Indy IPL Hearing Today...$6 rate hike on EVERYONE for electric cars...

[Boiler20]

I happened to see this announcement of a public hearing on the local news today... The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is having a public session later today to take input on a proposal about Indianapolis Power and Light spending a bunch of money to install charging stations specifically for the electric rental cars like they have downtown on a trial program.


http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=66578


Hearing Set For Electric Car Rates - Newsroom - Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick[/B]
Site for Indiana's only statewide business television program containing streaming video segments, real time Indiana business news and links to Indiana's latest business content.
Read more...


So I am not against electric cars but this is a screw job to all of us rate payers of IPL... from what they said on the news is this program will raise our rates of around $.50 a month... the problem is this like many other rate increase things never get repealed... so we will each pay about $6 a year for others to rent electric cars.and the rate increase becomes permanent.. my issue is we have HUGE rate increases that are going to be forced on us over the next few years... some projections say the conversion from coal to natural gas or more pollution control on the coal generators will raise our electric rates up to 40%.. and that's with gas rates staying at historic lows like they are now. So if you pay $75 a month now in a few years this will be $110 or more without extra rate increases like this one.


I am not against electric cars but I think they should stand economically on their own, either customers will pay the costs for renting these electric cars or they won't. I personally don't feel the need to subsidize it when I don't see any benefit. So I am against a rate hike on ALL of us to pay for this service.


Mayor Ballard made a big photo event when this program was kicked off a couple of months ago downtown. But of course there was no mention that this program might cost every one of us like a new tax. Also the company renting the cars is a for profit corporation. This would be no different than AVIS coming into indy and requesting each of us give them $6 a year with no plans to pay back or stop the subsidy. And its not even a US based company doing this program.


So they offer the ability to comment to the regulatory committee online at this page.
http://www.in.gov/oucc/2361.htm (linked in this post)


It is the following cause number
Cause No. 44478
you need that in the form as that's how they track the comments submitted.


I have attached the petition to this email for your convenience if you want to read it. But of course they don't tell you how much all of this will cost..that's where they were saying on the news it would cost each household about $.45 to $.75 per month. This is one of those stealth taxes that can be placed on all of us and we never know it was put on us. We just see our electric bill getting larger every month.


This is one of those items I am betting the pro electric car people will make sure they get lots of positive comments submitted to be able to push it through. And the ballard administration is the one that created the petition. The reality is if not many people show any opposition to this petition is we will be paying more for our electricity here in a few months to pay for this program.


It will take you less than 5 minutes to register your comments or thoughts at the page I linked above.


The other regulatory group involved has already said this rate increase should be rejected. But I look for the City to make another push on this one.


Please feel free to forward this message to others you think might want to have input to this issue.


Yet another permanent tax

 

[kescwi]

I don't know if you wrote that of someone else but, if IPL is the same as my electric company, SCE&G, they are a for profit State sanctioned monopoly and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission simply okays or denies their rate increase requests. It's not really a tax but more of a look at where our nation is headed, in that government will act as interference and protector for private business, think bailouts and QE

The commission doesn't work for the people, just like your State's insurance commission, they work more or less as liaison and protector, for lack of a better words, for/of the for profit company's.

On KHC there is thread about Mitch and I had to chuckle at the title, yep replacing a cartel with a company seeking monopoly, a new day in America, or at least a day that has been coming since the late 60's.

But as we all know business running it all is a far better alternative to government, electric, roads, schools... it's all great when corporations are in charge. I just know they're going to a fantastic job with my water.

 

[db]

All transportation is subsidized

You can't have a transportation system with everyone paying for what he uses. What would that be like? Toll-by-mile on all roads, complete gridlock in most places all day long like in a third world capital, everyone going through airports packing heat. And don't forget to tip your air traffic controller.

Transportation is one of the areas of human life where you need the people to act in cohesion to make it happen. In the U.S. we call that government.

 

[Boiler20]

Re: All transportation is subsidized

I've got no problem at all with it, IF it is the hands down, obvious choice and has an advantage...and not just on the vehicle level, but on the infrastructure and overall costs. We STILL don't know that it is economical on the household level versus the alternatives and / or installed base.

 

[BleedinGold]

Boiler20. We have way bigger worries coming our way with utilities than just this tax.

