individuals under a truly fair and equal tax?
2010 federal spending after cuts to entitlements and defense: $1,364,000,000,000
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among adults age 18-62: $7,389.27
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among all adults: $5,815
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among everyone: $4,417.88
That tax burden doesn't seem all that unreasonable for anyone to pay under any of those three ways of dividing the tax burden. Those numbers are still quite high as I just cut the big easy ones. Defense could probably be cut a lot more, and with less defense spending and of course an less unconstitutional wars and invasions of sovereign nations, spending on veterans, war injuries, military reitrements and pensions, etc. would drop sharply once those people die off and the new base of such spending is on a smaller military that actually defends the country. There are surely plenty of other programs at lower spending levels that amount to entitlements and other redistribution programs. I would wager that is waht most of the remaining spending under my quickie budget cut plan consists of, and in fact that budget could be cut at least in half after a closer look, if not more.
Socialist or neocon, they're all the same these days. Just one has more of a "Gimme your wallet bro" kind of socialism and the other is more of a "Papers comrade" type of socialism. Both sides push the same agenda, just they push their own preferred form of socialism a little harder.
Agreed, I love titty-mice, but I get frustrated that it never takes too long before they don't return to center properly and will drift the pointer when you let go of it. There is no quick hotkey to recalibrate the center so you have to restart to get it fixed, and it might last a few minutes or all day before failing again. Although I love the titty-mouse, sadly they always wear out quickly so I carry a bluetooth mouse.
While I loathe eBay and use Craigslist as my primary buy/sell stuff site, CL has really been pissing me off lately. They attack and shut down aggregator sites, yet provide no easy way to search several local CL sites. If CL had an advanced search to simply type in a mile radius from your location to search, then there wouldn't be a need for aggregators. They refuse to implement this, yet still shut down aggregators.
I use Craigslist frequently for hard to find items, like parts to restore classic cars, uncommon engines and engine parts, rare transmissions, buying classic cars, looking for older inboard boats, and other things of this nature where the items I'm seeking are not common. I need an aggregator as I'm willing to drive anywhere from 200-1000 miles depending on the rarity and value of waht I'm looking for, as well as how long I've been looking. I'm not going to drive 1000 miles for an air conditioner, a refridgerator, a grill, wrenches, power tools, or other stuff like that which is relatively common and can easily be found locally if I opt to buy used. The bottom line though, is an aggregator is required to make Craigslist useful... That and my employer appreciates that by using an aggregator I spend less time searching CL at work.
As for eBay, I have a carburator I want to sell and figured eBay might be quicker to sel lthan Craigslist. I checked their fees and it would cost me $29 to sell. That's absurd! I would have to raise the cost by $29, plus add a disclaimer that if paying with PayPal please add 3% to the total price to account for PayPay (owned by eBay) fees. These costs would have to be added to price I want, pushing my price somewhat above the average market price for that carburetor, which means it might not sell at all and I'd be out the $2 insertion fee. So I quickly decided to not sell it on eBay and instead listed it on Craigslist as well as a couple automotive forums that I frequent.
Interesting chart. It would be so easy to cut anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of that budget and the country would be such a better place. NASA is trivial compared to other spending.
Engine technology has advanced a fair amount since 1962 to more accurately meter fuel. Overdrive transmissions allow you to have both good acceleration at low speeds and lower RPM at higher speeds for better fuel economy. Compact cars today should be getting 50-60+ MPG but they aren't. The reason there are no 40-60 MPG compact cars is because the DOT and the EPA won't allow it.
The DOT mandates all sorts of safety features that keep vehicles heavy. How many econoboxes today weigh 2300 lbs? Probably not many. Let people decide what safety features they value and build cars according to market demand, with some features standard and some optional. The DOT won't allow this. There was a time (1964 and earlier) when seatbelts were optional equipment, and there was a time before that in which seatbelts weren't even offered. They were introduced as an option before the DOT mandate in 1965 since people valued safety and seatbelts were a simple and affordable way to improve safety. People had a choice, as they should now.
The EPA has killed fuel economy with their pollution mandates. Many things that reduce emissions will increase fuel consumption. Let the consumer decide where the best value is, and offer more emmissions friendly, but less efficient engine packages as optional equipment. Simple things like a PCV valve and high flow catalytic converter will not hurt fuel economy, don't cost much compared to the cost of a new car, don't add expensive and time consuming maintenance and complexity, but still make good improvements in emissions output. People will decide where the balance for their needs and values is between price, fuel economy, and emissions.
Heck, look at what the EPA did when they began CAFE. They eliminated fuel efficient station wagons getting 20-26 MPG as they didn't meet the CAFE MPG standards, so manufacturers stopped making them to avoid paying a hefty tax. Of course people still wanted large vehicles to make trips in, haul kids around, and whatever else. Manufacturers responded by making station wagons out of heavy trucks that were exempt frmo CAFE standards... Thus the beginning of the SUV as a mom-mobile. Prior to that SUVs were simple utilitarian vehicles. Look at a '60s or '70s Ford Broncos as an example of what SUVs were prior to CAFE legislation. After CAFE was enacted in 1975 manufacturers stopped making full size station wagons and shortly learned that if they made SUVs bigger, heavier, and more comfortable inside the people who wanted station wagons would grudsgingly shift to driving big inefficient trucks, and the manufacturer wouldn't have to pay a hefty tax to big government.
