 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
krispos42's Journal
Problem solved.
The rich and powerful can stop paying taxes any time they want to. Pick any high-salaried person: Oprah Winfrey. Mel Gilbson. Barry Bonds. Peyton Manning. Pat Robertson. Rick Waggoner. Britney Spears. Johnny Depp. Whoever; doesn't matter. Doesn't manner. Every single one of them, unless they have truly epic problems with gambling, drugs, and hookers, has the option of stopping all income streams and living off the money they've already paid taxes on. Every single one of them has the option to never pay any payroll tax again. No income tax, federal, state, or local. No Social Security tax. No Medicare. NOTHING. They can cash in their stocks, bonds, and other types of financial instruments that generate streams of money, put that big pile of cash in the bank with a 0% interest rate, and continue living a normal livestyle. You know, 60-foot sailing yacht, private airplane, golf at an exclusive country club, horse breeding, scuba-diving, fine dining... whatever. I'm sure that BoA or Wells Fargo would be ecstatic to buy private insurance for A. Rod's checking account in lieu of paying interest on $100,000,000 or so. Any one of these people can take what they've "earned", spend a million bucks a year from their already-taxed saving on whatever they want, not pay a dime in income taxes, and still have 8 figures left to pass on to their kids when they die. So I don't feel sorry for them. I will not spare one millijoule of energy feeling sorry for the poor little rich elite. Because they CHOOSE to keep paying income taxes. At that level of income, work is a choice, not a necessity. So retire. There are 300 million people in this country, plenty of which would love to have your job. Lord knows there's no lack of would-be actors and actresses wandering around Hollywood, or would-be baseball stars in the various minor leagues or waiting to be discovered on some quiet Carribean island. And the business schools are humming, because lord knows we don't bother teaching our kids anything science-like anymore. Get an MBA! Fuck engineering, it's harder and doesn't pay as well. I don't have that choice. In fact, right now, I'm technically homeless, thanks to my thrice-damned cowardly lackwit of a former roommate. So I HAVE to work. Which means I HAVE to pay Social Security and Medicare and federal income tax and Minnesota income tax. I don't mind the federal income tax so much... I calculated recently that my "tax freedom day" last year was January 15th. 3.85% of my gross. But it's everything else that eats away. But Social Security? Medicare? Those taxes are paid only on the first $105,000 or so of income. That means that A. Rod and Mel Gibson pay only a couple of more times more into SSA and Medicare than I do... despite making about THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more! A third of my net goes towards rent. The other two-thirds goes into my gas tank, or my phone, or my internet, or my refridgerator... pretty much all of which has their respective taxes as well. But that's me. That's not them. You want to help me, anti-tax forces? Fine. Repeal the gas tax and replace it with an equivilent increase in the capital gains rate. THAT will help me. Not moving my "tax freedom day" from January 15th to January 14th. You want to help me, anti-tax forces? Fine. Drop the FICA percentage from 6.2% to 3% and remove the wage cap. You want to help me? Give everybody in the country Medicare, keep the FICA rate where it is, and remove the wage cap. Because if you do that I won't have to pay an additional 10% of my wages of medical and dental insurance, and my car insurance will go down as well. Hell, you can even increase FICA to 10% with no wage cap... I'll still save lots of money! But don't give me a load of bull about how cutting taxes for the rich will help me. It won't. The rich aren't going to pay above-market wages for labor "just because". They're not going to throw in a little extra with the rent, hire more people than they need, pay more for raw materials than they have to. The rich aren't going to say "hey, we just got a tax break, let's give the guys on the floor a bonus!" When the electric bill comes, they aren't going to round up to the nearest thousand and mail in a check with a sticky note saying "keep the change" on it. I work in a factory. I use my hands to add intrinsic value to steel. You want to help me? Drive up demand for my product and my labor so I can be working 40 hours a week again, so I get regular raises and maybe, at the end of the year, some profit-sharing into my 401(k). And maybe even get some (gasp!) overtime!  I caught this article in Machine Design magazine. I wanted to share it because previously I had only heard of wave-driven power generation as scaled up, buoyant versions of those shake-powered flashlights.