The utility companies are STRUGGLING. The adoption of solar, wind, and alternative energy sources throughout big swaths of the US are leaving utility companies scrambling. Those customers that don't find a way to go alternative will be left paying for an ever-aging infrastructure that has less people actually using that infrastructure.

Higher Utility Repair/Maintenance Bills + Smaller Pool of Customers = Higher Utility Bills for those customers.

You're right that the $0.50 increase won't go away. But it won't be the last increase.

I'd love to see Indiana adopt some better tax incentives for alternative energy. I'd put up solar in a heartbeat. If Seattle is sunny enough (heck Germany is just as bad cloud wise and it's the most solar powered country in the world) -- Indy/Indiana can do it as well.

I would love to unhook myself from the grid. The ones that hold out will be left holding the bill for what's coming.

 

[GMM]

Yeah, if Germany can be stupid then so can we

Great idea.



Despite setting yet another solar world record, the collapse of Germany's solar energy industry seems to be spreading downstream from manufacturers to distributors and installers.

On Friday, Gehrlicher Solar and Conergy, two of Germany's leading downstream solar power companies, filed for insolvency.

Solar energy is a joke. Which is why it has to be propped up by the government.

I'd love to see Indiana adopt some better tax incentives for alternative energy.

I'd love to see people like you pay for alternative energy yourselves and leave the rest of us alone.

I'd put up solar in a heartbeat...........I would love to unhook myself from the grid.

What are you waiting for? Oh, that's right, you're waiting for the government to force us to subsidize your fantasies.

Germany's Solar Industry Is Imploding

 

[db]

Re: Yeah, if Germany can be stupid then so can we

Spot on GMM. It's so much smarter to build a global economy around non-sustainable energy, so that when it finally collapses, billions can suffer all at once. What a great legacy to leave to our descendants.

/sarcasm off

For the record I agree that solar and wind are inadequate for the way we use energy today. I have a book called "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" which isn't necessary to read; the title tells it all. Every year we burn oil that contains solar energy that took probably thousands of years to build up as combustible carbon.

The benefit of *trying* to use those renewable sources is that it slows down the growth curve on energy use.

 

[GMM]

Disgusting

All these clowns who think "alternative" energy is a great thing--its the future!!!--can pay for it themselves. But, no, they have to force others to pay for their fetishes.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the future of energy is fossil fuels and nuclear power.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: Yeah, if Germany can be stupid then so can we

Originally posted by GMM:
Great idea.



Despite setting yet another solar world record, the collapse of Germany's solar energy industry seems to be spreading downstream from manufacturers to distributors and installers.

On Friday, Gehrlicher Solar and Conergy, two of Germany's leading downstream solar power companies, filed for insolvency.

Solar energy is a joke. Which is why it has to be propped up by the government.

I'd love to see Indiana adopt some better tax incentives for alternative energy.

I'd love to see people like you pay for alternative energy yourselves and leave the rest of us alone.

I'd put up solar in a heartbeat...........I would love to unhook myself from the grid.

What are you waiting for? Oh, that's right, you're waiting for the government to force us to subsidize your fantasies.

I don't want to really get in a back and forth on this. So we'll jsut agree to disagree.

Maybe Germany was a bad example. I'm not that familiar with what actually Germany is doing.

But here is an article the points out the shift that's happening in the U.S.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barclays-downgrades-utilities-on-solar-threat-2014-5

We can just agree to disagree. I personally would much rather get my energy from places like the sun, wind, or renewable energy for much more reasons than just straight "dollar cost". I understand that others don't. You're naive though if you dont' think the utility industry as it's been the past 100 years hasn't been propped up by the government. Especially in its early years. You don't think those utility lines just got to your house by accident originally did you?












http://www.businessinsider.com/barclays-downgrades-utilities-on-solar-threat-2014-5

 

[GMM]

"so that when it finally collapses"

Yeah, we have to force changes on society NOW!!! for something that's not going to happen for hundreds or thousands of years. If ever.

If you think its a good idea then YOU can pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: "so that when it finally collapses"

Originally posted by GMM:
Yeah, we have to force changes on society NOW!!! for something that's not going to happen for hundreds or thousands of years. If ever.

If you think its a good idea then YOU can pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone

I could say the same thing to you about coal, natural gas, etc.

They ALL received and currently STILL receive subsidies from the federal government.

Why do I have to pay for that?