So for 1978 Ford redesigned the Bronco from a small utilitarian 4x4 into a big comfy SUV with many luxuries like power windows, power steering, full time all wheel drive, and many other features that would appeal to former station wagon drivers. This "big Bronco" had a short 2 year production run, then was redesigned again in 1980 to be even more comfortable as an every day driver instead of a truck, with features like independent front suspension. This 1980 Bronco design was a winner for the now soccer mom market segment and Ford stuck with the same Bronco for 16 years, as there were minimal changes from 1980-1996 other than slightly different sheet metal and different engine packages that bolted into the same chassis when fuel injection became the big thing.
What's interesting is in the past few years boat manufacturers, or shall I say marine engine manufacturers have been offering engines with catalytic converters as optional equipment. There engines have sold fairly well in some market segments despite no government mandate and a hefty price increase. The most notable boats that these optional catalyst engines sell in is wake boats. People that enjoy watersports (such as myself) want a clean exhaust as they are being pulled behind the boat. The biggest issue is when wake surfing, as you ride the wake right behind the boat and get a whiff of exhaust from time to time. Catalyti
Nothing magic going on here. The '68 with the 460 got 16-17 MPG pure highway. I heavily ported the heads on both intake and exhaust side, I have about an hour into each port, so 16+ hours of porting with lots of bowl and short turn work. Long tube headers into 3" exhaust with free flowing mufflers, 4* retarded smog timing chain swapped for a straight up double roller, and a 750 CFM Holley 4150 vacuum secondary. I don't recall what jets I have in it but I'd venture around 70 primary and 78 secondary.. Timing around 16* initial with a fast curve to ~38* total mechanical with additional vacuum advance using manifold vacuum, for total timing at highway cruise in the mid 40s. Cruising with lots of timing, off the power valve and secondaries closed means good MPG.
Aside from that, my '68 is not a base model Custom, or even the spruced up Custom 500. It is a Galaxie 500. It originally came with a 302, I swapped in the 460 as I wanted more power. MPG did not change much, I lost about 1 MPG compared to the high compression 302 I had in there previously (stock bottom end with ported closed chamber 289 heads), Ford aluminum 4v intake from an '80s Mustang and 600 CFM Holley 4160. This setup got better MPG than the factory low compression as cast heads and 2v Autolite 2100 carb.
The Falcon was a '63 with a 144 straight six making 85 HP, and a 3 speed manual on the column with an unsynchronized first gear. I rebuilt the carb (a tiny 1 barrel), rebuilt the distributor and tuned for more timing. I don't recall the timing curve though. I added a PCV valve to replcae the road draft tube, so with leaving the carb jetting factory and adding a PCV the mixture was slightly leaned. The Falcon didn't have much power, and certainly didn't get it's 30 MPG at 75-80, more like 65-70... and the car didn't have a lot more speed in it than that. I don't think high 30s to 40 MPG would be at all unfeasible with a T5 trans and some more tuning. These Falcons weighed in under 2500 lbs and are compact cars.
So I did find some documentation for 30+ MPG from an early 60s Falcon. Have a look for yourself...
My first car was a '67 Galaxie fastback, though mine only had a 289. unfortunately the frame was rotted away to almost nothing so I sold it to someone with the toosl and space to do a frame swap and restoration. Now that I have the tools and space I'm restoring a '68 Galaxie, though '67 will always be my favorite.
For what it's worth, my '68 with a stockish 460 only making about 330 HP gets just shy of 17 MPG on the highway at 75-80 MPH, with a 3 speed automatic, no overdrive. Once restored I'll have a real 460 in there pushing mroe like 500 HP, along with a T56 (6 speed manual,.5:1 overdrive) and be gunning for 25 MPG at 70 MPH... Comparable to a newer Crown Vic. Should be fun, I enjoy building performance drivelines for classic cars that get good fuel economy. Heck, I had a '63 Falcon for a while that got over 30 MPG highway, was shooting for 40 MPG but unfortunately someone crashed into it and that project was cut short.
I have absolutley no need to travel to another continent. Driving, and in some cases trains, are perfectly acceptable to me. Unfortuantely if Napolitano has her way, train passengers will soon be treated like airline passengers and that'll no longer be a travel option either.
Regardless, in the rare even I needed to travel to another continent there are these things called ships, which are made to travel across the oceas and seas from one continent to another. If you don't need to be there in a hurry you can get good rates and a unique experience as a passenger on a cargo ship.
We have no choice, it's forced on us by neocons and liberals alike. There are very few of us who believe in individual liberty, an important part of which is freedom of travel within our own country and not allowing arbitrary warrantless searches, much less arbitrary warrantless cavity searches. Personally I vote for those who oppose violation of my rights, and I refuse to fly anymore, driving is just fine.
