posted September 25, 2004 12:56 AM              

Not too long ago around here they were trying to lower the property taxes (which a huge chunk of goes to public schools) by upping the taxes on the local casinos. I don't think the Native American people running the casinos should pay to educate my kids. I think it's unfair to tax them more because they were given land they chose to build a profitable business on. They pay their taxes just like everyone else. They shouldn't ahve to pay a higher rate just so our property tax can be lower... especially when we already DON'T have a state income tax... and Oregon is 10 minutes away with no sales tax.

posted September 25, 2004 01:31 AM            

Meanwhile, the government can just keep on wasting as much money as they possibly can, like such as sending satilites up in space to collect the suns rays to see if Solar power really works, but that doesn't matter, for the Bush's will never let America go beyond the Royal Saudi Family and use anything but they're oil. Ask Bush to cut down admission gases that cause the greenhouse effect and he'll tell you that the proof of it is still in it's testing faze.

posted September 25, 2004 03:53 PM            

Study: Antarctic glaciers melting faster
Wednesday, September 22, 2004 Posted: 11:15 PM EDT (0315 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Glaciers once held up by a floating ice shelf off Antarctica are now sliding off into the sea -- and they are going fast, scientists said on Tuesday.

Two separate studies from climate researchers and the space agency NASA show the glaciers are flowing into Antarctica's Weddell Sea, freed by the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers said their satellite measurements suggest climate warming can lead to rapid sea level rise.

The teams at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, said the findings also prove that ice shelves hold back glaciers.

Many teams of researchers are keeping a close eye on parts of Antarctica that are steadily melting.

Large ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula disintegrated in 1995 and 2002 as a result of climate warming. But these floating ice shelves did not affect sea level as they melted.

Glaciers, however, are another story. They rest on land and when they slide off into the water they instantly affect sea level.

It was not clear how the loss of the Larsen B ice shelf would affect nearby glaciers.

But soon after its collapse, researchers saw nearby glaciers flowing up to eight times faster than before.

"If anyone was waiting to find out whether Antarctica would respond quickly to climate warming, I think the answer is yes," said Theodore Scambos, a University of Colorado glacier expert who worked on one study.

"We've seen 150 miles (240 kilometers) of coastline change drastically in just 15 years."

The affected area is at the far northern tip of the Antarctic, just south of Chile and Argentina. Temperatures there have risen by up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 degrees C) in the past 60 years -- faster than almost any region in the world.

In the past 30 years, ice shelves in the region have lost more than 5,200 square miles (13,500 sq km) of area.

"The Larsen area can be looked at as a miniature experiment, showing how warming can dramatically change the ice sheets, and how fast it can happen," Scambos said in a statement. "At every step in the process, things have occurred more rapidly than we expected."

But not all the melting in the Antarctic can be seen as a "miniature experiment."

The Ross ice shelf, for example, is the main outlet for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, with several large glaciers that could, if they melted completely, raise sea levels by 16 feet (5 metres).

"While the consequences of this area are small compared to other parts of the Antarctic, it is a harbinger of what will happen when the large ice sheets begin to warm," Scambos said. "The much larger ice shelves in other parts of Antarctica could have much greater effects on the rate of sea level rise."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/09/22/environment.glaciers.reut/

posted September 25, 2004 03:58 PM            

Kazakhstan's glaciers 'melting fast'

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

The political stability of a key central Asian state could be imperilled by climate change, researchers say.

I think we have to say that climate is affecting the glaciers

Dr Stephan Harrison, University of Oxford
They say glaciers are melting so fast in parts of Kazakhstan that the livelihoods of millions of people will be affected.

They found the area's glaciers were losing almost two cubic kilometres of ice annually during the later 20th Century.

With regional temperatures rising, they believe climate change is responsible.

The scientists, led by Dr Stephan Harrison of the University of Oxford, reported their findings at the annual conference in London of the UK's Royal Geographical Society and Institute of British Geographers.

They concentrated on the Zailiiskiy Alatau range of the northern Tien Shan mountains, which stretch through Kazakhstan and its neighbour Kyrgyzstan, and into China (the name means "the celestial mountains").