Here, this is coming straight from Texas (and yeah you know they don't like that liberal, alternative, green energy crap)....

This chart says it best :: http://grab.by/zv4u 7.5B in subsidies for the non-renewable. 6.1 billion for renewable.

I pay more for your non-renewable access to energy than you pay for my renewable access to energy, so why don't you get off your soap box and drop the "YOU can pay for it" schtick, as if you are gifting us green, tree hugger, hippy, liberals with some sort of service.

Here are some more notes from the State of Texas regarding energy subsidies ::

--

As early as 1916, the federal government instituted income tax incentives to encourage individuals and corporations to drill for oil. During the 1930s, federally financed dams created hydroelectric power. From the 1950s onward, the federal government financed research into nuclear power. More recently, the federal government has provided research funding and other financing to expand the availability of renewable energy sources. 2 Virtually all U.S. energy resources have received or currently receive subsidies.

--

In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.

--
In 2005, Congress expanded the Alternative Fuel Production Credit[/I] to include a subsidy for firms that create synthetic fuel from chemically altered coal. 42 This is the basis of the Comptroller's estimate of coal's share of this tax credit of $2.1 billion.
--




This post was edited on 8/15 10:48 AM by BleedinGold

This post was edited on 8/15 10:48 AM by BleedinGold

This post was edited on 8/15 10:50 AM by BleedinGold

Federal Government Subsidy Breakdown Study

 

[GMM]

You shouldn't have to

First of all, there's a difference between a tax incentives/tax deductions/tax credits, and a tax increase. One doesn't force you to pay more in taxes while the other does. Don't compare apples and oranges.

Second, Fair Tax! Get rid of the entire federal tax system.

Third, people like you would still be demanding that others pay for your energy dreams. As I said before, if you think "alternative" energy (in any form) is a good idea then YOU can pay for it.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: You shouldn't have to

Originally posted by GMM:
First of all, there's a difference between a tax incentives/tax deductions/tax credits, and a tax increase. One doesn't force you to pay more in taxes while the other does. Don't compare apples and oranges.

Second, Fair Tax! Get rid of the entire federal tax system.

Third, people like you would still be demanding that others pay for your energy dreams. As I said before, if you think "alternative" energy (in any form) is a good idea then YOU can pay for it.

I'm totally on board with the fairtax.

As for your tax analogy... let's break it down like this.

If someone else pays less into a pot, then someone else must pay more into a pot to achieve the same result.

So if an industry receives tax incentives/deductions/credits (eg lowers their tax liability) then someone else must pay more to cover that reduction in revenue.

And besides I'm talking about tax incentives/deductions/credits for renewable energy. I'm not asking you to pay a higher tax (even though it technically does) to pay for my solar energy. I'm asking for a tax incentive/deduction/credit to get access to the solar energy. Just like non-renewable energy sources have been getting for decades.

So if non-renewable energies are getting tax credits etc to cover their exploration costs, drilling costs, etc, its the exact same thing if renewable energy sources get access to those same tax credits, etc.

Let's look at it like this.

Oil/Natural Gas/Coal
Level 1 :: Drill Company / Mine Company
Level 2 :: Refiner / Power Plant / Utility Company
Level 3 :: Customer

Solar/Wind
Level 1 :: Solar Panel / Turbine Producer
Level 2 :: Homeowner / Landowner
Level 3 :: Customer (same person)

All I'm asking is that the the same subsidies that are made available to the Level 2 Players in Non-Renewable Energy get made to Level 2 Players in Renewable energy.

The difference is that the Level 2 Player in renewable energy is ourselves, and not a corporation.

People are getting in their own way when looking at this issue. There are only 2 ways to really look at it either everyone gets subsidies/credits/etc or no one does.

Personally I would be quite fine with the FairTax (like I said at the beginning), but if that isn't going to happen (which it isn't anytime soon). The more realistic option would be for the same subsidies that are offered to one group be offered to the other group.






This post was edited on 8/15 11:40 AM by BleedinGold

 

[db]

There you go again...

...confusing science with politics.

GMM is always good for a laugh when issuing scientific proclamations.

I'll say it again and directly:

GMM, frequently when you make comments of purportedly scientific fact, you come across looking just...plain...stupid.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: You shouldn't have to

And here is an example from that same Texas study I posted to earlier that proves what I'm trying to say.