I know I don't need delivery to my door. I wouldn't mind having no delivery and just a PO box. I would check once or twice a week or more often if I was expecting something important. If to the door service was eliminated in a lot of areas it would save them a lot on fuel and employee costs. Pretty much anything important I do online, through email and electronic payments. It's faster, cheaper, and easier. I just plain don't need daily delivery to my door. In a lot of rural areas they don't even offer that service at all addresses and the only option is to go to the post office and get your mail. I've been there and done that and it never bothered me.
I pay for all in person transactions in cash, credit card for online purchases. I don't see how there can be any advantage to replacing my current method of payment in either scenario with anything else. Even if phone companies weren't evil, I don't see any advantage.
I walked into the office after coming back from lunch and everyone was all excited about some earthquake or some such nonsense. I was driving and didn't feel a thing. The roads here are terrible though, but sure explains why everyone was loitering around outside buildings down the main drag in town.
A few years back I discovered the head of HR at my work was looking at porn on a nearly daily basis. Sure explained why he stayed really late all the time. This was resolved with a basically "don't do that" when the rest of HR and senior management were made aware of it. No repercussions or anything. Fast forward a couple years and there are a few people at some of our different locations looking at porn. Some of these were people who were not surfing but had just received email with pictures or links from those who did surf porn frequently. They were all fired without warning.
Of course these were all lower level employees, not making deep six figures with ridiculous benefits and compensation packages, etc. It absolutely disgusts me the way some of these companies operate.
I see this crap all the time and find it tremendously disrespectful. I fall in that 18-29 age group, though at the upper end. I have a few friends at the lower end of that spectrum and they're worse than my older friends. I generally don't call those younger "kids" very often. Why would I want to invite someone to be a guest in my home who is going to eat my food, drink my beer, and ignore me? Then when they can tell you're getting irritated, typically after you point it out at face value several times, they might engage in conversation for a minute or two. Though when they do, you can tell they're not really involved in the conversation, but just waiting to talk. I don't need those types of people in my life. They're always looking for the next big party or next best thing instead of enjoying the company they're with.
So that being said, it's no surprise 3 of my best friends are in their 50s, and a couple others in their 30s and 40s. I'm by far the youngest in my normal social circle.
Unrelated, but this is why i like our country, they have actually codified sanity checks in the persecutions job role.
And what country might that be? Here in the States prosecutors and only concerned with raking in money for the State and ruining people's lives as much as possible. The irony is after they ruin people's lives, break up their families, and end their careers, the money the State collects comes in through welfare and unemployment (our tax dollars, from State coffers).
Doesn't solve the problem of steam inefficiency. There were plenty of steam cars and even the more efficient ones that reclaimed some of the steam were never particularly great on water consumption. You'd likely need to stop more often for water than you currently do for gas, and water is of course quite bulky and heavy just like gas. It's a cool idea either way, but I'd prefer a mechanical drive setup like traditional steam cars and steam engines.
The spam is a lesser issue here, the main legal issue as I see it is the violation of someone's privacy byh logging in to their account without their explicit permission. Unauthorized access... Kind of like cracking someone's email password, or encryption on an encrypted flash drive, or picking the lock on the door of their home (and placing flyers for the local car wash or pizzaria in every room). Illegal or a violation of their right to privacy, to the breaking and entering part... not so much the "Buy my Rolex" part.
Your assumption seems to be that all these programs will disappear overnight and not be repalced with anything at all. I don't foresee that happening, ever. With the elimination of these federal programs and the associated lowering of federal taxes, people immediately have more money. That is money that is no longer lost from the economy but can be used for benefit. Some of these programs will shift to be run more efficiently at a state level and perhaps in different forms. Hardcore socialist states like California, New Jersey, New York, etc. will likely continue to run the same type of programs in the same way as the federal government did, or perhaps they would be even more generous with other people's money. States that respect individual liberty would likely eliminate many of these socialist/welfare programs and continue some but at much lower levels of "generosity" with other people's money. This would create choice so people like you and me would have the option to relocate to a state that respects our values. There are two issues here, individual liberty, which includes one's right to the fruit of one's own labor, and Constitutionality/states rights. Getting the federal government out of the unconstitutional welfare State addresses both issues.
See, I think this is unfair. If I am willing to part with some of my money to keep someone from getting too desperate, but my neighbor with equal ability to do so opts not too, then my goodwill costs me about twice as much and both myself and my neighbor benefit equally. This is the essential issue of resolving communal issues that private industry does not do so well. Most individual problems can be well served by private industry, but when it comes to the point where a person must part with money for an indirect (where it seems only someone *other* than you benefits at first glance) and/or intangible benefit, it's not going to pan out so well.