This design uses a float attached to two water pumps. A field of floats woud pump massive amounts of seawater at moderate pressures through PVC piping to an on-shore generating station and through a turbine before being returned back to the ocean. All the wiring would be located on land, with the hardware underwater being make of corrision-resistant materials such as PVC, stainless steel, concrete, bronze, and titatium. Electricity From Ocean WavesMarch 3, 2009 A novel design puts a spin on conventional hydroelectrics to harvest energy from the sea. In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on sustainable-energy sources as part of ongoing efforts to combat climate change. The greatest success in the history of sustainable energy is hydroelectric power, which has been performing reliably for over 100 years. And more-recent technology effectively harnesses wind power, both on land and offshore. In fact, the use of wind power is now so widespread, it is easy to forget how recently the technology became acceptable for generating electric power. The question arises as to why a similar exploitation of the energy of ocean waves has not happened, a principal focus of this article. Also emphasized are the similarities between hydroelectric power and wave power, the principal connection being that water can be stored. A new wave-power device illustrates these similarities. <snip> The Glenbower Wave Pump uses the heaving action of ocean waves to pump seawater to shore, where it is passed through conventional turbines to generate electric power before being returned to the ocean. The system may include onshore water storage to provide continuous operation, particularly where topographical conditions are favorable. The equipment consists of a series of wave-pump assemblies and pipework to deliver the water to shore under a pressure suitable for power generation on dry land. A single wave-pump assembly consists of the following components: one float; four horizontal anchors connected to the float by mooring lines; two vertical anchors located directly under the float, two reciprocating pumps connected between the float and the vertical anchors; two surge tanks, one sitting on each of the two vertical anchors; a discharge pipe to carry the water to shore, and a small air pipe to supply pressurizing air from shore to the pump assembly (See “Wave-pump assembly” illustration). The float is fabricated from mild steel, or from a light, corrosion-resistant material such as fiberglass. Since the float is also used to increase the surge-tank volume, it is designed as a pressure vessel and hence is depicted as a cylindrical vessel with spherical ends. The four mooring lines permit vertical movement of the float, as well as limited horizontal movement — the upwind lines being typically taut and the downwind lines being slack. The pumps are a reciprocating type, not unlike a traditional hand-cranked pump. The connection at each end of the pump permits rotation about both horizontal axes. This lets the float respond to the random action of the waves, and also ensures that the pumps remain in pure tension or compression under the loading imposed by the rising and falling of the wave. The configuration of the pumps is generally similar to that of conventional air or hydraulic cylinders, except the rod is hollow and is used as the discharge pipe to convey the pumped water into the surge tanks. <more> http://machinedesign.com/article/electrici...    According to the article, the floats would be 10' in diameter and 138' long, or 3 meters by 42 meters. The pump pistons would be almost 8 feet in diameter. They have calculations in the article for a couple of different scenarios that have a single float pump making over 360 horsepower. Of course after friction losses and turbine-conversion losses and such you'd probably only get maybe 100 HP out of the process but that's 100 free horsepower. About 75 kilowatts. No pollution, no carbon dioxide, just cheap energy. STOP! DON'T VOTE YET!!! Thank you for stopping and reading these instructions first *cough* SQUATCH *cough*.  The purpose of this poll is to see how the general public perceives one aspect of American firearm laws. I'm not trying to find your opinion, whether or not something should or shouldn't be permitted. Nor am I trying to find out what the law is. I'm trying to find out how well the general public has been educated by the popular and news media, the politicians, the activists, and the lobbyists on this issue. I want to know what people THINK the law is. What their impression is. If you DON'T know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you voted your perception and kicked the thread. If you DO know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you abstained from revealing what the law is, voted "I know what