Change.gov Options

[Mommy]

http://www.change.gov/


Click on agenda... read and post thoughts

[nickluto]

Shit, I gotta be quick and squat on hope.gov. IM GONNA BE RICH!

[Hartmann]

From the "Revitalize the economy" section:

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

Good to know that they determine what is "excessive" and what is not.

The redistribution begins. Some of our biggest employers will soon be required to cut profits in order to minimize taxes. Guess they'll start by laying people off.

[nickluto]

#
# Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

I found this funny.

[Dogmeat]

From the "Revitalize the economy" section:



Good to know that they determine what is "excessive" and what is not.

The redistribution begins. Some of our biggest employers will soon be required to cut profits in order to minimize taxes. Guess they'll start by laying people off.

Windfall profits taxes on oil companies are a tried-and-true way to completley %100 fuck the economy up. It's been well-proven this is a horrible idea.

[Dogmeat]

From the "Revitalize the economy" section:



Good to know that they determine what is "excessive" and what is not.

The redistribution begins. Some of our biggest employers will soon be required to cut profits in order to minimize taxes. Guess they'll start by laying people off.

It's already happened. They've alread laid down ~10 rigs in the basin I've been working in in the last 6 months alone. Maybe more, I just know that between Questar and Anadarko that's about half the operating rigs in the Uintah basin ... at least to my knowledge. It's gonna be a fucking bloodbath for the oil and gas industry, especially in the Rockies.

I'm glad I got out of the services side of things when I did, I might stand a chance of keeping the job I'm supposed to start next week long enough to at least get all my shit paid off .... I hope.

[Hartmann]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obam...=embedded_video

HA!

[Dogmeat]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obam...=embedded_video

HA!

boy aint that the truth

[Billy]

From the "Revitalize the economy" section:



Good to know that they determine what is "excessive" and what is not.

The redistribution begins. Some of our biggest employers will soon be required to cut profits in order to minimize taxes. Guess they'll start by laying people off.

I was in a meeting today with BP. The discussion was with performing an unnecessary qualification to a valve which required a series of expensive tests. Their response: we have deep pockets.

When a company has so much wealth that they ignore efficiency, that's excessive.

[Dogmeat]

I was in a meeting today with BP. The discussion was with performing an unnecessary qualification to a valve which required a series of expensive tests. Their response: we have deep pockets.

When a company has so much wealth that they ignore efficiency, that's excessive.

Or did it have to do with saftey and hence preventing a liability? The majors are much more willing to spend money to mitigate that type of thing than the smaller guys are.

[Billy]

Or did it have to do with saftey and hence preventing a liability? The majors are much more willing to spend money to mitigate that type of thing than the smaller guys are.

Make all of the assumptions you want to justify your opinion.

[Dogmeat]

Make all of the assumptions you want to justify your opinion.

I'm asking a question based on my own personal experiences working with the majors, BP included.

I'm not trying to make an assumption about how to design or QC subsurface production equipment or anything like that (isn't that what you're doing now), I'm just making an observation that there is usually a reason that the big boys do what they do ... not always, but you have to look at it from the perspective that they didn't get to where they are now by being stupid.

[nickluto]

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

what the fuck?

What did he smoke that he thought it is the governments duty to force people to work? Weren't black people fed up with having to do a lifetime of community service? I say make all the welfare recipients get out there and do some god damn "community service".

Already giving up 33% of my income to lazy ass people, now you want to force me to work FOR FREE to repaint their houses? Go fuck yourself.

[Dogmeat]

that will NEVER fly

[The Fanatic]

Reverse slavery motha fucka!

I don't think forcing this on people is right. But perhaps the government could offer incentives to encourage individuals to serve... such as forgiving a portion of student loans after completing X hour of community service.

This post has been edited by The Fanatic: Nov 6 2008, 10:25 PM

[Dogmeat]

that is gonna be ripe with fraud ... ask brandon about it ... I'll bet he can tell you some great stories about how people go about their community service...