It is unfair to have your money forcefully taken to support a cause you do not believe in. If there were no unemployment/welfare/food stamp/whatever tax then neither you nor your neighbor would be compelled to have any goodwill. If your neighbor did not wish to donate then you would not be forced to donate any more than you were originally comfortable with. Individual generosity, private industry and state level solutions would work together as needed to address the problems on a more local level.
Except when you're not home, in which case you want deterrence through increased police patrols if the crime rate does go up. After the fact, you need more police resources to try to get back what was rightfully yours. If you are home and your ITG plan fails you and you get killed, then you certainly can't be the one to try to enforce the law to punish the perpetrator. Those resources are a shared community burden. Sometimes it cannot just be about how alert and how many bullets you got for your gun, and you can't pretend that a problem is *always* an individual problem and never a societal/communal problem.
I would not want increased police patrols. I prefer to minimize any involvement I have with the police as they are quite corrupt and happily trample people's rights and ruin people's lives while happily telling lies under oath. beyond that, their primary function in our society is revenue collection, to fund the police/welfare/warfare state. Police can only ever react to a crime. Whether I am in my home or out in public my safety rests primarily on my own hands. Look at the areas with the highest crime rates, they are all areas that are strongly against firearms and the right to carry and defend oneself.
The private sector can do this more efficiently, and in such a way that would encourage people to find a job more quickly. This would be reflected in the insurance premiums. Unlike government, private companies to not have unlimited sources of funds to steal and cannot indefinitely borrow money, then print money to pay it back. For these and other reasons, they would not pay out for years of someone not working, as anyone can find a job in a couple months. Sure it may not be exactly what you want or pay what your last one did, but you can find something sufficient to get by at a lower standard of living.
For those who would choose not to carry insurance... That's a personal decision. For most motivated people with marketable skills, not paying unemployment tax or an unemployment insurance premium allows them to save their "oh crap" fund at a greater rate (that's right where the money I am currently forced to pay into unemployment would go, if I were not forced). Such people also are motivated and will find another job quickly, even if it's just temporary while they keep looking for what they really want. Some income is better than no income, and even taking a $10/hr job at Home Depot or wahtever is better than not getting any income. Those who don't save, well they surely have friends who might take them in and spaghetti and ketchup don't cost much so they won't starve.
Individual liberty and personal freedom must be accepted as top priorities in this country, as they once were. At the end of the day it's not my problem how they support themselves. If anyone out of work and desperate turns to crime and tries to rob or burglarize me, they'll be in for an unpleasant surprise when they come through the door, as that would be me excersizing my own personal freedom and right to be safe in my person and posessions. However, is anyone out of work comes to my door hungry and asks for help, they won't leave with an empty stomach.
Most American homes have 220v coming in. It is actually quite uncommon not to have 220v in America. Just most devices and appliances run on 110v. It's trivial to add 220v outlets assuming your main is sufficient for the amperage required.
These things could easily be replaced by privately and thus voluntarily funded solutions for those out of work. Unemployment insurance could become a private industry. Charitable donations may increase. People may hire unemployed people for smaller odd jobs on their homes and vehicles. There are all sorts of private solutions to these problems, and if unemployment is a serious problem the market will come up with a solution. Increased number of jobs from more money in the economy would only be part of that solution.
Personally I can vouch that I have offered odd jobs to unemployed friends and friends of friends who have certain skills. These have ranged from yard work, car detailing, boat upholstery, and using contacts at work to find them long term jobs. Very few have taken me up on anything I've offered. Why would they though? They could be doing something economically productive and providing mutual benefit but when they are sitting back and collecting their entitlements, there is no reason to actually get out and work or try to find a job until that runs out. If they were not getting paid with stolen money to do nothing, they would be motivated to do these side jobs while looking for permanent employment, or accept a job that may not be ideal but would be suffcient until they found something better. Heck, if I wasn't taxed so much I would be able to offer them more in compensation for odd jobs, making that work more attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure where you guys are from that teachers make $30k-$40k but here in NJ the range is more like $50k-$70k. Older teachers who'd been doing it forever, tenure, etc... There are many parts of the state where teachers are making over $100k, or at least putting the "underpaid" teachers in the rest of the state to shame. Oh, and I wish I got a 2-3 month vacation like teachers do, especially in prime summer weather. Bottom line is teachers here in NJ make a ludicrous amount of money for what they do and the amount of vacation they get, not to mention the great benefits. All of this is paid for by you and me. I can't wait to get out of this miserable state.
I would say fair share means the same specific amount. Divide federal government expenses by number of adults in this country, and there you have your fair tax burden. I firmly believe in small government with a primary role of protection of individual liberty and property rights. Other roles would include major infrastructure, defense, and others... All of which could be run successfully at much lower levels. Taxing the same dollar amount from every adult citizen to cover a given years expenses would fix government rather quickly as everyone would have a vested interest in keeping government spending at reasonable and justifiable levels.
For example...
