It's so bad you have to pay people to move to Vermont - Page 30

AlpineZone

Page 30 of 55 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 550
  1. #291
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,902
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.



    Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.
    Bingo
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  2. #292
    Vermont taxpayers: 318,674 - 64,333 = 254,342
    Non-Vermont taxpayers: 52,047 - 8,047 = 44,000

    Total taxpayers = 298,341, not 364k.
    Just call it legislative math

    I would object to "non-Vermont taxpayers", though, as they clearly are paying taxes to Vermont. "Non-resident" is more accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    And on the WCAX FB page everyone hates the idea. So much for making real change to improve safety and improve gas efficiency.
    You can have one or the other. Raise the limit to the 80 MPH it should be (or better yet go to no daytime limit) if you want better safety.

    Of course, 80 MPH is really, really crummy for gas mileage, and "no daytime limit" is worse.
    Disclaimer: Unless otherwise noted, I speak only for myself, unless I'm saying something incredibly dumb, in which case I didn't say anything and you're hallucinating.

  3. #293
    I am glad that the bill was introduced. It shows that people love to tell others that they need to change their behavior to save the planet, but they aren’t willing to make any changes to their own behavior. If anything, this bill has shown that the climate emperors have no clothes.

    The solution to climate change is to evolve and adapt, just as mankind has done since the dawn of history. This fanciful idea that people will be willing to go back to the pre-industrial age is ridiculous.

  4. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by VTKilarney View Post
    I am glad that the bill was introduced. It shows that people love to tell others that they need to change their behavior to save the planet, but they aren’t willing to make any changes to their own behavior. If anything, this bill has shown that the climate emperors have no clothes.

    The solution to climate change is to evolve and adapt, just as mankind has done since the dawn of history. This fanciful idea that people will be willing to go back to the pre-industrial age is ridiculous.
    Spot on.

  5. #295
    If they really wanted to help the environment, they’d pass a law exempting electric cars from all state and local speeding tickets.

    After 12, maybe 18 month tops, there wouldn’t be a single gasoline car traveling through Bridgewater or Plymouth. Bonus points for screwing over Maplefields.

  6. #296
    I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've rarely seen such quality discourse in an open forum like this. I appreciate the candid, well-considered, and very educated viewpoints that have been so thoughtfully put in to words here. Thank you for your contributions. Each voice matters. Keep articulating your good sense in any and all forums and, please, influence politics as you can. You are the voices of reason, and it falls to each individual the responsibility to advocate for better paths forward. Thank you all.

  7. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca View Post
    I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've rarely seen such quality discourse in an open forum like this. I appreciate the candid, well-considered, and very educated viewpoints that have been so thoughtfully put in to words here. Thank you for your contributions. Each voice matters. Keep articulating your good sense in any and all forums and, please, influence politics as you can. You are the voices of reason, and it falls to each individual the responsibility to advocate for better paths forward. Thank you all.
    Agree Orca, just really well-thought out responses to a multi-tiered subject. And respectful diagreement is a welcome ( and much needed) attribute.

    Doing my morning due diligence to stay abreast of the news I came across these questions and thought many of you would agree with Cal Thomas:

    Politicians, including the president, should be asked serious questions during this year's election campaign, instead of the media's fixation on impeachment, polls and the horse race. Here are a few that come to mind:

    1. Government is bigger than ever, far larger and more intrusive than our Founders anticipated and warned us about. Nonpartisan organizations have come up with proposals to rid government of programs that have outlived their usefulness, or don't work, or never worked. Would you be willing to identify them and if elected (or re-elected) terminate them?

    2. The national debt is $23 trillion and the deficit is at record highs. Everyone knows Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs are mainly responsible. There have been serious reform proposals, but politicians won't touch them for fear they will be smeared as anti-senior citizen. Do you have the courage to lead on this issue?

    You can find the entire column here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011420.php3

  8. #298
    NY DirtBag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Mecox, NY / Bondville, VT
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by 1dog View Post
    Agree Orca, just really well-thought out responses to a multi-tiered subject. And respectful diagreement is a welcome ( and much needed) attribute.

    Doing my morning due diligence to stay abreast of the news I came across these questions and thought many of you would agree with Cal Thomas:

    Politicians, including the president, should be asked serious questions during this year's election campaign, instead of the media's fixation on impeachment, polls and the horse race. Here are a few that come to mind:

    1. Government is bigger than ever, far larger and more intrusive than our Founders anticipated and warned us about. Nonpartisan organizations have come up with proposals to rid government of programs that have outlived their usefulness, or don't work, or never worked. Would you be willing to identify them and if elected (or re-elected) terminate them?

    2. The national debt is $23 trillion and the deficit is at record highs.
    Everyone knows Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs are mainly responsible. There have been serious reform proposals, but politicians won't touch them for fear they will be smeared as anti-senior citizen. Do you have the courage to lead on this issue?

    You can find the entire column here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011420.php3
    I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.

    Of course, I agree medicare needs to be dealt with, but Social Security is not a problem. Just needs a few minor tweaks to remain viable for 100's of years.

  9. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by NY DirtBag View Post
    I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.
    Bloated military? Maybe, but they are coming off a recent period of severe austerity,(sequestration) so much so I was reading articles on how the Airforce was scavenging engine parts from boneyards. No doubt there's a few $10,000 hammers out there. Wars haven't exactly been endless, although Afghanistan is an outlier. But I'm here for that last comment.

    Tax breaks, especially those for corporations, are designed for a reason. It isn't dollars from heaven. It's to be competitive with other countries, so jobs don't go to Ireland or so investment and risk taking is encouraged and taxes are deferred, not eliminated. I read a FB post recently that asked why Chevron, among other companies, didn't pay any taxes in 2018. So I looked up their annual report, and listed as the prime reason was accelerated depreciation on exploration expenses. That means that with the high risk of looking for oil, (because frequently you don't find it where you drill) you can deduct those costs faster than other capital assets that need to be expensed over 5 to 20 years. This encourages more exploration, increases production, and gets you a dependable flow of 87 octane so you can drive north to go skiing on the weekend. You benefit. Chevron will still pay taxes on their profits, they just get to recognize and deduct the huge checks they wrote for drill rigs in 2018 - that's hard cash that went out of their checkbook. You would rather we had much less drilling, much less oil, more dependency on the Middle East, $5.00/gal gas and less profits down the road by domestic oil production to provide tax revenue?

    It's easy to demonize an evil corporation for making money, for taking advantage of incentives, especially when big companies measure profits in Billions. They also provide huge output. Look at profit per gallon, or profit per share. It isn't very much.

    Sure, I question some high salaries and bonuses. I question "too big to fail". I question the lack of anti-trust regulation in many industries. But you can't demonize success. You can't demonize risk taking. You can't encourage investment through tax policy, and then demonize the tax deferred results.

  10. #300
    Our military spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than average, but far from the highest. We are roughly 25th.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:52 PM.