It'd be even more fucking worthless in the academic world.

[Hartmann]

I was in a meeting today with BP. The discussion was with performing an unnecessary qualification to a valve which required a series of expensive tests. Their response: we have deep pockets.

When a company has so much wealth that they ignore efficiency, that's excessive.

You've made my point for me. If that is your idea of excessive then why don't we have a "windfall" tax on Google or any other large corporation? Why are oil companies the bad guys? Because they make a commodity and Americans were at a time paying near $4.00/gallon (which is near the natural price over time if adjusted for inflation)?

It's too much on whim and not on fact for me to agree that windfall profits should be taxed any differently.

"Oh, Americans, you're paying too much at the pump for your SUV, let's tax the crap outta the companies who are "making" you drive this much and give that money back to you so you can drive some more"

[Mommy]

Gas is UNDER $2 here. I never thought I would see that again. It's great. Off topic, yes, but still neat. In fact, it's $1.97 around the corner.

[Dogmeat]

Gas is UNDER $2 here. I never thought I would see that again. It's great. Off topic, yes, but still neat. In fact, it's $1.97 around the corner.

Remember when $2.00 gas meant the end of the world?

[Hartmann]

Oh, and don't forget, this was tried in 1980 by Carter... By 1988 the NYT and most of America was calling for the repeal of it, eventually the government gave in.

[Billy]

This isn't about fair. Someone has to pay the tax. We can either tax the people it will hurt the most or we can tax the people it will hurt the least. If you think you should pay more tax, by all means, donate to the IRS. But for the rest of us where the majority of our income is going to survival, it is far better for those with a little excess to pick up the slack. If you feel the oil industry does not have any money to spare, who should we tax instead? That's all it comes down to. If we don't tax the oil industry, we have to tax someone else. No matter who we tax, there will be an argument on why you shouldn't tax that group. Of course, no matter who you tax, it's going to affect every other taxable group. You tax the oil industry, gas goes up in price and everyone suffers. You tax the middle class, they buy fewer goods, and everyone suffers. You tax financial sector, less money available for investment, and everyone suffers. You don't tax anyone, infrastructure, social programs, education, and science all gets cut, and everyone suffers. I hear a lot of whining, but yet I don't ever see any alternative solutions. So let's hear it. Who should we tax?

Ultimately I feel the best solution is to have a leaner more efficient government. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. But that isn't going to ever be reality as long as we want to remain a representative democracy.

[Oasis]

This isn't about fair. Someone has to pay the tax. We can either tax the people it will hurt the most or we can tax the people it will hurt the least.

You're overlooking one key point. Not all oil companies are large corporations making billions of dollars. My mom's oil company is small, struggling to get by, and with a windfall tax, would probably either have to shut down, or operate at a loss. Probably the former.

[Epic]

and that still doesn't answer billy's question. What is a better solution? Maybe we should instate a free for all (and I'm being serious) where there aren't any government programs. the only thing I care about is road quality and law enforcement. but it would never work of course.

[Hartmann]

This isn't about fair. Someone has to pay the tax. We can either tax the people it will hurt the most or we can tax the people it will hurt the least. If you think you should pay more tax, by all means, donate to the IRS. But for the rest of us where the majority of our income is going to survival, it is far better for those with a little excess to pick up the slack. If you feel the oil industry does not have any money to spare, who should we tax instead? That's all it comes down to. If we don't tax the oil industry, we have to tax someone else. No matter who we tax, there will be an argument on why you shouldn't tax that group. Of course, no matter who you tax, it's going to affect every other taxable group. You tax the oil industry, gas goes up in price and everyone suffers. You tax the middle class, they buy fewer goods, and everyone suffers. You tax financial sector, less money available for investment, and everyone suffers. You don't tax anyone, infrastructure, social programs, education, and science all gets cut, and everyone suffers. I hear a lot of whining, but yet I don't ever see any alternative solutions. So let's hear it. Who should we tax?