In Texas, non-renewable energy received 1.4 Billion (with a B) in state tax subsidies. What did renewable get? 6 whopping million dollars

http://grab.by/zvaA

I don't think Indiana is that bad (I couldn't actually find the numbers for it, but if you can I'd love to see them).

All I'm asking is that in my state that if non-renewable energy is going to receive massive subsidies in the form of tax credits/deductions/etc then that a fair amount is also subsidized to non-renewable energy.

As I said in my last post, its just a matter of whom those subsidies go to. For non-renewable the Level 2 player is the utility company. In renewable, that is the homeowner/landowner.



This post was edited on 8/15 11:43 AM by BleedinGold

http://grab.by/zvaA

 

[GMM]

Indeed

We should instead rely on "experts" to tell us when fossil fuels will expire.

Tell us, have they ever made any predictions about that? Let us know how those "expert" predictions turned out.

 

[GMM]

Re: You shouldn't have to

No, your analogy doesn't work. You're assuming that the revenue levels to the government must be met by us every year no matter what. That simply isn't the case. Tax revenues to the government vary year by year. You pay what you pay and someone else pays what they pay and the two are not related to each other.

 

[GMM]

Re: You shouldn't have to

Don't forget to include the mandates to buy "renewable" energy. There's more than just the tax code or government grants at work here.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: You shouldn't have to

Originally posted by GMM:
No, your analogy doesn't work. You're assuming that the revenue levels to the government must be met by us every year no matter what. That simply isn't the case. Tax revenues to the government vary year by year. You pay what you pay and someone else pays what they pay and the two are not related to each other.

This isn't that hard.

Let's say Indiana has annual budget of $100MM.

It needs to collect $100MM in revenue to breakeven for the year.

Well let's say it gives $5MM in subsidies (tax credits/deductions etc). That $5MM what was going to go towards the bottom line, but since we allowed the receiver of the subsidy to get that credit/deduction they now don't have to pay that $5MM

So where does that then come from? Other tax payers must make up that difference. So maybe instead of a 3% state income tax, Indiana adopts a 4.5% income tax.

Whenever one group is given a tax credit/deduction or subsidy of any type -- the other group members will be on the hook for more to cover the difference.

So yeah, when utility companies receive tax deductions -- other tax payers (including you and I and every other tax payer) cover that.

So yes a tax deduction for one is the same as a tax increase for another. It's the only way to keep the same amount of revenue coming in.

If not then guess what the state runs in the red -- which just means we have to make up that "red amount" the following year.

There's only 3 ways to balance a budget

1) Spend less
2) Increase Taxes
3) Reduce/Eliminate Tax Credits/Deductions etc

P.S> I purposely tried to avoid complicating anlaysis here like "increasing yoru tax base" etc. That obviously plays into it, but for simplicity sake its above this conversation.

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: You shouldn't have to

Originally posted by GMM:
Don't forget to include the mandates to buy "renewable" energy. There's more than just the tax code or government grants at work here.

Turn off all of your lights, unplug everything in your house, and take look at your electric bill next month. It won't be $0.00 Why? Because you are mandated to pay certain fees/taxes/etc each month. We're all mandated to pay the utility companies as long as we are hooked up to the grid.

We're obviously not going to change each other's minds. That rarely ever happens in these type of discussions anyways. Which is why I tried to avoid getting sucked into a back-and-forth. I failed miserably at that part obviously

 

[GMM]

You've got it backwards

Do you live your life like this? I seriously doubt it.

You don't establish your spending budget and then go tell your employer they've got to match it by giving you a raise. You also don't go tell the stores you buy stuff from to lower their prices in order to fit into your budget.

The government should behave like we behave. Find out what the tax revenues are going to be every year and don't spend more than that. If your personal income goes down then so does your spending. The government should do the same.

 

[db]

Re: Indeed

Let's talk about the predictions that people who actually know about the science have made, and how wrong they were proven to be, and why.

Got any links?

 

[BleedinGold]

Re: You've got it backwards

Originally posted by GMM:
Do you live your life like this? I seriously doubt it.

You don't establish your spending budget and then go tell your employer they've got to match it by giving you a raise. You also don't go tell the stores you buy stuff from to lower their prices in order to fit into your budget.

