TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Obesity Tax?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

The best is getting a pack hot dogs and dipping them in a fresh jar of mayo.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Actually I do... and that is with insurance. Only covers 80% of hospital visits. I don't know too many 24 year olds having bypass surgery.

See, so you yourself are an example of why insurance is necessary even if you are fucked no matter how you look at it.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel See, so you yourself are an example of why insurance is necessary even if you are fucked no matter how you look at it.

Hey this is the CoR... we're joking around here not having a serious discussion about insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Hey this is the CoR... we're joking around here not having a serious discussion about insurance.

Some were.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild The best is getting a pack hot dogs and dipping them in a fresh jar of mayo.

Holy shit, my heartrate just doubled in excitement- err... ruuuurgh, ERGHHHhh *keels over*

Hey take it easy! You can eat a lot more if you pace yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild The best is getting a pack hot dogs and dipping them in a fresh jar of mayo.

do people really do that?

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Hey take it easy! You can eat a lot more if you pace yourself.

It's not as though it's getting any cheaper though.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 do people really do that?

"People" is a rather tentative term, in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On "People" is a rather tentative term, in this case.

ok - do cows concealing themselves as people really do that?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ok - do cows concealing themselves as people really do that?

I made it up on the spot, but my life experience has taught me that any fucked up shit I can think of someone has already done.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I made it up on the spot, but my life experience has taught me that any fucked up shit I can think of someone has already done.

that's probably right.

Yeah, if you can think of it, it's probably been done... and recorded, and posted on 4chan, b0g, Ogrish, etc.

For everyone complaining about this and all the other things that are getting raised, please offer an alternative.

If he weren't raising tuition for CUNY/SUNY $600, he'd have to shut them down or get rid of half the faculty.

If he weren't taxing 15% on soft drinks, he'd have to kill a quarter of the service our subways and busses run on.

If he weren't taxing cigarettes and cigars more, he'd have to tax us extremely and excessively more on things like heat, water, and gas, things we NEED.

The state and the city need to tighten the belt. It's because so many Americans are just learning for themselves that they too have to tighten the belt that there's so much complaining. The State Of New York is getting just a fraction of the money it's used to getting from Federal funding. Blame Bush and the horrible decisions he's made that have landed us here, not Governor Patterson whose hands are tied and he has to make tough choices.

So I still ask you guys, what do you suggest?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco For everyone complaining about this and all the other things that are getting raised, please offer an alternative. If he weren't raising tuition for CUNY/SUNY $600, he'd have to shut them down or get rid of half the faculty. If he weren't taxing 15% on soft drinks, he'd have to kill a quarter of the service our subways and busses run on. If he weren't taxing cigarettes and cigars more, he'd have to tax us extremely and excessively more on things like heat, water, and gas, things we NEED. The state and the city need to tighten the belt. It's because so many Americans are just learning for themselves that they too have to tighten the belt that there's so much complaining. The State Of New York is getting just a fraction of the money it's used to getting from Federal funding. Blame Bush and the horrible decisions he's made that have landed us here, not Governor Patterson whose hands are tied and he has to make tough choices. So I still ask you guys, what do you suggest?

Totally false. Ever heard of bad money management? Cut the bullshit programs you don't need, that waste money, or are just there to make people feel better but totally unnecessary.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Totally false. Ever heard of bad money management? Cut the bullshit programs you don't need, that waste money, or are just there to make people feel better but totally unnecessary.

NY state earns approximately 25% of its income from the finance industry. NYC is slightly less at about 11%. Since almost no one in the finance industry is making a profit, the state is also not taking in much revenue from the finance industry. The state's financial problems are a result of the underlying economic problems in the state's number 1 industry.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 NY state earns approximately 25% of its income from the finance industry. NYC is slightly less at about 11%. Since almost no one in the finance industry is making a profit, the state is also not taking in much revenue from the finance industry. The state's financial problems are a result of the underlying economic problems in the state's number 1 industry.

While I didn't know those stats, cutting useless and wholly unnecessary programs is a HUGE area that they could save money. This is EVERY large state. California is a great example. We are basically bankrupt as a state.