2010 Federal spending: $3,552,000,000,000
2010 population: 308,745,538
2010 population excluding under 18: 234,564,071
2010 population excluding under 18 and over 62: 184,591,890
So under a truly fair and equal tax, ever adult from 18-62 years old would pay $19,242.45. Alternatively, make the fair and equal share of taxes payable by everyone, and it's only $11,504.62 per person. In this scenario paresnts would have to be liable for childrens taxes up to age 18. This would work as a great disincentive for the poor to have children.
This isn't a ridiculously unreasonable amount when fairly divided.People would be very angry and would quickly become interested in what government is spending money on instead of what the latest celebrity wore or said. What if we cut a few entitlement programs and other government waste we can see how that might affect the tax burden... Eliminate Social Security: $724 billion savings
Eliminate Medicare: $462 billion savings
Eliminate Medicaid: $293 billion savings
Eliminate unemployment: $158 billion savings
Eliminate food stamps: $69 billion savings
Cut defense spending by 2/3 (probably could do more): $482 billion savings
Just those big ticket entitlements and defense spending amounts to $2,188 billion in savings... How does this apply to the tax burden on individuals under a truly fair and equal tax?
2010 federal spending after cuts to entitlements and defense: $1,364,000,000,000
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among adults age 18-62: $7,389.27
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among all adults: $5,815
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among everyone: $4,417.88
That tax burden doesn't seem all that unreasonable for anyone to pay under any of those three ways of dividing the tax burden. Those numbers are still quite high as I just cut the big easy ones. Defense could probably be cut a lot more, and with less defense spending and of course an less unconstitutional wars and invasions of sovereign nations, spending on veterans, war injuries, military reitrements and pensions, etc. would drop sharply once those people die off and the new base of such spending is on a smaller military that actually defends the country. There are surely plenty of other programs at lower spending levels that amount to entitlements and other redistribution programs. I would wager that is waht most of the remaining spending under my quickie budget cut plan consists of, and in fact that budget could be cut at least in half after a closer look, if not more.
Socialist or neocon, they're all the same these days. Just one has more of a "Gimme your wallet bro" kind of socialism and the other is more of a "Papers comrade" type of socialism. Both sides push the same agenda, just they push their own preferred form of socialism a little harder.
Agreed, I love titty-mice, but I get frustrated that it never takes too long before they don't return to center properly and will drift the pointer when you let go of it. There is no quick hotkey to recalibrate the center so you have to restart to get it fixed, and it might last a few minutes or all day before failing again. Although I love the titty-mouse, sadly they always wear out quickly so I carry a bluetooth mouse.
While I loathe eBay and use Craigslist as my primary buy/sell stuff site, CL has really been pissing me off lately. They attack and shut down aggregator sites, yet provide no easy way to search several local CL sites. If CL had an advanced search to simply type in a mile radius from your location to search, then there wouldn't be a need for aggregators. They refuse to implement this, yet still shut down aggregators.
I use Craigslist frequently for hard to find items, like parts to restore classic cars, uncommon engines and engine parts, rare transmissions, buying classic cars, looking for older inboard boats, and other things of this nature where the items I'm seeking are not common. I need an aggregator as I'm willing to drive anywhere from 200-1000 miles depending on the rarity and value of waht I'm looking for, as well as how long I've been looking. I'm not going to drive 1000 miles for an air conditioner, a refridgerator, a grill, wrenches, power tools, or other stuff like that which is relatively common and can easily be found locally if I opt to buy used. The bottom line though, is an aggregator is required to make Craigslist useful... That and my employer appreciates that by using an aggregator I spend less time searching CL at work.
As for eBay, I have a carburator I want to sell and figured eBay might be quicker to sel lthan Craigslist. I checked their fees and it would cost me $29 to sell. That's absurd! I would have to raise the cost by $29, plus add a disclaimer that if paying with PayPal please add 3% to the total price to account for PayPay (owned by eBay) fees. These costs would have to be added to price I want, pushing my price somewhat above the average market price for that carburetor, which means it might not sell at all and I'd be out the $2 insertion fee. So I quickly decided to not sell it on eBay and instead listed it on Craigslist as well as a couple automotive forums that I frequent.
Interesting chart. It would be so easy to cut anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of that budget and the country would be such a better place. NASA is trivial compared to other spending.
Engine technology has advanced a fair amount since 1962 to more accurately meter fuel. Overdrive transmissions allow you to have both good acceleration at low speeds and lower RPM at higher speeds for better fuel economy. Compact cars today should be getting 50-60+ MPG but they aren't. The reason there are no 40-60 MPG compact cars is because the DOT and the EPA won't allow it.
The DOT mandates all sorts of safety features that keep vehicles heavy. How many econoboxes today weigh 2300 lbs? Probably not many. Let people decide what safety features they value and build cars according to market demand, with some features standard and some optional. The DOT won't allow this. There was a time (1964 and earlier) when seatbelts were optional equipment, and there was a time before that in which seatbelts weren't even offered. They were introduced as an option before the DOT mandate in 1965 since people valued safety and seatbelts were a simple and affordable way to improve safety. People had a choice, as they should now.
