The government doesn't 'make money', and your wording is poor. Of course the government has collected more money through gas taxes than the oil companies have. The oil companies don't get any revenue from gas taxes!
But I'm sure you meant to compare government revenues from gas taxes with the oil companies profits, which is a poor comparison. You have to compare revenue with revenue and profit with profit. Oil companies' revenue is far, far greater than the revenue from gas taxes. Exxon alone had $100 billion in revenue last quarter.
Furthermore, the gas tax isn't enough to fund the car-based system of the US. In several states, such as New Jersey, trust funds that are funded by gas taxes will soon be bankrupt. The true cost of transportation is greater than what gas taxes charge.
It is certainly good that people are examining this issue and it deserves discussion, but I think a more real-world study would have been better. I'd like to get back to the original study but I don't have the time right now so I'll have to make some points based on the news articles.
First, the comparison in the study is straight fuel consumption. One thing that needs to be noted is that a gallon of fuel burned in a car typically generates more emissions that a gallon of fuel burned in a power plant. Power plants have smoother operating curves, more control technology, and an overall higher efficiency. So while the amount of fuel may be equal, the emissions from power plants should be lower.
Also, the articles about the study don't mention the numbers used to derive the car estimates. It just says "modern, lightweight diesel car". There are a lot of old cars still on the road, not to mention non-diesel cars, so this is may be comparing the perfect car against the railroad, which may not be the most fair comparison. Adding to this is that the new articles focus on the high-speed trains, where the disparity is the greatest. Basically the study author (or news reporter) found a small subset of trips where a car may use less fuel and some are trumpetting this as cars > trains.
And as the Virgin spokesperson points out, the study assumed that the 4-seat cars were full. I dunno about England but around here if you go out in rush hour you're going to find that the majority of vehicles are not full 4-seat cars, even with HOV-3 lanes.
On PRT, I'm still undecided and am waiting for a demo project to see how it fares in real-world applications. The links that are provided are a bit too idealistic for me (never farther than 440 yards from a station?). With a fixed system, you don't have to worry as much about traffic because you always know where the trains are going. Fixed systems can load/unload large amounts of passengers in a short amount of time. With PRT I would wonder about a backup due to individual loading/unloading and other traffic.
Honest and FreeRepublic don't belong in the same post. They took it out of context, too, and mixed up the order of the questions (Actually they're mooching off the American Spectator). The question was as stated in my sibling post, "What do you think of [the Kelo decision]?"
I even support the RIAA suing the hell out of thousands of file sharers because I've lost all sympathy for people who want music but aren't willing to *gasp* pay for it.
And how exactly is the RIAA able to sue thousands of file sharers? *gasp* regulation! *gasp* taxes! *gasp* government!!!! *faint*
In any case, your ideal society is the USA, circa 1890. Pre-federal income tax, pre-progressive reforms and labor/antitrust laws, way pre-environmental laws.
The 1890s sucked major ass, unless your name was Carnegie or Rockefeller. No fucking thanks.
Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?
Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
The PS2 doesn't even have a very high-speed drive, but imagine a 52X spinner shooting out of a game console's slot - that'd literally be like a buzzsaw heading most likely straight at you.
You don't live in NYC I guess.. Manhattan isn't the whole city. But even in Manhattan, you can drive pretty much anywhere and park there, too. You'll probably pay for parking (meter or lot), but it's available. NYC's car ownership is around 40-50%.. and while it's only 20-25% in Manhattan, that's hardly a 'few' New Yorkers.
They could have used a closed rule if the goal was just to prohibit amendments. Also, Suspension Calendar bills generally bypass committee. Thomas record for this bill shows that it was referred to committee but never considered (Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney chair).
Well, for starters, wasting a few thousand square feet of usable space for ventilation is silly. Also you may not want to bring in fresh air. If it's 100 out and 70 in the room, why bring in 100 degree air? Also moving air by convection is not a quick process.
You're making your arguments on the false assumption that the Congressional action was a vote for war. It was not a declaration of war. The resolution gave authority to the President to back up his actions at the UN. However the President chose to ignore the UN and used the Congressional authorization to wage war.
wouldn't vote down a bad bill becuase they were afraid of how they would look to voters.
If you think the both sides don't have politics in their mind at all times, you're a fool.
I won't dispute that it was a great play by the GOP. Vote against the bill and you're against fighting terrorism. Vote for the bill and you get all sorts of shit you didn't want. Vote for the bill and talk about how a there are one or two bad parts? Then you get your attack.