the law is" instead, and kicked the thread. If nobody has disclosed what the law it 24 hours or so after posting, I'll post it for general edification. Question: is it your impression that the since-expired 1993 Federal Assault Weapons Ban regulated fully-automatic rifles and pistols? For the purposes of this poll, "fully-automatic rifles and pistols" are guns that, when the trigger is held down, fire two or more rounds. And special thanks to Ms. Toad for her helpful suggestion in the last poll. STOP! DON'T VOTE YET!!!Thank you for stopping and reading these instructions first. The purpose of this poll is to see how the general public perceives one aspect of American firearm laws. I'm not trying to find your opinion, whether or not something should or shouldn't be permitted. Nor am I trying to find out what the law is. I'm trying to find out how well the general public has been educated by the popular and news media, the politicians, the activists, and the lobbyists on this issue. I want to know what people THINK the law is. What their impression is. If you DON'T know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you voted your perception and kicked the thread. If you DO know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you abstained from voting or revealing what the law is, but kick the thread anyway. If nobody has disclosed what the law it 24 hours after posting, I'll post it for general edification. Question: is it your impression that, on a federal level, fully-automatic firearms are readily available for sale to the general public? For the purposes of this poll, "fully-automatic firearms" are guns that, when the trigger is held down, fires two or more rounds. Also for the purposes of this poll, "general public" means Mr. and Mrs. Law-Abiding American with a clean criminal and mental-health record. Okay, you can vote now... Repeating firearms are guns that have a mechanism that, only when physically manipulated by the shooter, will allow the shooter to fire multiple shots without reloading the gun.
Nearly all repeaters fall into the following categories: Bolt-action Lever-action Slide- or pump-action Revolving action Bolt-action guns are typically rifles of the sort that rotates to lock and unlock the bolt. The handle is typically located convenient to the shooter's right hand, the same hand used to pull the trigger. To cycle the mechanism, the shooter first rotates the bolt counter-clockwise, then yanks the bolt rearward as far as it can go. This extracts and ejects the loaded cartridge, fired or not. The bolt is then pushed forward, which strips a fresh cartridge from the magazine and inserts it into the barrel, and in some designs, cocks the firing mechanism. Finally, the bolt is rotated clockwise, which lock the bolt in place and, in many designs, cocks the firing mechanism. These types of bolt-actions are called "turnbolt repeaters". There are some designs that are simply pulled straight back and pushed forward, but those are not common. Bolt-action guns are almost all rifles, and are typically fed from a stacked magazine that may be fixed or detachable. Rifles the fire rimfire ammunition are often made with fixed tubular magazines that hold cartridges nose-to-tail underneath the barrel. This turnbolt repeater has a fixed stacked magazine with a hinged floorplate for quick, safe unloading. It does not protrude from the rifle.  This turnbolt repeater has a detachable stacked magazine for quick, safe loading and unloading. It protrudes from the rifle.  Lever-action guns are typically rifles that use a lever with a loop for the shooter's hand to cycle the mechanism. The lever is located where the shooter holds the rear grip, and the shooter uses his or her trigger hand to work the lever after pulling the trigger. To cycle the mechanism, the shooter slips his or her hand into the loop below the grip and pushes down with the top of the hand. The lever moves down and forward, unlocking the bolt and moving it rearwards while extracting and ejecting the loaded cartridge and cocking the external hammer. The shooter then pulls the lever up and rearwards, causing the bolt to move forward, loading a cartridge from the magazine into the barrel, and locking the bolt closed. The gun is now ready to fire. They are typically fed from a fixed tubular magazine attached to the underside of the barrel that holds the cartridges in a nose-to-tail configuration. This lever-action rifle features a tubular magazine loaded through an opening just below the bolt. Some designs can be loaded by unscrewing the front of the magazine instead.  