[sdnativeson]

Who is preaching? Certainly not me. I made no comment to either denounce or waive any responsibility on my own personal part. You’re twisting comments way out of proportion, I just don’t know if it’s deliberate or not.

Where do you come up with this crap? Is it that you are so caught up in yourself that you mirror that onto any comment that you find challenging your preset beliefs?

[sdnativeson]

drunkle, I’ve found a match for my ignorance, yours. As far as hubris – between the two of us that is primarily your gift. If you cannot entertain other ideas (even though supported by some of your enviros) that is a problem that is yours solely.

I’m getting close to thinking that you constantly demean/degrade the U.S. because of the misguided mentality it makes you look “sophisticated”. There are possible reasons none that are particularly flattering. I will say though, you are consistent.

There is a lot of information by all type of organizations that address the point I stated. I don’t think any of them
(haven’t read all, forgive me) say that any countries are exempt from pollution. “Pollution” covers a vast amounts and sources of contaminants.

lindismith, I completely agree with your observation.

[sdnativeson]

drunkle, I’ve found a match for my ignorance, yours. As far as hubris – between the two of us that is primarily your gift. If you cannot entertain other ideas (even though supported by some of your enviros) that is a problem that is yours solely.

I’m getting close to thinking that you constantly demean/degrade the U.S. because of the misguided mentality it makes you look “sophisticated”. There are possible reasons none that are particularly flattering. I will say though, you are consistent.

There is a lot of information by all type of organizations that address the point I stated. I don’t think any of them
(haven’t read all, forgive me) say that any countries are exempt from pollution. “Pollution” covers a vast amounts and sources of contaminants.

lindismith, I completely agree with your observation.

[sdnativeson]

drunkle, I’ve found a match for my ignorance, yours. As far as hubris – between the two of us that is primarily your gift. If you cannot entertain other ideas (even though supported by some of your enviros) that is a problem that is yours solely.

I’m getting close to thinking that you constantly demean/degrade the U.S. because of the misguided mentality it makes you look “sophisticated”. There are possible reasons none that are particularly flattering. I will say though, you are consistent.

There is a lot of information by all type of organizations that address the point I stated. I don’t think any of them
(haven’t read all, forgive me) say that any countries are exempt from pollution. “Pollution” covers a vast amounts and sources of contaminants.

lindismith, I completely agree with your observation.

[sdnativeson]

If they have a place to grow their own food. Growing enough food for a family of four will be a little difficult for many, not something done in a few pots or planters on the patio, not to mention the seasonal constraints.

From the little I know(been saying THAT a lot lately) to run a diesel on straight veggie oil requires some big modifications, and doesn’t do well in cold climates.

Not everyone can afford to modify their cars for alternative fuels, or buy new ones.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/vegetableoil.html#major

“First, vegetable oil comes entirely as a renewable resource that’s grown right here in the US. That reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Vegetable oil also reduces most tailpipe emissions, but actually increases the smog-increasing nitrous oxides compared to regular diesel.

However, when you factor in the fossil fuel normally used to grow the plants used to make vegetable oil, the results are less encouraging. When the “lifecycle” of the fuel is considered, using pure vegetable oil actually increases the pollution to the atmosphere by about 35%.

On the upside, vegetable oil does reduce the amount of “air toxics” and soot released into the atmosphere, compared to regular diesel fuel.

Of course, if you’re using vegetable oil that would normally be tossed in the dumpster, then you’re definitely helping to save the planet. ”

Lol, while the statement ” humans are a big cause of pollution, rich or poor” is true it’s also somewhat….
supercilious.

Loads of articles, studies on the topic, do a search.
Here is a couple of links;
http://www.worldbank.org/research/greening/cha4new.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-review.pdf

[sdnativeson]

If they have a place to grow their own food. Growing enough food for a family of four will be a little difficult for many, not something done in a few pots or planters on the patio, not to mention the seasonal constraints.

From the little I know(been saying THAT a lot lately) to run a diesel on straight veggie oil requires some big modifications, and doesn’t do well in cold climates.

Not everyone can afford to modify their cars for alternative fuels, or buy new ones.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/vegetableoil.html#major

“First, vegetable oil comes entirely as a renewable resource that’s grown right here in the US. That reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Vegetable oil also reduces most tailpipe emissions, but actually increases the smog-increasing nitrous oxides compared to regular diesel.

However, when you factor in the fossil fuel normally used to grow the plants used to make vegetable oil, the results are less encouraging. When the “lifecycle” of the fuel is considered, using pure vegetable oil actually increases the pollution to the atmosphere by about 35%.

On the upside, vegetable oil does reduce the amount of “air toxics” and soot released into the atmosphere, compared to regular diesel fuel.

Of course, if you’re using vegetable oil that would normally be tossed in the dumpster, then you’re definitely helping to save the planet. ”

Lol, while the statement ” humans are a big cause of pollution, rich or poor” is true it’s also somewhat….
supercilious.