Ultimately I feel the best solution is to have a leaner more efficient government. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. But that isn't going to ever be reality as long as we want to remain a representative democracy.

Why should others "pick up" what you cannot? You again prove my point that taxing the oil companies is a whim and pulled completely out of your hat. You see some disposable profits (though a lot go to R&D) and you have to have them. And what do you mean isn't about fair? That's exactly what it's about from the tone of your post. "It's not fair we don't have extra cash, charge the oil companies, that will make it fair"

Why the oil companies? Why not Google? I know they have some extra cash...

You tax the people, that was the original idea. You don't tax them so much they go broke, but you tax them. Citizens are the ones using the services that are provided, so why should they not be the ones taxed?

Lastly, we don't have to tax someone. What does more taxation give the government? More of a pool to spend from. Maybe if they stopped spending, they could cut taxes for everyone and all would be happy.

[Hartmann]

and that still doesn't answer billy's question. What is a better solution? Maybe we should instate a free for all (and I'm being serious) where there aren't any government programs. the only thing I care about is road quality and law enforcement. but it would never work of course.

You don't need the federal government for those things...

The federal govt. all comes back to the Constitution, ensuring national security and the state's rights. Other than that, it's up to the states.

[Dogmeat]

This isn't about fair. Someone has to pay the tax. We can either tax the people it will hurt the most or we can tax the people it will hurt the least. If you think you should pay more tax, by all means, donate to the IRS. But for the rest of us where the majority of our income is going to survival, it is far better for those with a little excess to pick up the slack. If you feel the oil industry does not have any money to spare, who should we tax instead? That's all it comes down to. If we don't tax the oil industry, we have to tax someone else. No matter who we tax, there will be an argument on why you shouldn't tax that group. Of course, no matter who you tax, it's going to affect every other taxable group. You tax the oil industry, gas goes up in price and everyone suffers. You tax the middle class, they buy fewer goods, and everyone suffers. You tax financial sector, less money available for investment, and everyone suffers. You don't tax anyone, infrastructure, social programs, education, and science all gets cut, and everyone suffers. I hear a lot of whining, but yet I don't ever see any alternative solutions. So let's hear it. Who should we tax?

Ultimately I feel the best solution is to have a leaner more efficient government. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. But that isn't going to ever be reality as long as we want to remain a representative democracy.

*yawn*

Windfall profits taxes are nothing but a vote and money grab. It's the mentality of "oohhhh those people are making money and these people aren't we have to steal their money from them because we're upset!"

that's pretty much what it amounts to.

[Billy]

You tax the people, that was the original idea. You don't tax them so much they go broke, but you tax them. Citizens are the ones using the services that are provided, so why should they not be the ones taxed?

Just the citizens? I don't know of many citizens that transport extremely heavy, extremely large equipment which causes incredibly more wear and tear on our roads and bridges than any vehicle a normal citizen drives. Yet citizens pay the most for our roads and bridges through gas tax. I don't know of many citizens that dump large amounts of waste into our natural bodies of water. Yet citizens pay for clean up through water recycling and chemical filtration for our drinking water. Industry taxes our infrastructure quite a bit. And yet you expect only the citizens to pay for it all?

A good tax system is a system that burdens its citizens the least, yet providing the most amount of service to its people. It doesn't do our country or its people any good to tax the group with the least to give. I agree with taxing Google more. I think that is one solution. But you can't just tax Google more. You have to tax everyone like Google more. And now you run into the problem of "Why tax us?". Everyone is going to ask that question "why tax us?". And the simple answer is this: because you'll hurt the least.

[Billy]

and that still doesn't answer billy's question. What is a better solution? Maybe we should instate a free for all (and I'm being serious) where there aren't any government programs. the only thing I care about is road quality and law enforcement. but it would never work of course.

I don't know about cutting completely any of these services, but I would support definitely shrinking the budget of Health and Human Services. But then again, I like knowing the food I eat is safe.