Abuse of the media? Now you're just making shit up. And you were doing so well.
It's certainly possible that they simply miscalculated. I never dispute that. I have consistently said in no less than 5 of my posts that I don't know why Suspension Calendar was used. While I do insinuate that it may be a GOP trick, I don't claim to know the truth of the matter.
They wouldn't be able to use your scenario to the extent that they can use the current scenario. Under your scenario, the bill would pass, even if Democrats voted against it. So the GOP could try to argue that Democrats are against free speech because they voted against the bill, but because the bill still passes, the political impact is much less. It makes maximum impact under the current situation. The bill doesn't pass, and you can claim that Democrats blocked it, even if those of us with a clue know it's a complete lie. Also if the exact same bill was brought up under a normal rule, Democrats would offer an amendment to change what they feel were the shortcomings of the bill, further strengthening their position (even though the amendment would likely fail).
That's about as close to an informed opinion on the politics of PATRIOT as on'es likely to find on Slashdot.
I'm pretty sure that's not a compliment..
My understanding is that the main change in procedure was the removal of the FISA oversight court for warrants and the introduction of 'administrative warrants' that can be issued by the Attorney General and reviewed at a later time by the FISA court.
First, you made some petty arguments based on logical technicalities. I'm not going to play that game.
Second, I'm sorry but I simply don't have time to go through the Rules of the House and point out the 8,000 instances where it is made very clear that the majority has all the power. That simply cannot be disputed and I'm not going to do the work for you to make a 'logical proof' or whatever bullshit you're looking for.
The majority chose to use the Suspension Calendar rule, which opened the bill up to possible defeat. If the GOP wanted this passed, they simply would not have used Suspension Calendar. You don't see them bringing up drilling in ANWR under Suspension Calendar, do you?
You're missing, or ignoring, the critcal point. It is the GOP leadership that decides what rules bills will come under. The only reason this bill required 2/3rds vote in the first place was because the GOP said so. Now, the GOP leadership must be aware that they don't hold 2/3rds of the House and that subjecting the bill to the Suspension Calendar rule could jeopardize its passing. Why they used the Suspension Calendar, I don't know.. it's like starting a chess game without your pawns.
Suspension Calendar is designed for bills that will have little to no objection, hence the limited debate and restriction on amendments. The two bills that passed are bills that the Suspension Calendar was designed for. Why the GOP chose Suspension Calendar for a bill that would obviously raise objections, I don't know, but thanks for helping me make my point.
Many changes were made by the GOP leadership behind closed doors before the final bill was trotted out in the middle of the night for a quick vote. The final bill was not what went into conference.
As for Kerry supporting PATRIOT.. there are many things in PATRIOT that are benign. It's really only a few portions of the bill that people object to. Kerry said that as President he would have lobbied Congress to withdraw the PATRIOT Act and pass a new Act similar to PATRIOT but without the controversial provisions.
It's not both ways, it's the same way. OP wanted to know why Dems voted for Iraq and PATRIOT and then some time later turned against them. Both parties were ill-informed. Only one party realizes it, so far.
You haven't disputed my points. Members of the minority have no power in the House. It takes members of the majority -- the GOP -- to move forward or, with the assitance of the minority, block action. The minority alone has no power. Saying the the Democrats stopped any action in the House is intellectually dishonest.
The GOP would not have had to circumvent any rules to bring this bill up under normal rules. It's that simple. Why Suspension Calendar was used, I have no idea. The assertions I made are not in dispute. Ask anyone familiar with how Congress works.
If the Democrats wanted this bill, it would have been through the House by now.
The reasons why Democrats voted against it have been hashed out in the discussion: Under some interpretations, the bill would have allowed unlimited internet donations.
Have you ever read a Congressional bill? This thing was 342 pages long and very little time was given to review the final bill before final passage. It doesn't matter how much you're paid. There's simply a limit to how fast one can read and comprehend words.
Slashdot Mirror
The government doesn't 'make money', and your wording is poor. Of course the government has collected more money through gas taxes than the oil companies have. The oil companies don't get any revenue from gas taxes!
But I'm sure you meant to compare government revenues from gas taxes with the oil companies profits, which is a poor comparison. You have to compare revenue with revenue and profit with profit. Oil companies' revenue is far, far greater than the revenue from gas taxes. Exxon alone had $100 billion in revenue last quarter.