Loads of articles, studies on the topic, do a search.
Here is a couple of links;
http://www.worldbank.org/research/greening/cha4new.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-review.pdf

[sdnativeson]

If they have a place to grow their own food. Growing enough food for a family of four will be a little difficult for many, not something done in a few pots or planters on the patio, not to mention the seasonal constraints.

From the little I know(been saying THAT a lot lately) to run a diesel on straight veggie oil requires some big modifications, and doesn’t do well in cold climates.

Not everyone can afford to modify their cars for alternative fuels, or buy new ones.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/vegetableoil.html#major

“First, vegetable oil comes entirely as a renewable resource that’s grown right here in the US. That reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Vegetable oil also reduces most tailpipe emissions, but actually increases the smog-increasing nitrous oxides compared to regular diesel.

However, when you factor in the fossil fuel normally used to grow the plants used to make vegetable oil, the results are less encouraging. When the “lifecycle” of the fuel is considered, using pure vegetable oil actually increases the pollution to the atmosphere by about 35%.

On the upside, vegetable oil does reduce the amount of “air toxics” and soot released into the atmosphere, compared to regular diesel fuel.

Of course, if you’re using vegetable oil that would normally be tossed in the dumpster, then you’re definitely helping to save the planet. ”

Lol, while the statement ” humans are a big cause of pollution, rich or poor” is true it’s also somewhat….
supercilious.

Loads of articles, studies on the topic, do a search.
Here is a couple of links;
http://www.worldbank.org/research/greening/cha4new.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-review.pdf

[sdnativeson]

IMHO a recession won’t help the green movement, a worsening economy and the rising costs of food, well people would rather eat than worry about the type of fuel they use.

Look to the third world for examples. Poverty is a big cause of pollution. Maybe that would be a better focus for the “Green” organizations. (Maybe the term “Green” really stands for all the cash to be made?)

I read somewhere (can’t remember, sorry!) where the author voiced his opinion that the next bubble object will be oil. Look to Wall Street to start running that up. I guess you could expand that to any “energy” source with the exception of nuclear.

[sdnativeson]

IMHO a recession won’t help the green movement, a worsening economy and the rising costs of food, well people would rather eat than worry about the type of fuel they use.

Look to the third world for examples. Poverty is a big cause of pollution. Maybe that would be a better focus for the “Green” organizations. (Maybe the term “Green” really stands for all the cash to be made?)

I read somewhere (can’t remember, sorry!) where the author voiced his opinion that the next bubble object will be oil. Look to Wall Street to start running that up. I guess you could expand that to any “energy” source with the exception of nuclear.

[sdnativeson]

IMHO a recession won’t help the green movement, a worsening economy and the rising costs of food, well people would rather eat than worry about the type of fuel they use.

Look to the third world for examples. Poverty is a big cause of pollution. Maybe that would be a better focus for the “Green” organizations. (Maybe the term “Green” really stands for all the cash to be made?)

I read somewhere (can’t remember, sorry!) where the author voiced his opinion that the next bubble object will be oil. Look to Wall Street to start running that up. I guess you could expand that to any “energy” source with the exception of nuclear.

[sdnativeson]

Nothing new under the sun… people always come back for more.

“The meltdown in financial markets may seem scary or mysterious, but it’s part of a time-honored story. In Chapter One, a new financial instrument makes capital available to a new class of borrower, and the result is profits for the innovator along with gains for consumers. In Chapter Two, a group of not-so-smart investors misunderstands the novel instrument and bids its price up too enthusiastically; when the inevitable bust follows, the innovation is denounced as inherently dangerous. Then, in Chapter Three, the complaints blow over. The not-so-smart investors learn their lesson and the new instrument stabilizes. Financial innovation turns out to be beneficial without being scary, but by that time another newfangled instrument has emerged to frighten people, and finance is hauled before the court of public opinion — again.

This is likely to be the story with the current subprime mortgage meltdown, just as it was with subprime’s close cousin, the junk bond.

Junk bonds, you will recall, are a way of getting loans to companies that stand a big chance of defaulting, much as subprime mortgages enable people with questionable credit to buy homes. During the 1980s, the value of junk bonds in circulation went from nothing to around $200 billion, enabling dozens of fringe companies to innovate and experiment. Then, in the early 1990s about one in 10 junk borrowers lived up to their names and defaulted, and junk bonds were widely denounced. But the fuss was over quickly. By 2000, the value of the junk bond market had soared to $600 billion. Nobody doubted that fringe companies should have access to finance, provided that they compensated investors for the risk that they might fail”

[sdnativeson]

Nothing new under the sun… people always come back for more.