Slide-action/pump-action guns are typically shotguns with a foregrip that is used to operate the firing mechanism. The shooter uses his or her non-trigger hand to slide the foregrip back and forth after pulling the trigger. To cycle the mechanism after firing a shot, the shooter pulls back briskly on the foregrip. This causes the shotgun's bolt to unlock and slide rearward while extracting and ejecting the loaded shotshell and cocking the firing mechanism. Then the slide is pushed forward briskly, causing to bolt to move forward, strip a fresh shell from the magazine, and load it into the barrel, then finally locking the bolt closed. Shotguns are almost always fed from a tubular magazine attached to the underside of the barrel that holds the shells in a nose-to-tail configuration. This pump-action shotgun features a tubular magazine loaded though an opening located underneath the gun and in front of the triggerguard.  Revolving action guns are typically handguns called "revolvers", which have a cylinder behind the barrel which has holes bored in it for holding and firing cartridges. Unlike a magazine, which only holds cartridges until they can be loaded into the barrel, the cartridges in a revolver are fired in the cylinder. The cylinder acts as an array of separate firing chambers for the barrel. Revolver mechanisms come in two types: single-action and double-action. Single-action revolvers have triggers whose only purpose is to release a cocked hammer. If the hammer does not cock, the gun will not fire. To fire a single-action revolver, the shooter draws back and cocks the hammer, typically with the shooter's thumb. This also causes the cylinder to rotate, putting a fresh cartridge in line with the barrel, then locking itself in place. With the hammer cocked, the shooter then pulls the trigger, which releases the hammer and fires a shot. For the next shot, the shooter must manually cock the hammer again. Double-action revolvers have a mechanism that allows the trigger to both cock and release the hammer. There are two ways to fire a double-action revolver. You can shoot it like the single-action revolver described above, or you can simply keep pulling the trigger. Each time the trigger is pulled, the hammer is drawn backward while the cylinder rotates a fresh cartridge behind the barrel. One the fresh cartridge is aligned, the cylinder locks itself in place. Further pressure on the trigger will cause the drawn-back hammer to release and fire a shot. This type of trigger pull is longer and heavier than the single-action one. Single-action revolvers typically have a fixed cylinder that is loaded and unloaded through a loading gate, while double-action revolvers typically have a swing-out cylinder for rapid loading and unloading. This single-action revolver has a loading gate (shown closed) between the hammer and cylinder. An under-barrel hand ejector lets the shooter push out cartridges one at a time.  This double-action revolver has a cylinder that opens up. Cartridges are inserted into the rear of the cylinder. The rod protruding from the front of the cylinder is the ejector. Pushing this rod rearwards briskly will eject all of the cartridges simultaneously.  And not puddle-jumpers, either. Jets the size of a 737 or A320
Fewer trips for the fuel truck Developments debuted at the Paris Air Show put airliners on a track toward flying more passengers while using less fuel. Robert Rowe Contributing Editor "It really was way ahead of its time." We're talking about the Piaggio Aero Industries P180, a perennial regular at the Paris Air Show. The Avanti is an ‘efficiency machine' conceived out of the oil crisis of the late ‘70s and hatched by the late ‘80s. Despite wise-cracks about its looks when it first appeared (like, "Is it flying back wards?"), events at this past summer's Paris Show foretell its re-emergence as in-vogue platform because of its high performance and fuel economy. It has props but cruises at 41,000 ft, runs 460 mph, and on a typical 345-mile flight arrives within five minutes of a jet. But that jet will burn 50% more fuel!  <snip> It's not like aviation has stood still in operational efficiency or in reducing noise and pollution. Consider the often-cited productivity factor, passenger miles/gallon (pmpg), a measurement that accounts for the economics of the engine and airframe as a system. This is the fuel economy of a transport airplane averaged over its passenger capacity. The Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787, both now close to entering service, are expected to get over 80 pmpg. This is a whopping 3X improvement over early jets (i.e. 707-120). The air transportation fleet overall average today is about 47 pmpg. Modern 70-seat twin-engine short-haul turboprops get about 52 pmpg. <more> http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/70215... And this is about the easyJet ecoJet: The “easyJet ecoJet”: to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2015 easyJet has today become the first airline to outline the environmental requirements that