The mountains, which run for 2,000 km (1,250 miles) along the north-west edge of the Tibetan plateau, form an important climatic barrier between the Siberian and central Asian air masses.

Long observation period

There are 416 glaciers in the region, covering 510 square km (197 square miles).

TIEN SHAN RANGE

The Tien Shan range runs across China, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
Dr Harrison and his colleagues, from the University of Newcastle, UK, von Humboldt University, Germany, and the Kazakh Academy of Sciences, say they have been losing nearly two cubic km of ice a year between 1955 and 2000.

Between 1974 and 1990, the glaciers lost 1.28% of their volume each year.

The Tuyuksu glacier, 30 km (18 miles) south of Kazakhstan's largest city, Almaty, has been monitored by the country's scientists since 1902, with less detailed observations dating back to the 1870s.

Since 1923 it has receded by nearly a kilometre, losing about 51 million cubic metres of ice.

The team says these changes have serious implications for river runoff, and therefore for Almaty's water supply.

The glaciers keep the plains alive
Many of the rivers which supply the irrigation schemes essential to agriculture are fed by glaciers and permafrost in the upper ranges of the Tien Shan, so the livelihoods of millions of people will be affected.

The authors say not only Kazakh agriculture and development will be jeopardised but the political stability of a swathe of central Asia, as many of the rivers and glaciers cross state frontiers.

Warming up

Kazakhstan uses about 90% of its water for irrigation, with an efficiency of only 40-60%, and it is adding 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) to the irrigated area every year.

Many Kazakhs face a drier future
The scientists say the glaciers' "consistent pattern of retreat over the latter part of the 20th Century... is associated with a small but pervasive rise in mean annual temperatures".

Dr Harrison said: "The effects of global warming on glaciers are not just of interest to scientists, as glacial retreat has profound political, economic and social repercussions."

He told BBC News Online: "I think we can be certain the reason why the Tien Shan glaciers are melting is climate change.

Uncontaminated evidence

"We have the climate records themselves, which go back to early last century. Sceptics often argue that records of this sort are contaminated by the proximity of urban centres.

"But these records are from glaciers 3,000 m (9,800 feet) up, nowhere near any towns or cities.

"They're confirmed by the evidence from tree rings, which preserve a record of climate conditions as they grow, and by the meteorological records.

"Taking all three together, I think we have to say that climate is affecting the glaciers."

posted September 25, 2004 04:03 PM            

Here's what Pennsylvanians think of it!

http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=2325626
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=2323087
http://www.wnep.com/Global/category.asp?C=58025
http://www.wnep.com/Global/category.asp?C=58031

posted September 26, 2004 01:40 AM            

Randall has a slended plan for the way that taxes should be dealt with in America, but Bush hasn't mentioned that plan as of yet, so it's not going to happen, at this rate, I wouldn't mind seeing Randall in office than either of these two canidates, but I guess that's not gonna happen either!

My little brother would be a great running mate for Randall, for he has some more constructive plans in mind as well!
http://www.fairtax.org/

posted September 26, 2004 04:33 AM            

Ex. A: If one was single in 2003, and made $30,000/year, and filed a 1040EZ, one would deduct $7,800 right off the top, which reduces their taxable income to $22,200, and makes their tax bill $2964.

Ex. B: If one was single in 2000, and made $30,000/year, and filed a 1040 EZ, one would deduct $7,200 right off the top, which reduces their taxable income to $22,800, and makes their tax bill $3424.

Now, there are two things going on there - for one, the standard deduction you're allowed to take went UP btwn 2000 and 2003 - which lowers your taxable income. The second thing going on, is that the tax RATE itself is lowered. The net reduction in % of income paid in tax was -2%, from 15% in 2000 to 13% in 2003. People filing out 1040EZs, making apx. 30K/year would have seen an additional $460 in their pockets.

Another change I see, is that in 2000, if you made $7500/year, you paid tax. In 2003, that same person paid no tax. That is because the standard deduction went up, thus raising the amount you must earn before you qualify to have to pay tax.

Let's look at a higher bracket and two lower brackets. We'll stick w/ the 1040EZ filing as an example, since it's the most straightforward, and we'll stick w/ single to keep it apples to apples.