“The meltdown in financial markets may seem scary or mysterious, but it’s part of a time-honored story. In Chapter One, a new financial instrument makes capital available to a new class of borrower, and the result is profits for the innovator along with gains for consumers. In Chapter Two, a group of not-so-smart investors misunderstands the novel instrument and bids its price up too enthusiastically; when the inevitable bust follows, the innovation is denounced as inherently dangerous. Then, in Chapter Three, the complaints blow over. The not-so-smart investors learn their lesson and the new instrument stabilizes. Financial innovation turns out to be beneficial without being scary, but by that time another newfangled instrument has emerged to frighten people, and finance is hauled before the court of public opinion — again.

This is likely to be the story with the current subprime mortgage meltdown, just as it was with subprime’s close cousin, the junk bond.

Junk bonds, you will recall, are a way of getting loans to companies that stand a big chance of defaulting, much as subprime mortgages enable people with questionable credit to buy homes. During the 1980s, the value of junk bonds in circulation went from nothing to around $200 billion, enabling dozens of fringe companies to innovate and experiment. Then, in the early 1990s about one in 10 junk borrowers lived up to their names and defaulted, and junk bonds were widely denounced. But the fuss was over quickly. By 2000, the value of the junk bond market had soared to $600 billion. Nobody doubted that fringe companies should have access to finance, provided that they compensated investors for the risk that they might fail”

[sdnativeson]

Nothing new under the sun… people always come back for more.

“The meltdown in financial markets may seem scary or mysterious, but it’s part of a time-honored story. In Chapter One, a new financial instrument makes capital available to a new class of borrower, and the result is profits for the innovator along with gains for consumers. In Chapter Two, a group of not-so-smart investors misunderstands the novel instrument and bids its price up too enthusiastically; when the inevitable bust follows, the innovation is denounced as inherently dangerous. Then, in Chapter Three, the complaints blow over. The not-so-smart investors learn their lesson and the new instrument stabilizes. Financial innovation turns out to be beneficial without being scary, but by that time another newfangled instrument has emerged to frighten people, and finance is hauled before the court of public opinion — again.

This is likely to be the story with the current subprime mortgage meltdown, just as it was with subprime’s close cousin, the junk bond.

Junk bonds, you will recall, are a way of getting loans to companies that stand a big chance of defaulting, much as subprime mortgages enable people with questionable credit to buy homes. During the 1980s, the value of junk bonds in circulation went from nothing to around $200 billion, enabling dozens of fringe companies to innovate and experiment. Then, in the early 1990s about one in 10 junk borrowers lived up to their names and defaulted, and junk bonds were widely denounced. But the fuss was over quickly. By 2000, the value of the junk bond market had soared to $600 billion. Nobody doubted that fringe companies should have access to finance, provided that they compensated investors for the risk that they might fail”

[sdnativeson]

Nothing new under the sun… people always come back for more.

“The meltdown in financial markets may seem scary or mysterious, but it’s part of a time-honored story. In Chapter One, a new financial instrument makes capital available to a new class of borrower, and the result is profits for the innovator along with gains for consumers. In Chapter Two, a group of not-so-smart investors misunderstands the novel instrument and bids its price up too enthusiastically; when the inevitable bust follows, the innovation is denounced as inherently dangerous. Then, in Chapter Three, the complaints blow over. The not-so-smart investors learn their lesson and the new instrument stabilizes. Financial innovation turns out to be beneficial without being scary, but by that time another newfangled instrument has emerged to frighten people, and finance is hauled before the court of public opinion — again.

This is likely to be the story with the current subprime mortgage meltdown, just as it was with subprime’s close cousin, the junk bond.

Junk bonds, you will recall, are a way of getting loans to companies that stand a big chance of defaulting, much as subprime mortgages enable people with questionable credit to buy homes. During the 1980s, the value of junk bonds in circulation went from nothing to around $200 billion, enabling dozens of fringe companies to innovate and experiment. Then, in the early 1990s about one in 10 junk borrowers lived up to their names and defaulted, and junk bonds were widely denounced. But the fuss was over quickly. By 2000, the value of the junk bond market had soared to $600 billion. Nobody doubted that fringe companies should have access to finance, provided that they compensated investors for the risk that they might fail”

[sdnativeson]

Cyphire, point taken, two different issues. I stand somewhat
corrected (not going to capitulate completely or immediately, I want/need more info). Still, I appreciate both the information and perspective.

True, Walker did explicitly mention the prescription benefit as a primary culprit.

As it all comes down to cost, isn’t that the issue (main issue) with our current system? After fraud (maybe before) what would be the next greatest expense? I’ll postulate lawsuits, if I’m wrong correct me. The problem with emergency rooms (wait, expense ?)I can see where the expense might be controlled but the wait is more of a supply issue isn’t it?

I agree it’s ludicrous that the drugs we develop here are cheaper in other countries, so we subsidize their prescription costs at the expense of our citizenry’s ability to obtain the same.

I appreciate the insight, you’ve given me something more to think about (gee, thanks) and a possible opportunity to only be mumbling out of my ass instead of talking from it
(at least on this topic).

[Author]

Posts