must be met by the next generation of short-haul super-clean aircraft; and unveiled its design of what such an aircraft could look like for operation by 2015. Dubbed the “easyJet ecoJet”, the aircraft would need to be 25% quieter and would emit 50% less CO2 and 75% less NOx than today’s newest aircraft (the 737 and A320 families of aircraft). <snip> In easyJet’s current configuration and operation, the projection for the eco-liner would generate less than 47g of CO2 per passenger km. For comparison, easyJet’s current operations generate 97.5g of CO2 per passenger km, the Toyota Prius emits 104g of CO2 per kilometre; and the European car industry has recently been given a target to achieve 130g of CO2 per kilometre. <more>  http://www.easyjet.com/EN/News/easyjet_eco...  This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words: gun (13x) bomb (8x) torture (3x) dead (2x) shit (1x) I knew the Repub censors wanted to keep the electric car, the TurboSteamer concept, a dead soldier in Iraq, and the inversion of the Constitution under wraps, but this is a little extreme. And, sadly, not a bare breast in the bunch... http://journals.democraticunderground.com/... I went to this site, the American Presidency Project, to see exactly when the Democratic Party became the party of gun control.
The 2004 platform states: Crime and violence. While terrorism poses an especially menacing threat to our nation, a strong America must remain vigilant against the scourge of homegrown crime as well. We are proud that Democrats led the fight to put more than 100,000 cops on the beat through the COPS program, and we will continue our steadfast support for COPS and community policing. To keep our streets safe for our families, we support tough punishment of violent crime and smart efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into our communities as productive citizens. We will crack down on the gang violence and drug crime that devastate so many communities, and we will increase drug treatment, including mandatory drug courts and mandatory drug testing for parolees and probationers, so fewer crimes are committed in the first place. We support the rights of victims to be respected, to be heard, and to be compensated. We will help break the cycle of domestic violence by punishing offenders and standing with victims. We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do. (Boldface mine) The 2000 platform states: Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office determined to turn the tide in the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder in our communities. They put in place a tougher more comprehensive strategy than anything tried before, a strategy to fight crime on every single front: more police on the streets to thicken the thin blue line between order and disorder, tougher punishments - including the death penalty - for those that dare to terrorize the innocent, and smarter prevention to stop crime before it even starts. They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns. They fought for and won the biggest anti-drug budgets in history, every single year. They funded new prison cells, and expanded the death penalty for cop killers and terrorists. (boldface mine) The 1996 platform states: Fighting crime. Today's Democratic Party believes the first responsibility of government is law and order. Four years ago, crime in America seemed intractable. The violent crime rate and the murder rate had climbed for seven straight years. Drugs seemed to flow freely across our borders and into our neighborhoods. Convicted felons could walk into any gun shop and buy a handgun. Military-style assault weapons were sold freely. Our people didn't feel safe in their homes, walking their streets, or even sending their children to school. Under the thumb of special interests like the gun lobby, Republicans talked tough about crime but did nothing to fight it. <snip> Protecting our children, our neighborhoods, and our police from criminals with guns. Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush were able to hold the Brady Bill hostage for the gun lobby until Bill Clinton became President. With his leadership, we made the Brady Bill the law of the land. And because we did, more than 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers have been stopped from buying guns. President Clinton led the fight to ban 19 deadly assault weapons, designed for one purpose only -- to kill human beings. We oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban. But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America's streets, and we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer. Today's Democratic Party stands with America's police officers. We are proud to tell them that as long as Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in the White