Furthermore, the gas tax isn't enough to fund the car-based system of the US. In several states, such as New Jersey, trust funds that are funded by gas taxes will soon be bankrupt. The true cost of transportation is greater than what gas taxes charge.
It is certainly good that people are examining this issue and it deserves discussion, but I think a more real-world study would have been better. I'd like to get back to the original study but I don't have the time right now so I'll have to make some points based on the news articles.
First, the comparison in the study is straight fuel consumption. One thing that needs to be noted is that a gallon of fuel burned in a car typically generates more emissions that a gallon of fuel burned in a power plant. Power plants have smoother operating curves, more control technology, and an overall higher efficiency. So while the amount of fuel may be equal, the emissions from power plants should be lower.
Also, the articles about the study don't mention the numbers used to derive the car estimates. It just says "modern, lightweight diesel car". There are a lot of old cars still on the road, not to mention non-diesel cars, so this is may be comparing the perfect car against the railroad, which may not be the most fair comparison. Adding to this is that the new articles focus on the high-speed trains, where the disparity is the greatest. Basically the study author (or news reporter) found a small subset of trips where a car may use less fuel and some are trumpetting this as cars > trains.
And as the Virgin spokesperson points out, the study assumed that the 4-seat cars were full. I dunno about England but around here if you go out in rush hour you're going to find that the majority of vehicles are not full 4-seat cars, even with HOV-3 lanes.
On PRT, I'm still undecided and am waiting for a demo project to see how it fares in real-world applications. The links that are provided are a bit too idealistic for me (never farther than 440 yards from a station?). With a fixed system, you don't have to worry as much about traffic because you always know where the trains are going. Fixed systems can load/unload large amounts of passengers in a short amount of time. With PRT I would wonder about a backup due to individual loading/unloading and other traffic.
Honest and FreeRepublic don't belong in the same post. They took it out of context, too, and mixed up the order of the questions (Actually they're mooching off the American Spectator). The question was as stated in my sibling post, "What do you think of [the Kelo decision]?"
Full transcript.
Oh another Libertarian..
I even support the RIAA suing the hell out of thousands of file sharers because I've lost all sympathy for people who want music but aren't willing to *gasp* pay for it.
And how exactly is the RIAA able to sue thousands of file sharers? *gasp* regulation! *gasp* taxes! *gasp* government!!!! *faint*
In any case, your ideal society is the USA, circa 1890. Pre-federal income tax, pre-progressive reforms and labor/antitrust laws, way pre-environmental laws.
The 1890s sucked major ass, unless your name was Carnegie or Rockefeller. No fucking thanks.
Uhh, care for some context?
Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?
Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
The PS2 doesn't even have a very high-speed drive, but imagine a 52X spinner shooting out of a game console's slot - that'd literally be like a buzzsaw heading most likely straight at you.
No it wouldn't.
Oh that's bullshit. We've all seen Scent of a Woman.
"If at first you don't succeed... oh well"
Is that your maxim for life?
You don't live in NYC I guess.. Manhattan isn't the whole city. But even in Manhattan, you can drive pretty much anywhere and park there, too. You'll probably pay for parking (meter or lot), but it's available. NYC's car ownership is around 40-50%.. and while it's only 20-25% in Manhattan, that's hardly a 'few' New Yorkers.
They could have used a closed rule if the goal was just to prohibit amendments. Also, Suspension Calendar bills generally bypass committee. Thomas record for this bill shows that it was referred to committee but never considered (Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney chair).
Well, for starters, wasting a few thousand square feet of usable space for ventilation is silly. Also you may not want to bring in fresh air. If it's 100 out and 70 in the room, why bring in 100 degree air? Also moving air by convection is not a quick process.
You're high. There is no filibuster in the House.
As I said elsewhere, to discount politics is foolish. I don't particularly like it, but that's the way it works.
I have no idea why anyone would ever support a group of people who place their own re-election above the good of their constituents.
And as I said elsewhere, if you think the GOP isn't the same way, you're a fool.
You're making your arguments on the false assumption that the Congressional action was a vote for war. It was not a declaration of war. The resolution gave authority to the President to back up his actions at the UN. However the President chose to ignore the UN and used the Congressional authorization to wage war.
wouldn't vote down a bad bill becuase they were afraid of how they would look to voters.
If you think the both sides don't have politics in their mind at all times, you're a fool.
