There are three possible explanations for the statistical correlation between CO2 levels rising and Global Mean Temperature rising during the 20th Century.
One: CO2 causes Global Mean Temperature to rise.
Two: Rising Global Mean Temperature causes CO2 to rise.
Three Both CO2 and Global Mean Temperature rose independent of each other during the 20th Century.
Using the process of elimination, we can easily eliminate item one because temperatures have stabilized and even dropped slightly after 1998 while the level of CO2 continued to rise.
We can eliminate item two since we know that human activities has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Therefore item three must be the correct answer.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
City fixes what isn't broken and ignores what is
Did anyone else notice that the city of Wausau just repaved 17th Ave. from Sherman St. to Stewart Ave? They did this while ignoring the area of 17th Ave that has been in need of repair for years, the corner of 17th and Stewart north to Bridge St.
I could understand putting new asphalt down on the stretch they did if they did something such as replace sewer or water lines, but no, they just ripped out and replaced the pavement.
Goin back a little further, the city decided on it's own that they should block off access to Stewart Ave from the neighborhood to the south between 17th Ave and 24th Ave. They claimed that the people of the neighborhood wanted it, but talking to people who have lived there for years, it becomes clear the city talked to maybe 2 people. Again it was a project that didn't need to be done. The area was fine without that.
The city also decided, without giving any notice I might add, to repave 3rd St from Bridge St. North. The road was just fine. Yes it had a couple of rough spots, but it wasn't in as bad of shape as many other roads in this city.
Now the city wants to take the 400 block and add a bunch of stuff to it. Once again we have a perfectly functional area that the city wants to fix. There is no need for it, but yet the city is going to fix it. Sure they will be using private donations to build it, or so they say. In reality the city will probably end up paying for most of the work instead of private donations. Even if the work were all done by private donations, the city will be on the hook for paying for the maintanace of the new structures and aminaties. It is a lose / lose for the taxpayers of Wausau.
What makes this plan even worse is that the majority of people pushing for these "improvements" don't even live in the city of Wausau. Many live in surrounding communities. But alas, what is a citizen of Wausau supposed to do?
As usual the city of Wausau will do what it wants and damn the taxpayers. After all we are too stupid to understand what the city does. The average citizen of Wausau doesn't get a say in what happens here because we don't have enough money to put into the pockets of the city. We can't grease the skids of the powers that be,.
What makes it worse is that the people who got elected on the promise of being different, are acting the same as veteran elected officials of Wausau. Damn the people. The city knows best what the city needs and wants. Damn the people that is unless they live in the right neighborhood, work at the right job, wear the right clothes, shop at the right stores and most of all pad the pockets of the city.
I could understand putting new asphalt down on the stretch they did if they did something such as replace sewer or water lines, but no, they just ripped out and replaced the pavement.
Goin back a little further, the city decided on it's own that they should block off access to Stewart Ave from the neighborhood to the south between 17th Ave and 24th Ave. They claimed that the people of the neighborhood wanted it, but talking to people who have lived there for years, it becomes clear the city talked to maybe 2 people. Again it was a project that didn't need to be done. The area was fine without that.
The city also decided, without giving any notice I might add, to repave 3rd St from Bridge St. North. The road was just fine. Yes it had a couple of rough spots, but it wasn't in as bad of shape as many other roads in this city.
Now the city wants to take the 400 block and add a bunch of stuff to it. Once again we have a perfectly functional area that the city wants to fix. There is no need for it, but yet the city is going to fix it. Sure they will be using private donations to build it, or so they say. In reality the city will probably end up paying for most of the work instead of private donations. Even if the work were all done by private donations, the city will be on the hook for paying for the maintanace of the new structures and aminaties. It is a lose / lose for the taxpayers of Wausau.
What makes this plan even worse is that the majority of people pushing for these "improvements" don't even live in the city of Wausau. Many live in surrounding communities. But alas, what is a citizen of Wausau supposed to do?
As usual the city of Wausau will do what it wants and damn the taxpayers. After all we are too stupid to understand what the city does. The average citizen of Wausau doesn't get a say in what happens here because we don't have enough money to put into the pockets of the city. We can't grease the skids of the powers that be,.
What makes it worse is that the people who got elected on the promise of being different, are acting the same as veteran elected officials of Wausau. Damn the people. The city knows best what the city needs and wants. Damn the people that is unless they live in the right neighborhood, work at the right job, wear the right clothes, shop at the right stores and most of all pad the pockets of the city.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Health Care Reform Bill a Sceme to Raise Taxes, Not Affordable Health Care
Lets stop kidding ourselves and start calling the bill what it really is, the Jobs Killing and Anti Small Business Act of 2009.
The bill says it will mandate that employers purchase health insurance for their employees or pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll. It also says that small business owners must buy insurance for themselve.. But early in the bill it prohibits insurance companies from selling health insurance from the day the bill is passed.
Exhibit summary of the bill passed by the House of Representatives:
•Employer Mandate: Requires employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty for not doing so. Businesses with more than $500,000 in revenues would pay a penalty of 8% of payroll. There is a graduated penalty for firms falling between $250,000 to $500,000 in revenues with business with less than $250,000 exempt from the mandate. (The graduated rates are 2% of payroll for employers with payrolls above $250,000 to $300,000; 4% for employers with payrolls above $300,000 to $350,000; and 6% for employers with payrolls above $350,000 to $400,000.)
•Individual Mandate: Individuals and the self-employed are required to buy health insurance or pay a financial penalty, which would be 2.5 percent of income.
•Higher Taxes: A surtax would be imposed on higher-income individuals - many of which are small business owners. Individuals earning $280,000 and couples earning $350,000 would get hit with a 1% tax; those making $500,000-$1,000,000 would be taxed 1.5%; and couples earning more than $1 million would pay a 5.4% tax. These tax rates would increase if certain targets are not met.
Now lets review the language used on page 16 of the bill and see if it is possible to meet these goals or if companies will have to pay the 8% penalty for not providing insurance.
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law."
The whole thing is a scam to get more tax dollars since it is impossible for anyone to buy private health insurance, but yet it is mandated or they have to pay a penalty.
The bill says it will mandate that employers purchase health insurance for their employees or pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll. It also says that small business owners must buy insurance for themselve.. But early in the bill it prohibits insurance companies from selling health insurance from the day the bill is passed.
Exhibit summary of the bill passed by the House of Representatives:
•Employer Mandate: Requires employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty for not doing so. Businesses with more than $500,000 in revenues would pay a penalty of 8% of payroll. There is a graduated penalty for firms falling between $250,000 to $500,000 in revenues with business with less than $250,000 exempt from the mandate. (The graduated rates are 2% of payroll for employers with payrolls above $250,000 to $300,000; 4% for employers with payrolls above $300,000 to $350,000; and 6% for employers with payrolls above $350,000 to $400,000.)
•Individual Mandate: Individuals and the self-employed are required to buy health insurance or pay a financial penalty, which would be 2.5 percent of income.
•Higher Taxes: A surtax would be imposed on higher-income individuals - many of which are small business owners. Individuals earning $280,000 and couples earning $350,000 would get hit with a 1% tax; those making $500,000-$1,000,000 would be taxed 1.5%; and couples earning more than $1 million would pay a 5.4% tax. These tax rates would increase if certain targets are not met.
Now lets review the language used on page 16 of the bill and see if it is possible to meet these goals or if companies will have to pay the 8% penalty for not providing insurance.
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law."
The whole thing is a scam to get more tax dollars since it is impossible for anyone to buy private health insurance, but yet it is mandated or they have to pay a penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