[James]

Just the citizens? I don't know of many citizens that transport extremely heavy, extremely large equipment which causes incredibly more wear and tear on our roads and bridges than any vehicle a normal citizen drives. Yet citizens pay for most for our roads and bridges through gas tax. I don't know of many citizens that dump large amounts of waste into our natural bodies of water. Yet citizens pay for clean up through water recycling and chemical filtration for our drinking water. Industry taxes our infrastructure quite a bit. And yet you expect only the citizens to pay for it all?

A good tax system is a system that burdens its citizens the least, yet providing the most amount of service to its people. It doesn't do our country or its people any good to tax the group with the least to give. I agree with taxing Google more. I think that is one solution. But you can't just tax Google more. You have to tax everyone like Google more. And now you run into the problem of "Why tax us?". Everyone is going to ask that question "why tax us?". And the simple answer is this: because you'll hurt the least.

Say what?! When I saw that, I immediately stopped reading and hit up the Internet. "Say it ain't so," I thought.

Know what I found?

It ain't so!

Taxes add a significant amount to the price of motor fuel and vary widely by state. For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per gallon. For diesel, the average state tax is 29.2 cents per gallon plus an additional 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 53.6 cents per gallon. See map below for more details.

Ok, so what we have here is diesel fuel, the fuel of choice for the trucks you refer to, being taxed more than regular fuel - 47 cents to 53.6 cents. Not much, but perspective will help us appreciate this more.

According to the Bureau to Transportation Statistics, passenger vehicles consumed a total of 75,204 million gallons of fuel in 2006 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_11.html) while trucks consumed a total of 9,843 million gallons of fuel in 2006 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_13.html). Man, that's a lot. $35,345,880,000 in collected taxes for passenger fuel consumption versus a mere $5,275,848,000 in collected taxes for truck fuel consumption.

But wait! There's more cars than there are trucks, of course they're going to be charged more. How much is it per truck then? Well, if we look at the same tables provided by BTS, we see that trucks average 1480 gallons of fuel per year while passenger vehicles average 554 gallons of fuel per year. So trucks pay $793.28 in fuel tax per year while cars only pay $260.38 in fuel tax per year. That doesn't seem fair.

It was said trucks use the roads a lot more though. 80,331 million miles for trucks versus 1,682,671 million miles travelled by passenger cars. Trucks account for 4.6% of total mileage on roads yet pay 13.0% of the total fuel taxes.

I just don't know Billy. Do you really know what you're talking about?

-------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT @ 6:35: Revising my numbers since the table names were misleading. BRB

-------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT @ 6:55

Data revisement:

Passenger Vehicle Total Fuel Consumption - 135,866,000,000 Gallons ($63,857,020,000 in taxes)
Truck Total Fuel Consumption - 37,918,000,000 Gallons ($20,324,048,000 in taxes)

Trucks pay 24.14% of total Fuel Taxes

Passenger Vehicle Total Mileage - 2,784,085,000,000
Truck Total Mileage - 223,037,000,000

Trucks drive 7.42% of total Miles.

Cuh-razy. Numbers are still in my favor.

Source: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_t...ion_statistics/

I combined tables 4-11 and 4-12 for "Passenger Vehicles" and tables 4-13 and 4-14 for "Trucks".

[Billy]

Heavy trucks damage the roads far greater than light cars. Simple fatigue analysis. Any engineer can you tell you that. Not only that, but roads and bridges have to be designed for the greater weight of trucks, thus increasing the cost of building roads.

Here's some perspective: Average weight of a car: 4500 lbs
Average weight of one our manifolds that we ship via road: 145,000 lbs.

But the little passenger cars have to pay much more than they should have to so that the roads can handle in excess of 145,000 lbs.

[Dogmeat]

Heavy trucks damage the roads far greater than light cars. Simple fatigue analysis. Any engineer can you tell you that. Not only that, but roads and bridges have to be designed for the greater weight of trucks, thus increasing the cost of building roads.