The EPA has killed fuel economy with their pollution mandates. Many things that reduce emissions will increase fuel consumption. Let the consumer decide where the best value is, and offer more emmissions friendly, but less efficient engine packages as optional equipment. Simple things like a PCV valve and high flow catalytic converter will not hurt fuel economy, don't cost much compared to the cost of a new car, don't add expensive and time consuming maintenance and complexity, but still make good improvements in emissions output. People will decide where the balance for their needs and values is between price, fuel economy, and emissions.
Heck, look at what the EPA did when they began CAFE. They eliminated fuel efficient station wagons getting 20-26 MPG as they didn't meet the CAFE MPG standards, so manufacturers stopped making them to avoid paying a hefty tax. Of course people still wanted large vehicles to make trips in, haul kids around, and whatever else. Manufacturers responded by making station wagons out of heavy trucks that were exempt frmo CAFE standards... Thus the beginning of the SUV as a mom-mobile. Prior to that SUVs were simple utilitarian vehicles. Look at a '60s or '70s Ford Broncos as an example of what SUVs were prior to CAFE legislation. After CAFE was enacted in 1975 manufacturers stopped making full size station wagons and shortly learned that if they made SUVs bigger, heavier, and more comfortable inside the people who wanted station wagons would grudsgingly shift to driving big inefficient trucks, and the manufacturer wouldn't have to pay a hefty tax to big government.
So for 1978 Ford redesigned the Bronco from a small utilitarian 4x4 into a big comfy SUV with many luxuries like power windows, power steering, full time all wheel drive, and many other features that would appeal to former station wagon drivers. This "big Bronco" had a short 2 year production run, then was redesigned again in 1980 to be even more comfortable as an every day driver instead of a truck, with features like independent front suspension. This 1980 Bronco design was a winner for the now soccer mom market segment and Ford stuck with the same Bronco for 16 years, as there were minimal changes from 1980-1996 other than slightly different sheet metal and different engine packages that bolted into the same chassis when fuel injection became the big thing.
What's interesting is in the past few years boat manufacturers, or shall I say marine engine manufacturers have been offering engines with catalytic converters as optional equipment. There engines have sold fairly well in some market segments despite no government mandate and a hefty price increase. The most notable boats that these optional catalyst engines sell in is wake boats. People that enjoy watersports (such as myself) want a clean exhaust as they are being pulled behind the boat. The biggest issue is when wake surfing, as you ride the wake right behind the boat and get a whiff of exhaust from time to time. Catalyti
Nothing magic going on here. The '68 with the 460 got 16-17 MPG pure highway. I heavily ported the heads on both intake and exhaust side, I have about an hour into each port, so 16+ hours of porting with lots of bowl and short turn work. Long tube headers into 3" exhaust with free flowing mufflers, 4* retarded smog timing chain swapped for a straight up double roller, and a 750 CFM Holley 4150 vacuum secondary. I don't recall what jets I have in it but I'd venture around 70 primary and 78 secondary.. Timing around 16* initial with a fast curve to ~38* total mechanical with additional vacuum advance using manifold vacuum, for total timing at highway cruise in the mid 40s. Cruising with lots of timing, off the power valve and secondaries closed means good MPG.
Aside from that, my '68 is not a base model Custom, or even the spruced up Custom 500. It is a Galaxie 500. It originally came with a 302, I swapped in the 460 as I wanted more power. MPG did not change much, I lost about 1 MPG compared to the high compression 302 I had in there previously (stock bottom end with ported closed chamber 289 heads), Ford aluminum 4v intake from an '80s Mustang and 600 CFM Holley 4160. This setup got better MPG than the factory low compression as cast heads and 2v Autolite 2100 carb.
The Falcon was a '63 with a 144 straight six making 85 HP, and a 3 speed manual on the column with an unsynchronized first gear. I rebuilt the carb (a tiny 1 barrel), rebuilt the distributor and tuned for more timing. I don't recall the timing curve though. I added a PCV valve to replcae the road draft tube, so with leaving the carb jetting factory and adding a PCV the mixture was slightly leaned. The Falcon didn't have much power, and certainly didn't get it's 30 MPG at 75-80, more like 65-70... and the car didn't have a lot more speed in it than that. I don't think high 30s to 40 MPG would be at all unfeasible with a T5 trans and some more tuning. These Falcons weighed in under 2500 lbs and are compact cars.
So I did find some documentation for 30+ MPG from an early 60s Falcon. Have a look for yourself...
'62 Falcon sales brochure with 32.6 MPG test results
Full '62 Falcon sales brochure
My first car was a '67 Galaxie fastback, though mine only had a 289. unfortunately the frame was rotted away to almost nothing so I sold it to someone with the toosl and space to do a frame swap and restoration. Now that I have the tools and space I'm restoring a '68 Galaxie, though '67 will always be my favorite.