I'd like to know why ANYONE in Congress is allowed to attach a rider that doesn't have a thing to do with the original bill.
It turns out that it's extremely difficult to determine what "has to do with the original bill" and what doesn't.
I won't dispute that it was a great play by the GOP. Vote against the bill and you're against fighting terrorism. Vote for the bill and you get all sorts of shit you didn't want. Vote for the bill and talk about how a there are one or two bad parts? Then you get your attack.
Abuse of the media? Now you're just making shit up. And you were doing so well.
It's certainly possible that they simply miscalculated. I never dispute that. I have consistently said in no less than 5 of my posts that I don't know why Suspension Calendar was used. While I do insinuate that it may be a GOP trick, I don't claim to know the truth of the matter.
They wouldn't be able to use your scenario to the extent that they can use the current scenario. Under your scenario, the bill would pass, even if Democrats voted against it. So the GOP could try to argue that Democrats are against free speech because they voted against the bill, but because the bill still passes, the political impact is much less. It makes maximum impact under the current situation. The bill doesn't pass, and you can claim that Democrats blocked it, even if those of us with a clue know it's a complete lie. Also if the exact same bill was brought up under a normal rule, Democrats would offer an amendment to change what they feel were the shortcomings of the bill, further strengthening their position (even though the amendment would likely fail).
That's about as close to an informed opinion on the politics of PATRIOT as on'es likely to find on Slashdot.
I'm pretty sure that's not a compliment..
My understanding is that the main change in procedure was the removal of the FISA oversight court for warrants and the introduction of 'administrative warrants' that can be issued by the Attorney General and reviewed at a later time by the FISA court.
First, you made some petty arguments based on logical technicalities. I'm not going to play that game.
Second, I'm sorry but I simply don't have time to go through the Rules of the House and point out the 8,000 instances where it is made very clear that the majority has all the power. That simply cannot be disputed and I'm not going to do the work for you to make a 'logical proof' or whatever bullshit you're looking for.
The majority chose to use the Suspension Calendar rule, which opened the bill up to possible defeat. If the GOP wanted this passed, they simply would not have used Suspension Calendar. You don't see them bringing up drilling in ANWR under Suspension Calendar, do you?
You're missing, or ignoring, the critcal point. It is the GOP leadership that decides what rules bills will come under. The only reason this bill required 2/3rds vote in the first place was because the GOP said so. Now, the GOP leadership must be aware that they don't hold 2/3rds of the House and that subjecting the bill to the Suspension Calendar rule could jeopardize its passing. Why they used the Suspension Calendar, I don't know.. it's like starting a chess game without your pawns.
Better get someone to fix that hematoma.
Suspension Calendar is designed for bills that will have little to no objection, hence the limited debate and restriction on amendments. The two bills that passed are bills that the Suspension Calendar was designed for. Why the GOP chose Suspension Calendar for a bill that would obviously raise objections, I don't know, but thanks for helping me make my point.
Many changes were made by the GOP leadership behind closed doors before the final bill was trotted out in the middle of the night for a quick vote. The final bill was not what went into conference.
As for Kerry supporting PATRIOT.. there are many things in PATRIOT that are benign. It's really only a few portions of the bill that people object to. Kerry said that as President he would have lobbied Congress to withdraw the PATRIOT Act and pass a new Act similar to PATRIOT but without the controversial provisions.
It's not both ways, it's the same way. OP wanted to know why Dems voted for Iraq and PATRIOT and then some time later turned against them. Both parties were ill-informed. Only one party realizes it, so far.
You haven't disputed my points. Members of the minority have no power in the House. It takes members of the majority -- the GOP -- to move forward or, with the assitance of the minority, block action. The minority alone has no power. Saying the the Democrats stopped any action in the House is intellectually dishonest.
The GOP would not have had to circumvent any rules to bring this bill up under normal rules. It's that simple. Why Suspension Calendar was used, I have no idea. The assertions I made are not in dispute. Ask anyone familiar with how Congress works.
If the Democrats wanted this bill, it would have been through the House by now.
The reasons why Democrats voted against it have been hashed out in the discussion: Under some interpretations, the bill would have allowed unlimited internet donations.
Have you ever read a Congressional bill? This thing was 342 pages long and very little time was given to review the final bill before final passage. It doesn't matter how much you're paid. There's simply a limit to how fast one can read and comprehend words.