Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44A07BE4.C50D18F5@***.net...
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
I cut my own.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> I think the only way our fuel will be non-tax subsidized (even petroleum is
>> to a point, look at all the tax breaks the oil producers are getting) is if
>> we revert back to wood-fired steam.
Over $90 per cord and that's a face cord. Or cut your own and pay for
gas, oil. chainsaw maintainence, splitter and plus hours of labor. Rule
of thumb in Vermont was you needed at least a 10 acre woodlot to be self
sustaining. And that's a decent woodlot not just 10 acres of land. And I
almost forgot, the clean-up after loading the inside wood racks. On the
plus side it was good exercise and kept you warm while doing it.
--
FRH
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> I think the only way our fuel will be non-tax subsidized (even petroleum is
>> to a point, look at all the tax breaks the oil producers are getting) is if
>> we revert back to wood-fired steam.
Over $90 per cord and that's a face cord. Or cut your own and pay for
gas, oil. chainsaw maintainence, splitter and plus hours of labor. Rule
of thumb in Vermont was you needed at least a 10 acre woodlot to be self
sustaining. And that's a decent woodlot not just 10 acres of land. And I
almost forgot, the clean-up after loading the inside wood racks. On the
plus side it was good exercise and kept you warm while doing it.
--
FRH
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> I think the only way our fuel will be non-tax subsidized (even petroleum is
>> to a point, look at all the tax breaks the oil producers are getting) is if
>> we revert back to wood-fired steam.
Over $90 per cord and that's a face cord. Or cut your own and pay for
gas, oil. chainsaw maintainence, splitter and plus hours of labor. Rule
of thumb in Vermont was you needed at least a 10 acre woodlot to be self
sustaining. And that's a decent woodlot not just 10 acres of land. And I
almost forgot, the clean-up after loading the inside wood racks. On the
plus side it was good exercise and kept you warm while doing it.
--
FRH
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> I think the only way our fuel will be non-tax subsidized (even petroleum is
>> to a point, look at all the tax breaks the oil producers are getting) is if
>> we revert back to wood-fired steam.
Over $90 per cord and that's a face cord. Or cut your own and pay for
gas, oil. chainsaw maintainence, splitter and plus hours of labor. Rule
of thumb in Vermont was you needed at least a 10 acre woodlot to be self
sustaining. And that's a decent woodlot not just 10 acres of land. And I
almost forgot, the clean-up after loading the inside wood racks. On the
plus side it was good exercise and kept you warm while doing it.
--
FRH
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> I think the only way our fuel will be non-tax subsidized (even petroleum is
>> to a point, look at all the tax breaks the oil producers are getting) is if
>> we revert back to wood-fired steam.
Over $90 per cord and that's a face cord. Or cut your own and pay for
gas, oil. chainsaw maintainence, splitter and plus hours of labor. Rule
of thumb in Vermont was you needed at least a 10 acre woodlot to be self
sustaining. And that's a decent woodlot not just 10 acres of land. And I
almost forgot, the clean-up after loading the inside wood racks. On the
plus side it was good exercise and kept you warm while doing it.
--
FRH
> Where do you think the oil companies are subsidized, if anything it
> as been the golden goose, raising over seventy cents in taxes per
> gallon, usually not used for automobile roads, but for mass transit,
> even bicycles.
> Have you priced a cord of wood lately?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> I think the only way our fuel will be non-tax subsidized (even petroleum is
>> to a point, look at all the tax breaks the oil producers are getting) is if
>> we revert back to wood-fired steam.
Over $90 per cord and that's a face cord. Or cut your own and pay for
gas, oil. chainsaw maintainence, splitter and plus hours of labor. Rule
of thumb in Vermont was you needed at least a 10 acre woodlot to be self
sustaining. And that's a decent woodlot not just 10 acres of land. And I
almost forgot, the clean-up after loading the inside wood racks. On the
plus side it was good exercise and kept you warm while doing it.
--
FRH
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> You know by my spelling history it was not intentional.
> Did you intentionally evade my question, or is that a bleeding
> heart liberal wacko tactic, when confronted by fact, attack the grammar?