For what it's worth, my '68 with a stockish 460 only making about 330 HP gets just shy of 17 MPG on the highway at 75-80 MPH, with a 3 speed automatic, no overdrive. Once restored I'll have a real 460 in there pushing mroe like 500 HP, along with a T56 (6 speed manual, .5:1 overdrive) and be gunning for 25 MPG at 70 MPH... Comparable to a newer Crown Vic. Should be fun, I enjoy building performance drivelines for classic cars that get good fuel economy. Heck, I had a '63 Falcon for a while that got over 30 MPG highway, was shooting for 40 MPG but unfortunately someone crashed into it and that project was cut short.
I have absolutley no need to travel to another continent. Driving, and in some cases trains, are perfectly acceptable to me. Unfortuantely if Napolitano has her way, train passengers will soon be treated like airline passengers and that'll no longer be a travel option either.
Regardless, in the rare even I needed to travel to another continent there are these things called ships, which are made to travel across the oceas and seas from one continent to another. If you don't need to be there in a hurry you can get good rates and a unique experience as a passenger on a cargo ship.
One man's experience
Freighter travel wiki
We have no choice, it's forced on us by neocons and liberals alike. There are very few of us who believe in individual liberty, an important part of which is freedom of travel within our own country and not allowing arbitrary warrantless searches, much less arbitrary warrantless cavity searches. Personally I vote for those who oppose violation of my rights, and I refuse to fly anymore, driving is just fine.
I know I don't need delivery to my door. I wouldn't mind having no delivery and just a PO box. I would check once or twice a week or more often if I was expecting something important. If to the door service was eliminated in a lot of areas it would save them a lot on fuel and employee costs. Pretty much anything important I do online, through email and electronic payments. It's faster, cheaper, and easier. I just plain don't need daily delivery to my door. In a lot of rural areas they don't even offer that service at all addresses and the only option is to go to the post office and get your mail. I've been there and done that and it never bothered me.
Does the quality on a JMicron chip go to 11?
I pay for all in person transactions in cash, credit card for online purchases. I don't see how there can be any advantage to replacing my current method of payment in either scenario with anything else. Even if phone companies weren't evil, I don't see any advantage.
I walked into the office after coming back from lunch and everyone was all excited about some earthquake or some such nonsense. I was driving and didn't feel a thing. The roads here are terrible though, but sure explains why everyone was loitering around outside buildings down the main drag in town.
A few years back I discovered the head of HR at my work was looking at porn on a nearly daily basis. Sure explained why he stayed really late all the time. This was resolved with a basically "don't do that" when the rest of HR and senior management were made aware of it. No repercussions or anything. Fast forward a couple years and there are a few people at some of our different locations looking at porn. Some of these were people who were not surfing but had just received email with pictures or links from those who did surf porn frequently. They were all fired without warning.
Of course these were all lower level employees, not making deep six figures with ridiculous benefits and compensation packages, etc. It absolutely disgusts me the way some of these companies operate.
The guy was actually a conspirator in the plan, not an innocent bystander.
Wiki Brian Douglas Wells
Cleveland Article
I see this crap all the time and find it tremendously disrespectful. I fall in that 18-29 age group, though at the upper end. I have a few friends at the lower end of that spectrum and they're worse than my older friends. I generally don't call those younger "kids" very often. Why would I want to invite someone to be a guest in my home who is going to eat my food, drink my beer, and ignore me? Then when they can tell you're getting irritated, typically after you point it out at face value several times, they might engage in conversation for a minute or two. Though when they do, you can tell they're not really involved in the conversation, but just waiting to talk. I don't need those types of people in my life. They're always looking for the next big party or next best thing instead of enjoying the company they're with.
So that being said, it's no surprise 3 of my best friends are in their 50s, and a couple others in their 30s and 40s. I'm by far the youngest in my normal social circle.
Unrelated, but this is why i like our country, they have actually codified sanity checks in the persecutions job role.
And what country might that be? Here in the States prosecutors and only concerned with raking in money for the State and ruining people's lives as much as possible. The irony is after they ruin people's lives, break up their families, and end their careers, the money the State collects comes in through welfare and unemployment (our tax dollars, from State coffers).
Doesn't solve the problem of steam inefficiency. There were plenty of steam cars and even the more efficient ones that reclaimed some of the steam were never particularly great on water consumption. You'd likely need to stop more often for water than you currently do for gas, and water is of course quite bulky and heavy just like gas. It's a cool idea either way, but I'd prefer a mechanical drive setup like traditional steam cars and steam engines.
The spam is a lesser issue here, the main legal issue as I see it is the violation of someone's privacy byh logging in to their account without their explicit permission. Unauthorized access... Kind of like cracking someone's email password, or encryption on an encrypted flash drive, or picking the lock on the door of their home (and placing flyers for the local car wash or pizzaria in every room). Illegal or a violation of their right to privacy, to the breaking and entering part... not so much the "Buy my Rolex" part.