So there is a vast amount more usage of the roads of non-DOT vehicles, meaning vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lbs. Anything 10k or over you have to have a CDL to legally operate on public roads.

A fully loaded semi truck is bound by law to be less than 80,000-lbs gross without an overload permit, so I'm going to use this as a base number.

I'm going to assume the average weight of a passenger car is 3500-lbs.

I am going to assume that the average contact patch for non-DOT vehicles is a 6.5" wide tire, and a 24" diameter. So, just for the hell of it, let's assume a contact area of 6.5"x4"x4. 104" in^2 x 3500-lbs = a stress of 33.65 psi exerted on the roadways. Now, for the hell of it, lets take that stress exerted on the roadways times the number of miles driven ... 33.65 psi x 1,682,671 Mmiles = 55,621,879 psi*Mmiles

Now let's do the same thing to come up with a represenative "damage factor" for DOT vehicles.

A semi tire is approximatley 11" wide by 38" in diamater. Let's assume a contact area of 11x8x10 (tractor) + 11x8x8 (trailer) ... 18 total wheels, for a total area of 1584 in^2.

80,000-lbs / 1584 = 50.5 psi.

Let's apply our 'damage factor' calculation.

50.5 psi x 80,331 Mmiles = 4,056,715 psi*Mmiles

Damage factors:

Passenger cars - 55,621,879 psi*Mmiles
DOT vehicles - 4,056,715 psi*Mmiles

Pcar / Dot Damage ratio ------ 13.7 x more stress on roadways due to passenger cars than DOT rigs.

Thank you drive thru!

[Billy]

Besides the fact your numbers are complete bullshit and any retard can make that stuff up....

That is NOT how you calculate fatigue.

One last note, we're going to ship a manifold that weighs 240,000 lbs. Again, the roads have to be built to withstand that. Yet, I don't see cars out there driving around weighing anything near that.

[Dogmeat]

Besides the fact your numbers are complete bullshit and any retard can make that stuff up....

One last note, we're going to ship a manifold that weighs 240,000 lbs. Again, the roads have to be built to withstand that. Yet, I don't see cars out there driving around weighing anything near that.

No, those numbers aren't complete bullshit you fucking moron. Look it up. And if you're shipping a manifold that weighs 240,000-lbs I gauren-damn-tee you you have to have a special permit for that as well as pilot cars and the whole getup.

I'm sure you know all about shit like this sitting in your comfy downtown Houston office

[chook]

You know, there is static sheer and dynamic sheer!

[James]

Heavy trucks damage the roads far greater than light cars. Simple fatigue analysis. Any engineer can you tell you that. Not only that, but roads and bridges have to be designed for the greater weight of trucks, thus increasing the cost of building roads.

Here's some perspective: Average weight of a car: 4500 lbs
Average weight of one our manifolds that we ship via road: 145,000 lbs.

But the little passenger cars have to pay much more than they should have to so that the roads can handle in excess of 145,000 lbs.

And how much does that manifold lower the fuel efficiency of the truck hauling it? So how much more fuel does it consume on that trip compared to the fuel it would consume on a trip with a "normal" load?

[Dogmeat]

And how much does that manifold lower the fuel efficiency of the truck hauling it? So how much more fuel does it consume on that trip compared to the fuel it would consume on a trip with a "normal" load?

that truck isn't going faster than 30 mph most likley hauling that.

I see semi trucks hauling nearly 1,000,000-lb completley assembeled compressor stations fairly regularly, albeit at about 4 mph ..

Complete with pilot cars AND local law enforcement as escorts.

You aren't moving something that weighs that much on a whim.

[James]

Not sure what numbers you used for total mileage, but to be consistent with my tax values, suggest using 2,784,085,000,000 miles driven by "Passenger" vehicles versus 223,037,000,000 miles driven by "Trucks".