Not that it matters but I'm quite a bit right of center, and I didn't
know anything about your spelling history.
Your question is pointless and not worth evading, in fact the person you
asked ALREADY answered it before you asked (in the post you clearly
didn't read all the way through).
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> You know by my spelling history it was not intentional.
> Did you intentionally evade my question, or is that a bleeding
> heart liberal wacko tactic, when confronted by fact, attack the grammar?
Not that it matters but I'm quite a bit right of center, and I didn't
know anything about your spelling history.
Your question is pointless and not worth evading, in fact the person you
asked ALREADY answered it before you asked (in the post you clearly
didn't read all the way through).
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> You know by my spelling history it was not intentional.
> Did you intentionally evade my question, or is that a bleeding
> heart liberal wacko tactic, when confronted by fact, attack the grammar?
Not that it matters but I'm quite a bit right of center, and I didn't
know anything about your spelling history.
Your question is pointless and not worth evading, in fact the person you
asked ALREADY answered it before you asked (in the post you clearly
didn't read all the way through).
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> You know by my spelling history it was not intentional.
> Did you intentionally evade my question, or is that a bleeding
> heart liberal wacko tactic, when confronted by fact, attack the grammar?
Not that it matters but I'm quite a bit right of center, and I didn't
know anything about your spelling history.
Your question is pointless and not worth evading, in fact the person you
asked ALREADY answered it before you asked (in the post you clearly
didn't read all the way through).
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> You know by my spelling history it was not intentional.
> Did you intentionally evade my question, or is that a bleeding
> heart liberal wacko tactic, when confronted by fact, attack the grammar?
Not that it matters but I'm quite a bit right of center, and I didn't
know anything about your spelling history.
Your question is pointless and not worth evading, in fact the person you
asked ALREADY answered it before you asked (in the post you clearly
didn't read all the way through).
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> You know by my spelling history it was not intentional.
> Did you intentionally evade my question, or is that a bleeding
> heart liberal wacko tactic, when confronted by fact, attack the grammar?
Not that it matters but I'm quite a bit right of center, and I didn't
know anything about your spelling history.
Your question is pointless and not worth evading, in fact the person you
asked ALREADY answered it before you asked (in the post you clearly
didn't read all the way through).
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
No Good. I'm looking for actual subsidies per gallon like this
fifty four cents a gallon on ethanol
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publicat...97/vandyne.htm Without
that ratio we might as well be talking about the two thousand bucks your
president Bush save you income tax, great, but it doesn't give Me your
total tax.
And if you pay yourself fifty cents an hour?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
>
> I cut my own.
fifty four cents a gallon on ethanol
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publicat...97/vandyne.htm Without
that ratio we might as well be talking about the two thousand bucks your
president Bush save you income tax, great, but it doesn't give Me your
total tax.
And if you pay yourself fifty cents an hour?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
>
> I cut my own.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
No Good. I'm looking for actual subsidies per gallon like this
fifty four cents a gallon on ethanol
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publicat...97/vandyne.htm Without
that ratio we might as well be talking about the two thousand bucks your
president Bush save you income tax, great, but it doesn't give Me your
total tax.
And if you pay yourself fifty cents an hour?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
>
> I cut my own.
fifty four cents a gallon on ethanol
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publicat...97/vandyne.htm Without
that ratio we might as well be talking about the two thousand bucks your
president Bush save you income tax, great, but it doesn't give Me your
total tax.
And if you pay yourself fifty cents an hour?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
>
> I cut my own.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Uh oh, Here We Go Again!
No Good. I'm looking for actual subsidies per gallon like this
fifty four cents a gallon on ethanol
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publicat...97/vandyne.htm Without
that ratio we might as well be talking about the two thousand bucks your
president Bush save you income tax, great, but it doesn't give Me your
total tax.
And if you pay yourself fifty cents an hour?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
>
> I cut my own.
fifty four cents a gallon on ethanol
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/publicat...97/vandyne.htm Without
that ratio we might as well be talking about the two thousand bucks your
president Bush save you income tax, great, but it doesn't give Me your
total tax.
And if you pay yourself fifty cents an hour?
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/winter2000/winter0020.html
>
> I cut my own.