Your assumption seems to be that all these programs will disappear overnight and not be repalced with anything at all. I don't foresee that happening, ever. With the elimination of these federal programs and the associated lowering of federal taxes, people immediately have more money. That is money that is no longer lost from the economy but can be used for benefit. Some of these programs will shift to be run more efficiently at a state level and perhaps in different forms. Hardcore socialist states like California, New Jersey, New York, etc. will likely continue to run the same type of programs in the same way as the federal government did, or perhaps they would be even more generous with other people's money. States that respect individual liberty would likely eliminate many of these socialist/welfare programs and continue some but at much lower levels of "generosity" with other people's money. This would create choice so people like you and me would have the option to relocate to a state that respects our values. There are two issues here, individual liberty, which includes one's right to the fruit of one's own labor, and Constitutionality/states rights. Getting the federal government out of the unconstitutional welfare State addresses both issues.
See, I think this is unfair. If I am willing to part with some of my money to keep someone from getting too desperate, but my neighbor with equal ability to do so opts not too, then my goodwill costs me about twice as much and both myself and my neighbor benefit equally. This is the essential issue of resolving communal issues that private industry does not do so well. Most individual problems can be well served by private industry, but when it comes to the point where a person must part with money for an indirect (where it seems only someone *other* than you benefits at first glance) and/or intangible benefit, it's not going to pan out so well.
It is unfair to have your money forcefully taken to support a cause you do not believe in. If there were no unemployment/welfare/food stamp/whatever tax then neither you nor your neighbor would be compelled to have any goodwill. If your neighbor did not wish to donate then you would not be forced to donate any more than you were originally comfortable with. Individual generosity, private industry and state level solutions would work together as needed to address the problems on a more local level.
Except when you're not home, in which case you want deterrence through increased police patrols if the crime rate does go up. After the fact, you need more police resources to try to get back what was rightfully yours. If you are home and your ITG plan fails you and you get killed, then you certainly can't be the one to try to enforce the law to punish the perpetrator. Those resources are a shared community burden. Sometimes it cannot just be about how alert and how many bullets you got for your gun, and you can't pretend that a problem is *always* an individual problem and never a societal/communal problem.
I would not want increased police patrols. I prefer to minimize any involvement I have with the police as they are quite corrupt and happily trample people's rights and ruin people's lives while happily telling lies under oath. beyond that, their primary function in our society is revenue collection, to fund the police/welfare/warfare state. Police can only ever react to a crime. Whether I am in my home or out in public my safety rests primarily on my own hands. Look at the areas with the highest crime rates, they are all areas that are strongly against firearms and the right to carry and defend oneself.
The private sector can do this more efficiently, and in such a way that would encourage people to find a job more quickly. This would be reflected in the insurance premiums. Unlike government, private companies to not have unlimited sources of funds to steal and cannot indefinitely borrow money, then print money to pay it back. For these and other reasons, they would not pay out for years of someone not working, as anyone can find a job in a couple months. Sure it may not be exactly what you want or pay what your last one did, but you can find something sufficient to get by at a lower standard of living.
For those who would choose not to carry insurance... That's a personal decision. For most motivated people with marketable skills, not paying unemployment tax or an unemployment insurance premium allows them to save their "oh crap" fund at a greater rate (that's right where the money I am currently forced to pay into unemployment would go, if I were not forced). Such people also are motivated and will find another job quickly, even if it's just temporary while they keep looking for what they really want. Some income is better than no income, and even taking a $10/hr job at Home Depot or wahtever is better than not getting any income. Those who don't save, well they surely have friends who might take them in and spaghetti and ketchup don't cost much so they won't starve.
Individual liberty and personal freedom must be accepted as top priorities in this country, as they once were. At the end of the day it's not my problem how they support themselves. If anyone out of work and desperate turns to crime and tries to rob or burglarize me, they'll be in for an unpleasant surprise when they come through the door, as that would be me excersizing my own personal freedom and right to be safe in my person and posessions. However, is anyone out of work comes to my door hungry and asks for help, they won't leave with an empty stomach.
Most American homes have 220v coming in. It is actually quite uncommon not to have 220v in America. Just most devices and appliances run on 110v. It's trivial to add 220v outlets assuming your main is sufficient for the amperage required.
These things could easily be replaced by privately and thus voluntarily funded solutions for those out of work. Unemployment insurance could become a private industry. Charitable donations may increase. People may hire unemployed people for smaller odd jobs on their homes and vehicles. There are all sorts of private solutions to these problems, and if unemployment is a serious problem the market will come up with a solution. Increased number of jobs from more money in the economy would only be part of that solution.
Personally I can vouch that I have offered odd jobs to unemployed friends and friends of friends who have certain skills. These have ranged from yard work, car detailing, boat upholstery, and using contacts at work to find them long term jobs. Very few have taken me up on anything I've offered. Why would they though? They could be doing something economically productive and providing mutual benefit but when they are sitting back and collecting their entitlements, there is no reason to actually get out and work or try to find a job until that runs out. If they were not getting paid with stolen money to do nothing, they would be motivated to do these side jobs while looking for permanent employment, or accept a job that may not be ideal but would be suffcient until they found something better. Heck, if I wasn't taxed so much I would be able to offer them more in compensation for odd jobs, making that work more attractive.