If one is paid Federal Minimum Wage of $5.15/hour, that equates to $10,712/year, so lets look at that.

2000
Income: $10,712
Standard Deduction: $7,200
Taxable Income: $3,512
Tax due: $529
% of Gross Income: 4.9%

2003
Income: $10,712
Standard Deduction: $7,800
Taxable Income: $2,912
Tax due: $291
% of Gross Income: 2.7%

That's just over a 50% reduction in tax for the minimum wage tax bracket from 2000 to 2003.

Now we'll look at those who made $20K/year.

2000
Income: $20,000
Standard Deduction: $7,200
Taxable Income: $12,800
Tax due: $1,924
% of Gross Income: 9.62%

2003
Income: $20,000
Standard Deduction: $7,800
Taxable Income: $12,200
Tax due: $1,484
% of Gross Income: 7.42%

There again we see that 2% reduction from 2000 to 2003, and a tax break of $440.

When we look at a higher bracket:

2000
Income: $50,000
Standard Deduction: $7,200
Taxable Income: $42,800
Tax due: $8,579
% of Gross Income: 17%

2003
Income: $50,000
Standard Deduction: $7,800
Taxable Income: $42,200
Tax due: $7,366
% of Gross Income: 14.7%

This person would have gotten $1,213 back, but we still see the 2% percentage reduction.

One thing I do notice, which could be misleading, is that the guy at 50K gets a substantial reduction in tax burden in actual dollars verses the guy at 30K - however, he also STILL pays considerably more tax than the guy down at 30K, so, it's all relative. But it can give the impression that the guy that earns 50K/year received some big break as compared to the "little guy" down at 20K, when in fact, he received the same percentage of what he pays in tax, back.

When you get into higher incomes, you can't use a 1040EZ, and those folks generally itemize. Another thing that should be taken into account is the cities in which wage earners live, when analyzing the data as to what subjective term (rich/poor) to use when categorizing the tax cuts.

For example, you could NOT live on Federal Minimum Wage in the SF/Bay Area - unless you were in subsidized housing, and on food stamps. AT 30K, you're barely getting by. At 50K, you STILL aren't earning enough to qualify to buy your own home (unlike most other areas in the US), but you could afford to live alone (rents are high) and own a new car. You can't buy a single family home in the SF/Bay Area for under $400K. So you need to be earning a minimum of $80K to be even SNIFFING owning your own home - condos come a bit cheaper, but not by much. And remember, we're talking about single earners. In Omaha, you're doing pretty darned well if are single, earning 50K/year, but in the SF Bay Area, you STILL couldn't afford your own home OR condo at that wage.

Maybe if I'm bored tomorrow I'll take a look at married filing status and taxes.

Anyway, draw your own conclusions. That data was all drawn from IRS publications for the applicable tax years.

posted September 26, 2004 05:26 PM              

Isis, the numbers and percentages definitely put it all in perspective and you make an excellent point about who is considered "poor" in varying geographical locations. In South Carolina for example, I could totally have owned my own house for a couple of yrs. now on the salary I make. Alas, here in good old NJ, it will be a few more months before I can think about making a down payment.... Ah well, good things come to those who wait.... (and save)!!!

And I agree with you in the sense that taxation is not so cut and dried, as it is often made out to be. Thank you for providing some illustrative materials!

posted September 26, 2004 08:02 PM              

Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association (a front for coal and other corporate interests), for example, says, "Known apocalyptic global warming advocates, in their zeal to convince the world that the holocaust will be upon us unless we curtail our use of fossil fuels, compose conclusions which ignore actual observations. ... Satellites, that measure the world’s temperature so accurately that they can detect when the moon is full, find no warming whatsoever in their entire 18-year record." http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/warming.htm

"The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic...plastic came out of the earth, the earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children...could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question...why are we here?: plastic, a**holes." -George Carlin

posted September 28, 2004 03:28 AM            

Yes indeed Quiksilver, my brother is a die hard Republican(most cops are) and we can have ourselves a grand ol'time *ahem* debating politics!

posted September 29, 2004 06:12 PM            

"Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve and our economic future demands a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code."