Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Kevin_B]

MMGW has not been accepted “almost unanimously” by “scientists in its field”. It is not even a majority view. Thousands hold opposing opinions.

You know, I had a large list of things to discuss with you. For instance, how you could possibly not know that “climatology” is, in fact, a discreet branch of science. Or how, although I would agree meteorology is a very hard discipline, you happened to ignore the fact that I showed less than half of meteorologists actually have that degree, and how less than 20% have advanced degrees.

But no. I want to focus on this one sentence. You are right, thousands of scientists have expressed opposing opinions. And many people on here have cited such opinions. But you are the first to make a very specific claim that can easily be proven.

You claim that at least 51% of scientists in that field hold opposing opinions. Can you prove that claim? It should be fairly easy. I’m sure you would not make a claim such as that without concrete proof to back it up.

But honestly, it’s irrelevant anyway, isn’t it? What scientists believe about something doesn’t change what is happening, does it? I’m sure you’ll never be able to prove that 51% of scientists are skeptical, and I’m sure you’ll keep ignoring my evidence of overwhelming consensus because conspiracy theorists always limit themselves to viewing only that evidence that supports their pre-existing opinion. But none of that matters.

What does matter is that study after study after study has taken climate models over many millennia, has included the fact that the world has gone through many climate cycles, has included the fact that the temperature was much higher than it was now, has included the fact that warming has slowed down in the past decade, has included the fact that our winters are getting colder and we’ve had warmer weather earlier this century, and they STILL come to the conclusion that the temperature has risen faster in the last century that it has ever risen in the past 400,000 years or so, and that it gas no plans to stop.

THAT’S why your argument will always fail. All the “evidence” you have against AGW has already been accounted for in the climate models, and they still prove you wrong. So unless you come up with some new evidence that has not been accounted for, you don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s like the guy who confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey. He CONFESSED TO MURDER, and yet the charges were still dropped against him. In the same way that you know a case is weak when the accused confesses and you STILL can’t convict him, you know your case is weak when scientists use all your evidence in their models and they STILL predict global warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

I can’t say I blame anyone who buys a Volt, even though taxpayers are paying a lot more of the purchase price than the buyer is

You really don’t know about it much.

We paid some $47,000 (including tax and some add-ons) and the gov gave us $7500 off our taxes a year later. $7500 < $47000.

And considering that the gov gives substantial subsidies and tax-breaks to oil, which means I’ve been paying on April 15th for people to profligately drive around emitting pollution that kills people for many decades (while we’ve managed to reduce our driving to about 6,000 miles a year), I’d say it was about pay-back time for me.

However, the main point is money cannot bring people back to life. I’d just rather people would drive more prudently and frugally.

 

[lynnvinc]

Doesn’t change the fact that a “green” car is way outside my budget.

I am within a few years of my retirement as well. I put every penny I can afford into an IRA. I wish I could put in the max, but oh well. I’m happy for what I have.

Somebody needs to tell Obama that it isn’t “fair” that I subsidize people who are a lot better off than I am.

I extremely agree. One of my students works for Chevy and went thru Volt training, but cannot afford one … tho his wife just bought a sedan for about $30,000. Their problem, they don’t make enough to be paying $7500+ in taxes at this point and get the $7500 rebate.

There was talk about giving the rebates to the dealers who would then just take it off the price of the car, which I guess did not materialize. Of course, once one retires, they probably won’t be able to take advantage of the tax rebate either.

So it is very unfair and does not help sales.

However, I’m thinking for many people it may still be a good deal to buy an EV, such as a Volt, and get solar panels, even without gov rebates. Then in retirement their cost of living will be about $200 to $300 less per month…making those things a wise pre-retirement investment. I’m also thinking that putting up solar panels would also increase the value of the home…maybe not completely to the level of what was spent, but the money would not be going down the drain.

Our Sunfrost frig, which we bought in 1991 is also still saving us lots of money, after paying for itself within 16 years by using one-tenth the electricity AND drastically reducing veggie spoilage (except ginger, which we have to keep in the freezer). And our $6 low-flow showerhead has saved us $2300 over the past 23 years in water and energy to heat it.

Our major env investment has been buying homes close to work and shops over the past 40 years (within 1 or 2 miles), which have saved us who-knows-how-much in gas, car-maintenance, cars, time, stress, less marital conflict, health, etc. Perhaps making it possible to buy a Volt and solar panels at this point in our lives.

