Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed

[Koz]

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
17% is more the 30%........ I'm through with ya..... your clueless

I cannot believe that you are as stupid as your statement indicates. 17% of 300 is more than 30% of 100. Do the simple arithmetic.

[Koz]

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
and the lower/middle class shouldn't have to fork over 30%-40% in taxes while a rich man pays 17%.....
What is it you don't understand that he is paying a lower percentage then the average person? You call it penalizing him, but it would be leveling the field if he paid 30% tax, jsut like the average person.

No lower class and few middle class folk pay 30% to 40% in taxes. You just make up numbers to suit whatever false claim you are trying to make. Many lower class folk end up paying almost no tax due to the Earned Income Credit.

[Koz]

Daniel wrote:

Koz/Motorhead
How does 17%= 30%
maybe there is a reason for the clueless statement......

If the amount that 17% is taken of is greater than the amount that 30% is taken of, than 17% in real terms can be equal to or much greater than 30%. You are playing games with numbers and you know it.

[My Sentiments]

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>You can't finance a war ahead of time, it's true. But Bush's War is a war of choice, not a war of necessity, first of all.
But you weren't paying attention to the context of my post. I'm talking about taking action now to get serious about developing alternative, renewable energy sources. The poster I was replying to said since there are no shortages now, it's not a crisis yet, and we'll act when it is a crisis. I submit that when it becomes a crisis, it's going to be too late, because we won't have the energy resources to bootstrap ourselves up into any solutions. I dragged Bush's War in as just one more example of our "buy now, pay later" neo-con culture.

Wow what a hypocrite! I guess your preemtive vs. sit back and wait positions all depend on what policy you agree with or don't agree with huh?

First you state "Bush's War is a war of choice, not a war of necessity." As if we should sit back and wait until we are attacked to respond.

Next paragraph: "I'm talking about taking action now" and "I submit that when it becomes a crisis, it's going to be too late"

So trying to follow your inconsistant train of thought, we should sit back and wait until terrorist attempt to exterminate us (again), but we should jump out in front of alternative energy sources and not just sit back and wait on this matter? Hmmmmmm.......

[Koz]

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>Those both happened before we sent all our engineering and technological expertise overseas.

Certainly, because the event that you described hasn't happened yet.

[M Blackburn]

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
I have wasted far to much time talking to people like you.

MOST of the scientist in the world agree that humans are helping it along.

That's the bone of contention. If you talk to scientist you don't get the same level of confirmation that you get from the IPCC and warming advocates.

Many of the scientists on your list have nothing to do with environmental studies, many aren't even scientists. You can't justify your beliefs on grounds of science and then listen only to what pro global warming advocates say the scientific community says. At least one of your scientific authorities actually had to threaten to sue the IPCC to get his name off the list of supporting scientists. That is not indicative of any scientific process.

Why should I, or anyone else, support a cause has significant detrimental effects when it's main premise has no more merit than crystal ball gazing?

[tina anne]

upwithbiofuels wrote:

<quoted text>
Through gasification just about everything that is refined out of crude can be produced from organic biomass. The processes now work but everyone will agree are still primitive but the technology is successful. A plant will start producing ethanol from forest wastes next year in Georgia. Thats just a few months away. So we can produce a fuel from the wastes of the timber industry. In Brazil they produce ethanol from not only the sugar in sugar cane but also the cane in sugar cane. This can be done in the US too in places like Florida, south Georgia, south Alabama, south Miss. and on across to the dessert starts in west Texas. There is a lot of research going on right now to prodce BIOFUELS in other ways like ethanol from algae. One group is already making biogasoline. The industry will become more efficient as it matures just like any other industry. For example, cars have been manufactured for many decades now but that industry is still improving and cars are getting better. They need to get better at fuel conservation but thats another topic.

The problem is getting the organic biomass without harming the enviroment. So far I have heard of several schemes from raising algee in the middle of a desert to using wood pulp (There is a sawdust shortage currently in progress), to using marginal land for raising this or that. All of which will only make things worse for the enviroment.

[Fun Facts]

Here are the current tax rates. This is for income and does not include any other governmental taxes.

10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25

28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25

33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

So if the secretary is paying 30% in taxes, the secretary has a good income, between 78,000 and 164,000.

If the employer paid 17%, my guess is that he is incorporated. In that case he has paid other taxes as an incorporation and is paying 17% on his salary. This would not be unusual as many small business owners take home less pay than the workers. Remember small business owners must make enough money to support the business as well as their family.

Your 50,000 supports four people, my 50,000 supports four people and a business.

[Yep]

M Blackburn wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the bone of contention. If you talk to scientist you don't get the same level of confirmation that you get from the IPCC and warming advocates.

"talk to a scientist" ?? Like say, an on-staff industrial chemist at ExxonMobil?

[Daniel]

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05...

"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."

"And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."

WOW, even warren says it... yet you still defend the rich. trying to say 17% somehow equals 30%...... go obama. we need better math classes.

[Travis T OJustice]

Daniel wrote:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warre n-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-s hare/
"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."
"And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."
WOW, even warren says it... yet you still defend the rich. trying to say 17% somehow equals 30%...... go obama. we need better math classes.

To try to say the middle class pay more in taxes (total dollars) than the rich is an insanely stupid argument.

[Koz]

Daniel wrote:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warre n-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-s hare/
"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."

So it is all based on Buffett's dubious personal claim. Of course, income taxes are Still payroll taxes, contrary to Warren's false claim. As you well know 17% can easily equal or exceed 30%. Your dishonesty with arithmetic cetainly qualifies you as an obama supporter. Careful what you ask for, better math classes would make it less easy for you to mislead. If Warren wants to pay more, he should, but he has no business demanding that you and I pay more.

[Daniel]

I rest my case. go obama. better math classes.

[My Sentiments]

Daniel wrote:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warre n-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-s hare/
"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."
"And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."
WOW, even warren says it... yet you still defend the rich. trying to say 17% somehow equals 30%...... go obama. we need better math classes.

you want equality in the tax system......www.fairtax.org
It doesn't get any more even that that! Income is irrelevant, base it on comsumption!

[Daniel]

ok ya 2 explain this. 17% of warrens income goes to taxes. yet his workers will pay 30% of their income in taxes..... still not understanding?

Sure he pays more total. he also makes more total.... but you still can't explain the percentage of income... plain and simple. even he is saying that he isn't paying his fair share.

[Daniel]

My Sentiments wrote:

<quoted text>
you want equality in the tax system......www.fairtax.org
It doesn't get any more even that that! Income is irrelevant, base it on comsumption!

won't work. the lower class will buy under the table while the rich got to fork over the cash for big purchases. flat tax seems the only way to go.

[Jeff - an Independent]

Delphinus 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well then, abolish the INCOME tax and enact a consumption tax. THis way, those people who consume more will pay more.

That is what I liked about FairTax...

[alan]

I think Ole Al ought to set some energy goals for himself.
Last year his home burned more than $30,000.00 worth of power.
Anybody spot Al in a Prius yet?

[upwithbiofuels]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem is getting the organic biomass without harming the enviroment. So far I have heard of several schemes from raising algee in the middle of a desert to using wood pulp (There is a sawdust shortage currently in progress), to using marginal land for raising this or that. All of which will only make things worse for the enviroment.

How in the heck can there be a sawdust shortage. The construction industry has almost come to a complete stop because of the foreclosures and the deflation of home prices. None of your arguments hold water. Biofuels can be produced in a sustainable manner. The future is very bright for this industry adn it will succeed even with all of you brainwashed naysayers discrediting it.

[Hot Air]

Gore is a m-o-r-o-n.