House, any attempt to repeal the Brady Bill or assault weapons ban will be met with a veto. We must do everything we can to stand behind our police officers, and the first thing we should do is pass a ban on cop-killer bullets. Any bullet that can rip through a bulletproof vest should be against the law; that is the least we can do to protect the brave police officers who risk their lives to protect us. (italics and boldface mine) The 1992 platform states: Firearms. It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes. We will work for swift and certain punishment of all people who violate the country's gun laws and for stronger sentences for criminals who use guns. We will also seek to shut down the black market for guns and impose severe penalties on people who sell guns to children. (boldface mine) The 1988 platform states: WE BELIEVE that the federal government should provide increased assistance to local criminal justice agencies, enforce a ban on "cop killer" bullets that have no purpose other than the killing and maiming of law enforcement officers, reinforce our commitment to help crime victims, and assume a leadership role in securing the safety of our neighborhoods and homes. The 1984 platform states:  *crickets* The 1980 platform states: *crickets* The 1976 platform states: Handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party must provide the leadership for a coordinated federal and state effort to strengthen the presently inadequate controls over the manufacture, assembly, distribution and possession of handguns and to ban Saturday night specials. Furthermore, since people and not guns commit crimes, we support mandatory sentencing for individuals convicted of committing a felony with a gun. The Democratic Party, however, affirms the right of sportsmen to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes. (boldface mine) The 1972 platform states: There must be laws to control the improper use of hand guns. Four years ago a candidate for the presidency was slain by a handgun. Two months ago, another candidate for that office was gravely wounded. Three out of four police officers killed in the line of duty are slain with hand guns. Effective legislation must include a ban on sale of hand guns known as Saturday night specials which are unsuitable for sporting purposes; The 1968 platform states: The federal government has come swiftly to the aid of cities needing help to bring major disturbances under control, and Democratic leadership secured the enactment of a new gun control law as a step toward putting the weapons of wanton violence beyond the reach of criminal and irresponsible hands. <snip> Promote the passage and enforcement of effective federal, state and local gun control legislation. The 1964 platform states: *crickets* The 1960 platform states: *crickets* The 1956 platform states: *crickets* So that's a half-century of Democrats on gun control. Please note the 1996 platform that acknowledged that the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban cost Democrats the House and the Congress, so PLEASE stop saying that it didn't!!!!! The term and paranoia of 'assault weapons' started back in 1992. Before that, it was Saturday Night Specials and criminals buying handguns that were worried about. |
Profile Information krispos42
29775 posts Member since Thu May 4th 2006 Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. *** House Debate on Health Care Bill *** Thread 7 By annabanana Ok somebody catch me up... By luvspeas Do Republicans want health care for all Americans? By MrScorpio For my 1,000th post... a big THANK YOU to all of you at DU! By CurtEastPoint Page 1 of 1 By madamesilverspurs Public Option is the new Toxic Asset By dpbrown To the Blue Dawgs concerned about the economic cost of a strong public option or single payer By Uncle Joe Howard Dean for "Health Choices Czar"! By tmyers09 Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours.  "Wal-Mart is Your God Now"-WM Goes Crazy on (Innocent) Couple Accused of Shoplifting 112 recs : By XanaDUer For the millionth time, THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION 90 recs : By debbierlus Our Sarah Palin Coloring Book made the Washington Post! 56 recs : By demobabe POW Shoshana Johnson pounds the shit out of a wingnut who asks her if she's been to Iraq. 51 recs : By trumad I do not support this bill 40 recs : By AllentownJake Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5% 39 recs : By Truth2Tell Official FUCK YOU HOUSE REPUBLICANS thread. 37 recs : By tridim Man who threatened Obama sentenced (3 yrs) 34 recs : By kpete ****** DU November 2009 Bumper Sticker Slogan Contest: And The Winners Are... ****** 34 recs : By EarlG A nostalgic look at the Old Democratic Party. 33 recs : By bvar22 Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