I guess to those who have, more will be given. Which is very unfair to others who don’t have. I never quite understood that verse in the Bible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I extremely agree. One of my students works for Chevy and went thru Volt training, but cannot afford one … tho his wife just bought a sedan for about $30,000. Their problem, they don’t make enough to be paying $7500+ in taxes at this point and get the $7500 rebate.

There was talk about giving the rebates to the dealers who would then just take it off the price of the car, which I guess did not materialize. Of course, once one retires, they probably won’t be able to take advantage of the tax rebate either.

So it is very unfair and does not help sales.

However, I’m thinking for many people it may still be a good deal to buy an EV, such as a Volt, and get solar panels, even without gov rebates. Then in retirement their cost of living will be about $200 to $300 less per month…making those things a wise pre-retirement investment. I’m also thinking that putting up solar panels would also increase the value of the home…maybe not completely to the level of what was spent, but the money would not be going down the drain.

Our Sunfrost frig, which we bought in 1991 is also still saving us lots of money, after paying for itself within 16 years by using one-tenth the electricity AND drastically reducing veggie spoilage (except ginger, which we have to keep in the freezer). And our $6 low-flow showerhead has saved us $2300 over the past 23 years in water and energy to heat it.

Our major env investment has been buying homes close to work and shops over the past 40 years (within 1 or 2 miles), which have saved us who-knows-how-much in gas, car-maintenance, cars, time, stress, less marital conflict, health, etc. Perhaps making it possible to buy a Volt and solar panels at this point in our lives.

I guess to those who have, more will be given. Which is very unfair to others who don’t have. I never quite understood that verse in the Bible.

But it’s worse than this with the Volt, Lynnvinc. Yes, it costs $32,000 after the $8,000 government subsidy to the buyer. But the government subsidizes each one several times the amount of the purchase price. That’s really wrong for the government to subsidize people wealthy enough to buy new cars while others less fortunate struggle to keep their families fed. It’s just wrong.

But that’s typical of this administration. “Cash for clunkers” was another subsidy to the well to do at the expense of those less fortunate. So were a lot of the bailouts.

And yet for the truly poor? Nothing at all.

 

[SamH]

But it’s worse than this with the Volt, Lynnvinc. Yes, it costs $32,000 after the $8,000 government subsidy to the buyer. But the government subsidizes each one several times the amount of the purchase price. That’s really wrong for the government to subsidize people wealthy enough to buy new cars while others less fortunate struggle to keep their families fed. It’s just wrong.

But that’s typical of this administration. “Cash for clunkers” was another subsidy to the well to do at the expense of those less fortunate. So were a lot of the bailouts.

And yet for the truly poor? Nothing at all.

And think of all the pollution that went into producing thousands of new cars that were not needed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I guess to those who have, more will be given. Which is very unfair to others who don’t have. I never quite understood that verse in the Bible.

It means you have more responsibility.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You really don’t know about it much.

We paid some $47,000 (including tax and some add-ons) and the gov gave us $7500 off our taxes a year later. $7500 < $47000.

And considering that the gov gives substantial subsidies and tax-breaks to oil, which means I’ve been paying on April 15th for people to profligately drive around emitting pollution that kills people for many decades (while we’ve managed to reduce our driving to about 6,000 miles a year), I’d say it was about pay-back time for me.

However, the main point is money cannot bring people back to life. I’d just rather people would drive more prudently and frugally.

I’ll admit that I got the price information from the internet. But possibly yours was more loaded than others, or possibly you were too eager to buy to bargain. chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html?seo=goo_|GM+Chevy+Retention|GG-RTN-Volt-Electric-BP-SN-BMM|Quotes+%26+Pricing|_%2Bvolt%20electric%20price

Again (and again and again) the government does not subsidize oil. Small oil companies receive an accelerated depreciation on drilling costs just like small farmers do on tractor purchases and businesses do on a small portion of their factory equipment. Now, if you want to say small, independent oil drillers shouldn’t get to depreciate their costs like everybody else does, just say that. But don’t call it a “subsidy” when it isn’t, or act as if somehow depreciation in the oil business is different from that of any business.