The government should behave like we behave. Find out what the tax revenues are going to be every year and don't spend more than that. If your personal income goes down then so does your spending. The government should do the same.

We're not talking about how to make a budget. I know how to do that too.

You tried to make a point that tax deductions/credits etc don't have the same impact as raising taxes.

"First of all, there's a difference between a tax
incentives/tax deductions/tax credits, and a tax increase. One doesn't
force you to pay more in taxes while the other does. Don't compare
apples and oranges."

My statements about this were a direct rebuttal of that point. In which if you give someone a tax deduction/credit you must raise someone else's taxes to keep the same amount of revenue.

Now it seems you are trying to change the discussion in which if we give someone (the utility company) a subsidy the government needs to lower their spending to match that subsidy. That isn't how it works, and you know it. If someone gets a subsidy, the government still has to have enough revenue to offset that subsidy to meet their budget.

If they budget in $5MM in subsidy for group X, then they also must know that group Y will need to pay $5MM more in taxes to reach their projected revenues for the year.

So again I state that yes, it DOES force you (or someone) to pay more in taxes when someone else gets a tax incentive or tax credit. If you give someone a tax subsidy then someone else has to make up that revenue.

It's really not that hard.


This post was edited on 8/15 3:05 PM by BleedinGold

This post was edited on 8/15 3:05 PM by BleedinGold

 

[db]

Re: You've got it backwards

Oh no, you are as bad at economics as you are at science. Who'da thunk!

If you had ever worked for real money, then you would know that you figure out what you need and want to spend (and save) personally, influenced of course by what you think you are worth; then map that to what you want to make; then go negotiate if needed for the amount of pay you think you are worth, sometimes changing jobs if necessary.

It works the same way within the company. You figure out what you need to spend to maximize the company's return on capital, then advocate for why you need that much in your department budget. You don't just sit there and take what they hand you.

And you do tell stores to lower their prices to fit your budget. You do that by shopping at cheaper stores or for cheaper goods. Sometimes you do it by telling the manager or corporate that a price on an item is too high. If you happen to be in their demographic, they'll listen. Special edit for GMM: I mean economic demographic.

And neither humans nor governments are forced by some natural law to spend exactly what they take in during the same period. Yes in the long run but not in the short run. Some humans, and some governments, save. Some humans, and some governments, borrow. Governments in particular have a role, even an obligation, to save extra during good times and to spend extra during bad times. Plus it is very difficult for a government budget to be nimbly flexible to a sudden change in income (see: 2008).

If you don't like borrowing and paying interest on what you borrow, then I know some Muslim countries that would like to interview you for their finance ministries.

 

[GMM]

Re: You've got it backwards


If you had ever worked for real money, then you would know that you figure out what you need and want to spend (and save) personally, influenced of course by what you think you are worth; then map that to what you want to make; then go negotiate if needed for the amount of pay you think you are worth, sometimes changing jobs if necessary.


What if that doesn't work? Then you have to cut spending.


It works the same way within the company. You figure out what you need to spend to maximize the company's return on capital, then advocate for why you need that much in your department budget. You don't just sit there and take what they hand you.


What if that doesn't work? Then you have to cut spending.


And you do tell stores to lower their prices to fit your budget. You do that by shopping at cheaper stores or for cheaper goods. Sometimes you do it by telling the manager or corporate that a price on an item is too high. If you happen to be in their demographic, they'll listen. Special edit for GMM: I mean economic demographic.


What if that doesn't work? Then you have to cut spending.


In none of the cases you described does one have the power to force the other side to give you money or cut their prices. That's the way the government should behave. Unfortunately it can print money and raise tax rates without a lot of reperscussions because too many people think like you do.


Governments in particular have a role, even an obligation, to save extra during good times and to spend extra during bad times.


Wrong. The government should cut spending during a recession. Government "stimulus" spending didn't work in the 30's and it didn't work recently. Government spending cuts (along with tax cuts) worked in 1920 to get us out of an economic collapse. Its people like you who are bad at economics. Your policies keep failing but you never learn.

Plus it is very difficult for a government budget to be nimbly flexible to a sudden change in income (see: 2008).

Only because of a lack of will to do so. Mainly because there are too many people who think like you do.


