Spotted Al Gore

[smokechase II]

forest fire threat

hbbylogger:
"The Gore/Clinton did more to contribute to the forest fire threat we are facing than any other administration, period."

Not true. Not even remotely.
It started significantly in the later Reagan years. Not his fault of course. Courts, weather and to some degree congress.

With Bush II we are cutting less on the forest I work on then when Clinton/Gore were in charge. This is typical. Haven't made our targets in three years now.

With the benefit of hindsight, the weather change that changed our fire seasons started in 1985. A few big fires rarely before then. Compared to now.
My 38 fire seasons are summed up by many of us older fire dawgs by the quote my boss put out last week: "I started work in ______, but I really started fighting fire in 1985." Weather has not just piggybacked the fuel - forest health problems. It is the primary factor in the modern fire seasons.

Most of this is just image. On the ground, in the field, very little difference from one administration to the next. Balance is what the founding fathers intended.


Now you're going to say, "wait a minute buddy, I said 'than any other administration.'" Yes you did. Logging without cleaning up the slash afterwards. Old style, was much worse and far more common the further back you go.

Two examples; Oregon had a series of fires called the Tillamook Burns. Think of these has basically six big fires 5 years apart each. All started by loggers who didn't do any clean-up. Worst fire in American History was near Green Bay in the fall of 1871, same exact day as the Chicago fire, killed over 1,500. Very bad weather and tons of slash all over. Give those administrations credit too.

 

[highpower]

Al Update

They released actual figures today. The average home in the US. uses 11,000 kilowatt hours of electricty a year. Gore's Bellevue home used 211,000. Nearly 20 time the average. This does not include the natural gas or the houses in Carthage, TN or the one in Washington D.C. The story finally aired on the Nashville news tonight. Bet it will never make it to the national news

 

[hbbyloggr]

Smokechase II,

I respect a man who has been on the ground, in the face of the beast, as it were. I did not take into consideration Nature's own to contribution to the fires. Bud worm, weevil , disease and so forth. You are correct.

What I did see were all the articles in the logging industry about the limitations placed to curb management,forest service sales, fuel wood control, road building bans, restrictions on salvage efforts after beetle kills. It was governmental policy that mired down the best efforts of the logging industry. I wished I had saved some of the stories. There were warnings about fire dangers being the consequences of those policies.

Be that as it may, hats off to you folks out there in the face of it all.

Regards,

Hbbyloggr ( retired: 30 yrs from logging )

Hobbylogger - Because I loved what I did for work.

 

[hbbyloggr]

They released actual figures today. The average home in the US. uses 11,000 kilowatt hours of electricty a year. Gore's Bellevue home used 211,000. Nearly 20 time the average. This does not include the natural gas or the houses in Carthage, TN or the one in Washington D.C. The story finally aired on the Nashville news tonight. Bet it will never make it to the national news

Thanks a lot, Highpower ! You sure got the tic under my skin with this topic.

You're probably right about it not making the big time news. The Stock Market is going to take the lead for the next few days.
Keep the guard up,

Hbbyloggr

 

[smokechase II]

Gores mistake

A co-worker said he heard the Gore home utility story on the radio today. This is in Central Oregon.

I believe he listed the dollar figures for utilities, so I can't say it was the same story but it seems at least close.

May I be the first to nominate Mr. Al Gore in the best actor category.

Very well played. Acting like he cared.

Didn't say he should get the award, just the nomination is enough really.

 

[BillChinitz]

Swiftboating Al Gore

Woodpecker heads banging away at solid oak.

 

[Buckeye]

Just goes to prove what I have said all along-global warming is a farce designed to get a faker elected president. His electric bill/carbon footprint-now that's an inconvenient truth!
To paraphrase Mark Twain- Algore is a man who has been educated above his level of intelligence:monkey:
To paraphrase Lincoln: Algore has the gift of being able of using the largest number of words to describe the smallest idea ever:deadhorse:

 

[.aspx]

All this Democrat bashing would make one think that Bush and his Administration are doing good things. :monkey:

ps. Buckeye please explain your Hilary Clinton signature picture. If that's in reference to her saying that she would reverse the unfair taxcuts that Bush gave to those making more than $200,000 / year then I am all ears to hear how that is so wrong.

 

[kevinj]

Yuck

Whoa.
And I thought Rosie was hard to look at.

(in response to Buckeyes signature)

 

[04ultra]

 

[aarcuda]

The best quote of this whole post "Balance is what the founding fathers intended"

I am not seeing balance with any of the people controlling our country. They are either too liberal or too conservative. WHY THE HECK DOES EVEYONE HAVE TO PUSH THEIR OWN EXTREMISM ON ME??? moderation is what is required. When you want to be extreme, keep it to yourselves. I dont need you all telling me how to live in conformance with your ideals

 

[rb_in_va]

I am not seeing balance with any of the people controlling our country.

It's always interesting to me when I see people state things like this. That doesn't sound like by the people, for the people to me. If the people of this country feel that they are are not controlling it then they need to get off their arses and do something about it.

 

[aarcuda]

i do what I can.

 

[Gologit]

It's always interesting to me when I see people state things like this. That doesn't sound like by the people, for the people to me. If the people of this country feel that they are are not controlling it then they need to get off their arses and do something about it.

Well said. If we don't examine other view points we forfeit the right to critisize them. I like to know what the other side is saying...it helps me prepare. Everyone can define the problems...what we need are solutions. Now.

 

[highpower]

All this Democrat bashing would make one think that Bush and his Administration are doing good things. :monkey:

ps. Buckeye please explain your Hilary Clinton signature picture. If that's in reference to her saying that she would reverse the unfair taxcuts that Bush gave to those making more than $200,000 / year then I am all ears to hear how that is so wrong.

I didn't write this but since you asked:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the sa me amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

 

[sawyerDave]

Hey aarcuda

Hey aarcuda: Maybe you should write a book on all of the balanced politicians in our history. Got a title suggestion for you - Great moderates in american history!:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

 

[b1rdman]

I didn't write this but since you asked:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the sa me amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Great post!...I wanted to respond but I figured it was a waste of time. Notice how the poster categorized the cuts as "unfair". You won't educate many folks that think like this but you have my gratitude nonetheless.

 

[highpower]

People think tax cuts don't ever get to them for some reason. I personally have never worked for a poor man and usually whoever I worked for, if they make more money, I make more money. Trickle down does work whether liberals want to believe it or not.

 

[NWnewguy]

ps. Buckeye please explain your Hilary Clinton signature picture.

aspx. If I am not mistaken the quote is from when the " Assualt Weapons" ban was about to sunset and Hillary and other fine American heroes such as Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein were dead set on letting this happen. And I have to tell you, I certainly feel less safe since since September 2004 when that piece of legislation (or erosion of our constitutional rights, depending on how you want to look at it) was thrown off the books. By the way I am not a Bush fan either. I am a Libertarian and know that the two party political system is a faulty mode of self governance.

 

[Buckeye]

aspx. If I am not mistaken the quote is from when the " Assualt Weapons" ban was about to sunset and Hillary and other fine American heroes such as Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein were dead set on letting this happen. And I have to tell you, I certainly feel less safe since since September 2004 when that piece of legislation (or erosion of our constitutional rights, depending on how you want to look at it) was thrown off the books. By the way I am not a Bush fan either. I am a Libertarian and know that the two party political system is a faulty mode of self governance.

The quote was made in reference to taxes at a Democrat fundraising event in San Francisco.

I'm interested in hearing how the expiration of a feel-good, do-nothing piece of legislation makes you feel less safe. Please explain.