Or Gov Patterson can stop buying $40,000 rugs which he can't even fuking see with taxpayer money.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel While I didn't know those stats, cutting useless and wholly unnecessary programs is a HUGE area that they could save money. This is EVERY large state. California is a great example. We are basically bankrupt as a state.

the spending wasn't necessarily wasteful until this crisis.

in any event, bloomberg is excellent at cutting wasteful spending. he doesn't give a fuck, he'll cut an entire city agency to maintain some balance in the budget. the problem with cutting wasteful government spending, however, is that usually means firing workers. In that case, those fired workers are moving from one government payroll to the state's unemployed insurance fund. that doesn't entirely get rid of the problem. it only gets rid of about half the problem for at least 25-30 weeks. (i think the benefits are about 500 a week for twenty something weeks).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 in any event, bloomberg is excellent at cutting wasteful spending.

this is the same guy who was proposing putting wind turbines on top of bridges and skyscrapers in NYC

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the spending wasn't necessarily wasteful until this crisis. in any event, bloomberg is excellent at cutting wasteful spending. he doesn't give a fuck, he'll cut an entire city agency to maintain some balance in the budget. the problem with cutting wasteful government spending, however, is that usually means firing workers. In that case, those fired workers are moving from one government payroll to the state's unemployed insurance fund. that doesn't entirely get rid of the problem. it only gets rid of about half the problem for at least 25-30 weeks. (i think the benefits are about 500 a week for twenty something weeks).

Agreed that it isn't the full answer, but it does help.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss this is the same guy who was proposing putting wind turbines on top of bridges and skyscrapers in NYC

THE DARING!!!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss this is the same guy who was proposing putting wind turbines on top of bridges and skyscrapers in NYC

is that supposed to be a suggestion that he isn't a wasteful spending cutter? explain how a capital expenditure that is supposed to reduce the need for the city to purchase electricity from quasi public & private companies wasteful spending. once the turbines are established the required expense to maintain them is significant less than the recurring cost of purchasing energy from energy producers. also, the cost will be stable so the city energy costs wouldn't fluctuate depending on whether some guy in saudi arabia blows up his car. the trick is to ensure that:

windturbine installation + maintainence + delivery < current energy expense.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 is that supposed to be a suggestion that he isn't a wasteful spending cutter? explain how a capital expenditure that is supposed to reduce the need for the city to purchase electricity from quasi public & private companies wasteful spending. once the turbines are established the required capital to maintain them is significant less than the recurring cost of purchasing energy from. also, the cost will be stable so the city energy costs wouldn't fluctuate depending on whether some guy in saudi arabia blows up his car.

Not only that, whatever electricity they don't use, if it ever got past the amount they did use, they could sell it at a profit on the open market.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 is that supposed to be a suggestion that he isn't a wasteful spending cutter? explain how a capital expenditure that is supposed to reduce the need for the city to purchase electricity from quasi public & private companies wasteful spending. once the turbines are established the required expense to maintain them is significant less than the recurring cost of purchasing energy from energy producers. also, the cost will be stable so the city energy costs wouldn't fluctuate depending on whether some guy in saudi arabia blows up his car. the trick is to ensure that: windturbine installation + maintainence + delivery < current energy expense.

It sounds good in theory, but like all other good intentioned liberal policies, there are unintended consequences. Bloomberg's own words shortly after his stupid proposal: "There are aesthetic considerations. And no. 2, I have absolutely no idea whether that makes any sense from a scientific, from a practical point of view."

Well, sorry but thre are issues from a scientific point of view. Wind turbulence and the vibrations the buildings would have to endure... and the relatively small amount of wind the turbines would be able to harness in the city would limit the project's feasibility cost-wise. Also, skyscrapers typically are not built to withstand the load of wind turbines if I'm not mistaken. Plus you have to pay for not only the windmill, but a generator and tower as well, plus installation costs and electric wiring. Then, if wind speed goes too high (over 50 mph... not uncommon in NYC), they have to be shut down or they'll fall apart.

Check out Dr. Nina Pierpont's newly published research on what she calls "Wind Turbine Syndrome," based on what she's seen in people living close to wind farms.

quote:

Research indicates that low frequency noise and vibrations for people living close to wind turbines can cause sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, headaches, childhood "night terrors" as well as other health problems.

The whole thing was just political bullshit to help get popularity from his liberal constituents.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.