What the government DOES do is tax fuel more than the oil companies profit on it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

But it’s worse than this with the Volt, Lynnvinc. Yes, it costs $32,000 after the $8,000 government subsidy to the buyer. But the government subsidizes each one several times the amount of the purchase price. That’s really wrong for the -]government/-] taxpayers to subsidize people wealthy enough to buy new cars while others less fortunate struggle to keep their families fed. It’s just wrong.

But that’s typical of this administration. “Cash for clunkers” was another subsidy to the well to do at the expense of those less fortunate. So were a lot of the bailouts.

And yet for the truly poor? Nothing at all.

Fixed it for ya!

 

[Ridgerunner]

And every Volt sold costs the taxpayers big.

jalopnik.com/5870507/report-every-chevy-volt-has-over-250000-in-government-subsidies

 

[qui_est_ce]

But it’s worse than this with the Volt, Lynnvinc. Yes, it costs $32,000 after the $8,000 government subsidy to the buyer. But the government subsidizes each one several times the amount of the purchase price. That’s really wrong for the government to subsidize people wealthy enough to buy new cars while others less fortunate struggle to keep their families fed. It’s just wrong.

But that’s typical of this administration. “Cash for clunkers” was another subsidy to the well to do at the expense of those less fortunate. So were a lot of the bailouts.

And yet for the truly poor? Nothing at all.

That was the whole point of my anecdotal posts. The rich can afford to be green, while Obama’s policies are hurting hard working middle class earners like me.

As much as Lynn would like it to be, there just isn’t a return of savings for investment in green technology for the average worker. To say nothing of the average worker just can’t afford the high upfront costs. We have kids to put through school, mortgages to pay, retirements to fund. Most of us do not get pensions.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And think of all the pollution that went into producing thousands of new cars that were not needed.

And the landfills filled with parts that could have been recycled through junk yards. But the clunkers were rendered unusable.

What a waste of taxpayer $$.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You know, I had a large list of things to discuss with you. For instance, how you could possibly not know that “climatology” is, in fact, a discreet branch of science. Or how, although I would agree meteorology is a very hard discipline, you happened to ignore the fact that I showed less than half of meteorologists actually have that degree, and how less than 20% have advanced degrees.

But no. I want to focus on this one sentence. You are right, thousands of scientists have expressed opposing opinions. And many people on here have cited such opinions. But you are the first to make a very specific claim that can easily be proven.

You claim that at least 51% of scientists in that field hold opposing opinions. Can you prove that claim? It should be fairly easy. I’m sure you would not make a claim such as that without concrete proof to back it up.

But honestly, it’s irrelevant anyway, isn’t it? What scientists believe about something doesn’t change what is happening, does it? I’m sure you’ll never be able to prove that 51% of scientists are skeptical, and I’m sure you’ll keep ignoring my evidence of overwhelming consensus because conspiracy theorists always limit themselves to viewing only that evidence that supports their pre-existing opinion. But none of that matters.

What does matter is that study after study after study has taken climate models over many millennia, has included the fact that the world has gone through many climate cycles, has included the fact that the temperature was much higher than it was now, has included the fact that warming has slowed down in the past decade, has included the fact that our winters are getting colder and we’ve had warmer weather earlier this century, and they STILL come to the conclusion that the temperature has risen faster in the last century that it has ever risen in the past 400,000 years or so, and that it gas no plans to stop.

THAT’S why your argument will always fail. All the “evidence” you have against AGW has already been accounted for in the climate models, and they still prove you wrong. So unless you come up with some new evidence that has not been accounted for, you don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s like the guy who confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey. He CONFESSED TO MURDER, and yet the charges were still dropped against him. In the same way that you know a case is weak when the accused confesses and you STILL can’t convict him, you know your case is weak when scientists use all your evidence in their models and they STILL predict global warming.

You can’t possibly maintain that the temps have gone up more in the last century than in the past 400,000 years. First, there were no records until the early 19th Century when the Little Ice Age started to end. All purported “measurements” are indirect and widely contradictory. Interestingly, the very first temperature measuring and recording station (in England) shows no increase at all for the roughly 150 years it has been there.

And OF COURSE the MMGW promoters purport to refute every study and opinion contrary to their own. That’s part of their business, as it is with lawyers. Their job is to figure out ways to make their theories seem plausible whether they really are or not.

But it still remains that it has been warmer than now even in this century, including in the 1930s. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere previously, including in the 1940s. The oceans are not warming but cooling.