This post was edited on 8/15 3:45 PM by GMM

 

[atmafola]

just curious though, were you guys complaining too when they added 2% to sales tax in Indy area for food, hotel etc just to pay for a brand new stadium for Jim Irsay. Personally, I am far more upset about that one than I am this one. Although frankly, in both cases, I really wish the private individuals benefiting should be the ones bearing the cost, not the rest of us.

 

[qazplm]

"if ever"

yes, there's an infinite supply of oil in the ground. lmao.

 

[qazplm]

yes government

because you are just like an individual human being, your only answer is to cut spending.

Need more money to stop a military invasion? Sorry, cut spending.
Have a natural disaster a state can't handle? Sorry, cut spending.

db is absolutely destroying you, I'd stop while you are, well let's face it you are never ahead, less behind maybe?

 

[GMM]

Re: Indeed

You are aware that we're in the middle of a North American oil boom, right? Not to mention a natural gas boom. Did the experts predict that? No, they certainly didn't predict an oil boom. In fact they said we'd be out of oil by now. Those types of predictions go back more than 100 years and they've always been wrong. So not only did they get it wrong they got it spectacularly wrong. Yet you want to forcibly rearrange society based on these "expert" predictions. When are you going to learn?

GMM, frequently when you make comments of purportedly scientific fact, you come across looking just...plain...stupid.

Yeah, its almost like I keep making predictions that end up being proven wrong. Over and over and over............

How many environmentalist predictions from 25 years ago can you name that ended up being correct?

In another post you justified "sustainable" energy on behalf of our "descendants". That's quite open-ended. Our descendants will be around in 1000 years. Did you mean "children" instead.? If so, go ahead and declare that in 25 years we'll be out of oil. After all, "experts" were saying that 25 years ago.

 

[GMM]

Typical

And I'm not just talking about your ankle-biting.

Its inevitable that when it comes to discussing government spending the left resorts to mentioning natural disasters and the military. Yeah, like that takes up 90% budget on a regular basis. No, its all the other waste and unconstitutional programs that need to be cut. But if that ever happens clowns like you will start screaming about stuff where there's no disagreement.

Did you forget to mention the police and fire departments?

 

[qazplm]

Re: Typical

I also didn't mention schools, highway maintenance, ensuring safe food and water supplies, hospitals and emergency treatment, prisons, justice systems...

 

[kescwi]

Ha. Good lord....

Yep, solar is your only worry

 

[GMM]

Yep

And those things combined total how much of all government spending?

 

[kescwi]

Re: Yep

less than 90%

 

[db]

Re: Indeed

So, now we have the reason for your distortedly selfish world view on most things.

Your horizon is 25 years.

Got it.

And no links. Noted.

 

[GMM]

Ha!

Your horizon is 25 years.

Do you wanna back farther in time? Be my guest. While you're at it you can still ignore this: "Those types of predictions go back more than 100 years and they've always been wrong." Unless you'd like to produce an accurate end-of-oil prediction from that time range. Go ahead.

And no links. Noted.

Where are your links? Besides, I don't need to produce any links. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN OIL BOOM. What more proof do you need that the "experts" you listen to are wrong?

 

[qazplm]

military alone

is 18-20 percent at the federal level.

At the state level what I listed is a very large chunk of state and local spending.

Of course to someone like you who thinks Darwin wasn't just a biologist but a guide for running a society, I suspect ANYTHING that isn't national defense looks like illegit spending to you.

 

[db]

Re: Ha!

Who said I "listened" to "experts" who said we would soon run out of oil? You did. I never said that.

I never expected we would run out of oil by now, either.

I asked you to show us some examples of folks who were wrong. There is a reason I did that, because anyone who said we would run out of oil by now wasn't thinking very hard, and I wanted to see if your bogeymen were credible scientific sources. You did not, or could not, provide links. So your bogeymen must not be credible.

As to the 25 year horizon -- I was talking about looking forward. Not sure why that wasn't obvious.

 

[GMM]

Re: military alone

What you listed is mostly considered legit spending by most people. How much may be argued over but that's another topic. Regardless, if revenues meet their expected level then its up to the government to spend no more than that. Its not up to us to pay more taxes.

Of course to someone like you who thinks Darwin wasn't just a biologist but a guide for running a society......

Bwahahahaaaaaaaaa! As I said at the time, telling the truth about race is deeply, deeply threatening to people like you. Must've really struck a nerve to have you whining about that after all this time. Especially when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.