[Dogmeat]

Not sure what numbers you used for total mileage, but to be consistent with my tax values, suggest using 2,784,085,000,000 miles driven by "Passenger" vehicles versus 223,037,000,000 miles driven by "Trucks".

I just picked the numbers you posted in that earlier reply .... I just needed a number to contrast what I am calling a "damage factor" with.

It was said trucks use the roads a lot more though. 80,331 million miles for trucks versus 1,682,671 million miles travelled by passenger cars. Trucks account for 4.6% of total mileage on roads yet pay 13.0% of the total fuel taxes.

I'm not claiming those numbers I threw out there are accurate to a high degree, it was just something I put together to show the concept.

[James]

I see. Revised as follows:

Damage factors:

Passenger cars - 93,684,460 psi*Mmiles
DOT vehicles - 11,263,369 psi*Mmiles

Pcar / Dot Damage ratio ------ 8.3 x more stress on roadways due to passenger cars than DOT rigs.

Not as much, but still in more.

The later numbers are definitely accurate for 2006. I'm sure everything's gone up for 2008, including the ratio of diesel tax to gas tax since the price difference is so great.

[Billy]

No, those numbers aren't complete bullshit you fucking moron. Look it up. And if you're shipping a manifold that weighs 240,000-lbs I gauren-damn-tee you you have to have a special permit for that as well as pilot cars and the whole getup.

I'm sure you know all about shit like this sitting in your comfy downtown Houston office

Do you know anything about Cameron?.... And yes, your numbers are bullshit and that's not how you calculate fatigue. I'm glad you're not above stooping to educational dishonesty to try to win an argument.

For those of you who don't know how to calculate fatigue, I give you exhibit 1:



This is a fatigue curve, or stress vs cycles. The way this works, is that each time you cyclically stress something, by applying a load, the material's strength is reduced. As a material's strength is reduced, it takes less stress to make that material yield/plastically deform/fail. In this curve, Al can handle a load of 320 MPa before failure. However, if you apply less than that, Al will not fail. However, it's strength will be reduced so that next time, you might apply less than 320 MPa but it will still fail. Equipment can be designed to never fail. For instance, if I apply only 50 MPa to this specimen, it will have infinite life. No matter how many times I apply that load, it will never fail. Any time I apply a load above it's infinite life threshold, which in this graph appears to be around 80 MPa, it makes the curve more steep which means I have permanently fatigued the specimen. The more stress you apply to a material, the more you fatigue it, thus permanently weakening its ability to resist yielding.

To make a long story short, a car applying it's load to a road designed to handle a 250K lbs of load will not fatigue the road anywhere near a truck with a 140,000 lb equipment loaded on it will reduce the strength of that road. Roads would need very little repair if it were not for trucks.

So in order for Dogmeat to calculate the "Damage factors" he would have to know the yield strength and ultimate strength of the road, which he does not. And thus, everything he did means absolutely jack shit. So please do not buy into his nonsense. His math says nothing, other than he makes up numbers to confuse you into thinking he knows something.

[James]

Yes, trucks definitely put more wear on the road, but roads, such as interstates, are designed to take the continual load, much like your aluminum cylinder takes the 50 MPa load forever. When they rebuild an interstate in Texas, they do so such that it can last 30 years. So I guess the real question is how much of that mileage is on interstate vs non-interstate? How many of those miles are with loads above deform/fail levels? For that, I don't see any data and if there is, I definitely don't want to pick it apart.

The thought of taxing the trucking industry more doesn't sit well because they're not going to just sit down and shut up; they're going to raise prices and pass it on to the consumer or they're just going to stop moving goods. Neither sounds appealing to me.

[Billy]

Yes, trucks definitely put more wear on the road, but roads, such as interstates, are designed to take the continual load, much like your aluminum cylinder takes the 50 MPa load forever. When they rebuild an interstate in Texas, they do so such that it can last 30 years. So I guess the real question is how much of that mileage is on interstate vs non-interstate? How many of those miles are with loads above deform/fail levels? For that, I don't see any data and if there is, I definitely don't want to pick it apart.