And I already provided citations to the fact that MMGW is a minority view. Thousand and thousands of scientists disagree with it. Most Americans now no longer believe MMGW is a problem which, in the face of all the propaganda on the part of those who seek to make money from MMGW on the backs of the poor, the elderly and the jobless, is a good thing.

As with “global cooling”, “overpopulation” and “peak oil”, it’s one of those bombshell theories that gets overpublicized to the point that a lot of people invest in it and some believe in it. But it truly does not withstand Occam’s razor. It really doesn’t.

Nor did it after the “oil is gone (bogus) crisis” of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Lots and lots of solar panels, windmills, plenums, etc are now in landfills, just as the same kinds of things people are now encouraged to buy will be.

Why do you think you know better than any meteorologist? What’s on your CV? “Climatology” is one subject they study for their degrees and certifications. It’s a mixture of various sciences, of necessity, because it can neither be experimentally verified nor falsified. It’s a mix of other things. Lots of the “scientists” who promote MMGW and particularly the leaders of the environmentalist organizations usually have no scientific background at all.

And some of the “climate scientists” have degrees in fields very distant from any organized study of climate itself. Look them up, and you will see that it’s true.

And Obama’s “plan”, to the extent he has one at all, will not reduce CO2 in the atmosphere at all. Everybody knows that. So it’s all pain and no gain, no matter what you believe about the reality of MMGW.

 

[lynnvinc]

But it’s worse than this with the Volt, Lynnvinc. Yes, it costs $32,000 after the $8,000 government subsidy to the buyer. But the government subsidizes each one several times the amount of the purchase price. That’s really wrong for the government to subsidize people wealthy enough to buy new cars while others less fortunate struggle to keep their families fed. It’s just wrong.

But that’s typical of this administration. “Cash for clunkers” was another subsidy to the well to do at the expense of those less fortunate. So were a lot of the bailouts.

And yet for the truly poor? Nothing at all.

Well, I totally disagree with you that it is wrong to give tax breaks for the Volt and other EVs (up to the 1st 200,000 of each model so as to stimulate the new tech).

I actually had no hope of ever convincing my husband to get a Volt in the first place, but was exceedingly happy that my tax dollars were at last going for some pro-life program, even if I would not be getting an EV. And I completely detest that my tax dollars are going for pro-death wars and pro-death oil/coal subsidies & tax-breaks.

So that’s where we can agree to disagree. You basically disagree that ICE car driving involves any harms to human life on planet earth, whether from local pollution or global warming. Not to mention the cancer alleys and other harms from fossil fuel extractive activities.

What I do agree with is that it is unfair that people without the means (or not paying taxes of $7500+) cannot afford the Volt. However, there is the Leaf, which is a lot cheaper…

If one values life, they will be celebrating the advent of EVs on the scene over the past couple of years. I was absolutely esctatic when those EVs came out and were given tax-breaks to help jump-start the industry…even tho I had never really hoped to get one myself.

It’s all about whether a person values life over the almighty dollar.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I totally disagree with you that it is wrong to give tax breaks for the Volt and other EVs (up to the 1st 200,000 of each model so as to stimulate the new tech).

I actually had no hope of ever convincing my husband to get a Volt in the first place, but was exceedingly happy that my tax dollars were at last going for some pro-life program, even if I would not be getting an EV. And I completely detest that my tax dollars are going for pro-death wars and pro-death oil/coal subsidies & tax-breaks.

So that’s where we can agree to disagree. You basically disagree that ICE car driving involves any harms to human life on planet earth, whether from local pollution or global warming. Not to mention the cancer alleys and other harms from fossil fuel extractive activities.

What I do agree with is that it is unfair that people without the means (or not paying taxes of $7500+) cannot afford the Volt. However, there is the Leaf, which is a lot cheaper…

If one values life, they will be celebrating the avent of EVs on the scene over the past couple of year. I was esctatic when those EVs came out and were given tax-breaks to help jump-start the industry…even tho I had never really hoped to get one myself.

It’s all about whether a person values life over the almighty dollar.

I did not criticize you for buying a Volt. What I did and do criticize is a program so unjust and ideologically driven that it subsidizes a vehicle by several times its selling price, forcing those who did not buy it to pay for it.

Does a Bentley cost any more than a Volt? Does a Ferrari? Should the government buy me a Ferrari? It’s cheaper than a Volt, after all. A program like this is just massively wrong.

And again OIL IS NOT SUBSIDIZED. It PAYS the government.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s all about whether a person values life over the almighty dollar.

False dichotomy smugly stated by someone who has plenty of $$$'s to live in the Rio Grande Valley, able to afford a Volt, able to live in luxury just before retirement.

 

[lynnvinc]

That was the whole point of my anecdotal posts. The rich can afford to be green, while Obama’s policies are hurting hard working middle class earners like me.

As much as Lynn would like it to be, there just isn’t a return of savings for investment in green technology for the average worker. To say nothing of the average worker just can’t afford the high upfront costs. We have kids to put through school, mortgages to pay, retirements to fund. Most of us do not get pensions.

There most certainly is on solar panels – with the tax-break, a 12.5% return on investment or 8 years to pay them off (total cost, incl installation by a certified installer); and without the tax-break, a 6% return on investment (better than current bank rates) or 17 years to pay off. Plus the satisfaction that one is helping to mitigate serious environmental problems that harm and kill people and others of God’s creation…as Pope Francis and his predecessors have called us to do.

And I understand there are programs or business deals in some places that will put the solar panels up for free on your roof, then take most of the return on them, giving the homeowner a small portion of that return (as if renting their roofs).

As for the Volt, I never claimed it paid for itself and went on to save $$. In fact when we bought it I expected it to be our splurge for the sake of the life of the world.

Later I did a spreadsheet and calculated that the savings from the Volt (we drive about 36-40 miles for $1.23 in electricity) would pay for the difference between it and the car my husband wanted…a new Ford Taurus like the 1998 leaky one we traded in. Since the new Taurus is more fancy and souped up, we looked elsewhere…maybe a new Focus (my husband felt very cramped) or a used, but newer Taurus (couldn’t find one for sale in our area). He also spoke dreamily about getting a used Jag.

Then we tried the Chevy Cruze (okay, but not up to his liking), then I asked about the Volt, which was over yonder being charged, and asked my husband to sit inside and see if it was roomy enough. He cursed under his breath and (rightly) accused me of steering him to an EV place. After which, being a very good Catholic, he made an act of contrition, relented, and thought to himself, “Let her have it. She’s wanted an EV for decades.” He tried it out, roomy enough (barely) …

… and that’s how we ended up with a Volt that is saving us the difference in 6.5 years between it and the Taurus my husband wanted, then after 6.5 years go on to save more, above that difference. I also calculated a somewhat better resale price in 7 years and somewhat less maintenance costs. I do not expect the Volt (which I have named “Jag”) will ever pay for itself in savings.

People generally do not expect cars to pay for themselves then go on to save money, or to generate money. People understand cars depreciate in value, and cost a lot to run and maintain. This idea that the Volt should somehow pay for itself and generate money for its owners is sort of over-the-top.

For people who cannot afford something comparable to a Ford Taurus (or Fusion or Escape), then my claim would not work … it would take more years to pay the difference between a cheaper car and the Volt.

Perhaps one of the good reasons we could afford the Volt at this point of our lives is bec we’ve been living within 1 or 2 miles of work & shops from the past 40+ years AND getting by with used cars. And we are frugal, bordering on miserly with ourselves, tho not with others. Except for this splurge on this last car of our lives

 

[qui_est_ce]

There most certainly is on solar panels – with the tax-break, a 12.5% return on investment or 8 years to pay them off (total cost, incl installation by a certified installer); and without the tax-break, a 6% return on investment (better than current bank rates) or 17 years to pay off. Plus the satisfaction that one is helping to mitigate serious environmental problems that harm and kill people and others of God’s creation…as Pope Francis and his predecessors have called us to do.

There is no proof that solar panels mitigate “serious” environmental problems. There are many ways of caring for God’s creation other than using solar panels.

Why doesn’t the White House have solar panels?

 

[lynnvinc]

It seems a lot of posters here are hurting financially, and I’ll pray for you all.

There are still many things people can do to reduce their environmental harms that save them money either right off or in the short term. God only expects people to do what they can, not what they can’t.

Of course, if people are poor then they don’t have to worry about paying taxes to subsidize my Volt (or fossil fuels), since they won’t be paying taxes, or whatever they do pay thru their meager taxes to subsidize EVs will be only a couple of dollars. And God bless you.