The thought of taxing the trucking industry more doesn't sit well because they're not going to just sit down and shut up; they're going to raise prices and pass it on to the consumer or they're just going to stop moving goods. Neither sounds appealing to me.

Yes, but you have to design the roads so that the trucks do not fatigue them, which if they didn't have to, the roads would be exponentially cheaper to build. We as a society benefit though from shipping. So I am not complaining about paying the tax. But to say only citizens use the roads, like Hartman claimed, is not only ignorant, but insanely far from the truth.

[Dogmeat]

Do you know anything about Cameron?.... And yes, your numbers are bullshit and that's not how you calculate fatigue. I'm glad you're not above stooping to educational dishonesty to try to win an argument.

For those of you who don't know how to calculate fatigue, I give you exhibit 1:



This is a fatigue curve, or stress vs cycles. The way this works, is that each time you cyclically stress something, by applying a load, the material's strength is reduced. As a material's strength is reduced, it takes less stress to make that material yield/plastically deform/fail. In this curve, Al can handle a load of 320 MPa before failure. However, if you apply less than that, Al will not fail. However, it's strength will be reduced so that next time, you might apply less than 320 MPa but it will still fail. Equipment can be designed to never fail. For instance, if I apply only 50 MPa to this specimen, it will have infinite life. No matter how many times I apply that load, it will never fail. Any time I apply a load above it's infinite life threshold, which in this graph appears to be around 80 MPa, it makes the curve more steep which means I have permanently fatigued the specimen.

To make a long story short, a car applying it's load to a road designed to handle a 250K lbs of load will not fatigue the road anywhere near a truck with a 140,000 lb equipment loaded on it will reduce the strength of that road. Roads would need very little repair if it were not for trucks.

So in order for Dogmeat to calculate the "Damage factors" he would have to know the yield strength and ultimate strength of the road, which he does not. And thus, everything he did means absolutely jack shit. So please do not buy into his nonsense. His math says nothing, other than he makes up numbers to confuse you into thinking he knows something.

Welp, I'll thank you for giving me a review of an S-N curve. And you are correct.

So ... do you happen to know what the S-N curve for a composite material looks like?

[pysex]

frankly a lot of this talk is pointless


look forward to higher taxes all around because when a dem gets into office and a dem controlled congress they'll want more government which means more taxes


we just have to buckle down and hope the next 4 years won't end us

[FORSAKENR320]

frankly a lot of this talk is pointless


look forward to higher taxes all around because when a dem gets into office and a dem controlled congress they'll want more government which means more taxes


we just have to buckle down and hope the next 4 years won't end us

or, hope it DOES end us, and we take the rest of the world with us..... set us back to the dark ages... heh

[Dogmeat]

or, hope it DOES end us, and we take the rest of the world with us..... set us back to the dark ages... heh

Yes. Then S-N curves won't matter anymore and I can put this small blemish on an otherwise flawless internet arguing scorecard behind me.

[FORSAKENR320]

Yes. Then S-N curves won't matter anymore and I can put this small blemish on an otherwise flawless internet arguing scorecard behind me.

you can always go back to making fun of black people

[Dogmeat]

you can always go back to making fun of black people

I never make fun of black people.

[FORSAKENR320]

I never make fun of black people.

then maybe you should start

[Hartmann]

Just the citizens? I don't know of many citizens that transport extremely heavy, extremely large equipment which causes incredibly more wear and tear on our roads and bridges than any vehicle a normal citizen drives. Yet citizens pay the most for our roads and bridges through gas tax. I don't know of many citizens that dump large amounts of waste into our natural bodies of water. Yet citizens pay for clean up through water recycling and chemical filtration for our drinking water. Industry taxes our infrastructure quite a bit. And yet you expect only the citizens to pay for it all?