Nowadays you either have to get a new TV set that picks up digital or go on cable (which is what we did…after living all our lives without it). It would have been cheaper just to get a digital TV, but again we splurged and got cable, going against our impulse to be as frugal. Now hubby is tripping out with all the westerns he can see. And EWTN, of course.

There are many hardships for the poor. And yet there are still ways feasible for them that they too can help reduce environmental harms.

God is very helpful in helping those who ask for his help.

I’d favor a climate/environmental program that installs solar panels for the poor and gets them EVs they can afford (maybe conversion EVs, with the conversion business giving lots of people jobs) …which would go on month after month to keep their living expenses down, so they could afford food for the children, etc.

I’m sure the rich would be willing to pay for that thru their taxes, because it is so sensible. It’s like instead of giving a man a fish (that he eats and is hungry the next day), one should teach him to fish. Instead of giving handouts to the poor, give them money-saving aids that keep on helping on into the future, and jobs such as doing ICE-to-EV conversions. Then whether they are poor due to disabilities or no jobs available or some other reason, they will be better able to cope and hold their heads a little higher – bec they are not so much helped by society, as they are helping to reduce environmental harms and are part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

I hope Obama would have something like that in his plan…maybe help some 100,000 poor families that way each year, until over the years and decades everyone is helped. I’d be willing to pay more in taxes for that. Or the funds could be gotten by cutting the subsidies and tax-breaks to fossil fuels.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It seems a lot of posters here are hurting financially, and I’ll pray for you all.

There are still many things people can do to reduce their environmental harms that save them money either right off or in the short term. God only expects people to do what they can, not what they can’t.

Of course, if people are poor then they don’t have to worry about paying taxes to subsidize my Volt (or fossil fuels), since they won’t be paying taxes, or whatever they do pay thru their meager taxes to subsidize EVs will be only a couple of dollars. And God bless you.

Nowadays you either have to get a new TV set that picks up digital or go on cable (which is what we did…after living all our lives without it). It would have been cheaper just to get a digital TV, but again we splurged and got cable, going against our impulse to be as frugal. Now hubby is tripping out with all the westerns he can see. And EWTN, of course.

There are many hardships for the poor. And yet there are still ways feasible for them that they too can help reduce environmental harms.

God is very helpful in helping those who ask for his help.

I’d favor a climate/environmental program that installs solar panels for the poor and gets them EVs they can afford (maybe conversion EVs, with the conversion business giving lots of people jobs) …which would go on month after month to keep their living expenses down, so they could afford food for the children, etc.

I’m sure the rich would be willing to pay for that thru their taxes, because it is so sensible. It’s like instead of giving a man a fish (that he eats and is hungry the next day), one should teach him to fish. Instead of giving handouts to the poor, give them money-saving aids that keep on helping on into the future, and jobs such as doing ICE-to-EV conversions. Then whether they are poor due to disabilities or no jobs available or some other reason, they will be better able to cope and hold their heads a little higher – bec they are not so much helped by society, as they are helping to reduce environmental harms and are part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

I hope Obama would have something like that in his plan…maybe help some 100,000 poor families that way each year, until over the years and decades everyone is helped. I’d be willing to pay more in taxes for that. Or the funds could be gotten by cutting the subsidies and tax-breaks to fossil fuels.

Only very poor people don’t pay taxes. I am not poor. I pay taxes. I am lucky to be living in a part of the country that is very cost efficient, yet has all the cultural amenities of a much larger city. I just can’t spend $30,000.00 on a car. I work a couple of moonlight jobs, though, for rich people. They need my bookkeeping services, which I am good at. They are really good idea people. One man I work for has a fireworks business. Yes, he make a lot of money, but he works 7 days a week putting together shows and selling. I couldn’t do what he does, yet he is awful at taxes and bookkeeping. He is very grateful that I brought his books up to date from 2009 and got his taxes straightened out.

Rich people PAY ME directly to work, rather than going through the government. Rich people hate paying taxes as much as anybody. I don’t blame them.

I hate the idea that I have to pay taxes on my hard-earned money for people wealthier than I to buy expensive cars. Get the government out of the middle. I don’t want to be subsidized (manipulated) by current PC trends. I can make my own choices.

ADDRESS THAT.

PS cut out the government subsidizes fossil fuels. Ridgerunner already corrected you on that. It makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about when you repeat these kinds of errors.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why doesn’t the White House have solar panels?