A good tax system is a system that burdens its citizens the least, yet providing the most amount of service to its people. It doesn't do our country or its people any good to tax the group with the least to give. I agree with taxing Google more. I think that is one solution. But you can't just tax Google more. You have to tax everyone like Google more. And now you run into the problem of "Why tax us?". Everyone is going to ask that question "why tax us?". And the simple answer is this: because you'll hurt the least.

I think your example and comparison are not very accurate. You are suggesting taxing based on who burdens the road system the most (truckers) which in our society would be those who put the biggest strain on the system (welfare, unemployed, and Medicaid).

Why tax the wealthy in your example? They don't tear up the road nearly as much as the ones I listed earlier.

You also don't stimulate the economy by taxing companies who create jobs more.

[jwttu]

So if the oil companies are taxed more wont they just pass the costs along to me the consumer? I just can't see them getting taxed and it not affecting what I pay at the pump.

[Dogmeat]

So if the oil companies are taxed more wont they just pass the costs along to me the consumer? I just can't see them getting taxed and it not affecting what I pay at the pump.

No, they'll just up and leave and go overseas again like they did in the late 70's.

Why bother fucking around in the US when they don't have to?

[chook]

No, they'll just up and leave and go overseas again like they did in the late 70's.

Why bother fucking around in the US when they don't have to?

Workers not the companies.

[Hartmann]

So if the oil companies are taxed more wont they just pass the costs along to me the consumer? I just can't see them getting taxed and it not affecting what I pay at the pump.

I am not sure how they would do that on their balance sheet. If they charge the consumer more (to make up for taxes) their profits go up and their quarterly taxes increase, nullifying the increase in price to consumers and actually making the taxed amount higher.

[Dogmeat]

Workers not the companies.

No, what I'm saying is that if they enact another windfall profits tax that essentially directly targets a few large companies, they'll just pack their bags up and invest more heavily overseas.

This time they will never come back, even if an even more pro-oil and gas Republican were to get into office in 8 years.

[chook]

No, what I'm saying is that if they enact another windfall profits tax that essentially directly targets a few large companies, they'll just pack their bags up and invest more heavily overseas.

This time they will never come back, even if an even more pro-oil and gas Republican were to get into office in 8 years.

For some reason i doubt it. Most oil in the world is Nationalized, unless they go for new international drill sites. Mabye some deep drilling? I don't de downstream leaving, but going broke.

[Billy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of windfall profits "unexpected profits"? If that is the case, I'm not sure how anyone with any business sense counts on these. I understand the nature of the oil industry is often times random as far as discoveries are concerned, or unexpected sizes of wells, but for the most part, the technology we have is pretty accurate in finding and estimating the amount of oil a well contains.

I think taxing windfall profits might be a risky move simply because the government will be unable to estimate how much revenue that tax will bring in. Though I am not saying they shouldn't do it. But taxing windfall profits will require another, more secure, tax if the government is trying to raise a specific amount of money.

[Hartmann]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of windfall profits "unexpected profits"? If that is the case, I'm not sure how anyone with any business sense counts on these. I understand the nature of the oil industry is often times random as far as discoveries are concerned, or unexpected sizes of wells, but for the most part, the technology we have is pretty accurate in finding and estimating the amount of oil a well contains.

I think taxing windfall profits might be a risky move simply because the government will be unable to estimate how much revenue that tax will bring in. Though I am not saying they shouldn't do it. But taxing windfall profits will require another, more secure, tax if the government is trying to raise a specific amount of money.

My understanding is that it would have more to do with changes in market rather than exploration and production. So, OPEC cuts production, prices skyrocket, and the oil companies get "rich", the government gets its piece.

So they are counting on the American people paying more for their gas to fund the government spending, this is partially why the windfall profits tax didn't work the first time they tried it.

We can estimate how much is in a well but we still have trouble estimating how much of it we'll actually get, but we're getting better.

EDITED TO ADD: It does have a little to do with production but not our production, other people's. Basically, the tax punishes the oil companies for being in a volatile industry and succumbing to conditions that they cannot always control.