LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO ALSO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA'S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????

WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????

*** WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????

***THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.

****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

**INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !!
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM. ** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com
(424-247-2013)

Fine. Now, what does the government pay for that, vs what a private agency pays? Does government pay itself for such things?

Once again BS. The government pays the scientists and others that do the EIS just like any private company. That one private company hires another private company to do their EIS should by your general argument make that a more efficient and thus cheaper operation.

And being able to write it;s own laws doesn't hurt.

Once again what laws are you referring to. Be specific.

The operating costs tend to be offset by the skillsets of the people such agencies would need to hire, for one thing.

and the people with the necessary skill sets refuse to work anywhere but the US and EU? Looks like another load.

Well, let's see, here. Need land for takeoff or landing? Government can simply take that land, or condem it and grab it at a fraction of it's value. Not so, private companies.

Was Cape Canaveral acquired this way? How about Kennedy or Goddard? Do you know of any that were acquired by means much less expensive than those available to private industry? What barriers are preventing private industry from buying land and building launch sites? Could it be the massive expense of building a site that can handle the loads imposed by the space craft and machinery used to move them? Might it also have something to do with the much lower expense of renting time on an already extant site?

...Need retrieval for ocean landings? Well, hell, son, that's what the government has a Navy for...

So your argument boils down to the government has better infrastructure in place to deal with the necessities of space travel. Can private companies not buy, lease, or rent boats? This is not a government imposed expense, rather it is yet another of the myriad and quite large expenses associated with space travel. Those large expenses with little guaranteed payoff are the real reason private industry has only very recently started taking its first tentative steps towards space travel. Governments paid the up front development costs and private industry and society in general have benefited greatly. In the not to distant future non-government entities will be able to launch their own missions into space with their own vehicles and that will be thanks to the ground breaking work of governments in this field and thanks to government built facilities for at least the early flights.

Government investment into alternative energy techs may have a similar effect, though again we do not know going in what the payoff will be. Hopefully the side benefits will be as great as they have been for the space program. If not 15 billion a year for 10 yrs is a relatively small slice of our budget and it is a gamble that I think is well worth taking.

Need lots of fuel? Don't expect private companies to be able to afford to pay for both the fuel and the attendant taxes.

Need retrieval for ocean landings? Well, hell, son, that's what the government has a Navy for. But of course private industry cant do things that way.

Etc, etc.

Here is info to access one. There are a host of others. Just google Cape Caneveral eis or NASA eis to find them. Really you should at least spend the 5 sec required for a google search before you make statements like that.

Fine. Now, what does the government pay for that, vs what a private agency pays? Does government pay itself for such things?

Because it is a wealthy enough entity.

And being able to write it;s own laws doesn't hurt.

If it is just American laws why haven't they off-shored this work?

The operating costs tend to be offset by the skillsets of the people such agencies would need to hire, for one thing.

nd I don't buy that 3% profit margin line.

D'Oh...

Glad you caught that, My error... Typo. Meant 9%. (Why can't phone pads and number pads be set up the same way? Mmmppphh)

Realy? What private firm could do taht, then? particularly the military aspects, I mean.

What standards for employment does NASA impose that a private firm could not?
I don't know any astronauts, but do know that the standards for hiring NASA scientists could be applied by any private firm.

Well, there again, that's a standard set by a law the government needn't worry about.

Because it is a wealthy enough entity. Certainly there are many megacorps that could also self insure or simply own the insurance carrier they choose to use.

Again, when you set the rules, you have a rather distinct advantage. That cuts across everythnig, including pay, benefits, etc

What rules/laws make it easier for NASA and more difficult for private industry. If it is just American laws why haven't they off-shored this work?

A reasonable example would seem to be the post office bit as I mentioned.

That is not a specific law and does not even work well as an example outside of that. Again what laws are preventing private firms from being able to do this.

But when's the last time, for example we saw an environmental imact statement incidental to a lift-off at the Cape?

Here is info to access one. There are a host of others. Just google Cape Caneveral eis or NASA eis to find them. Really you should at least spend the 5 sec required for a google search before you make statements like that.

THe economics of the thing are made far more complex than needs be by the long established laws considering the conduct of private enterprise.

And yet again, give some specifics. What are these long established laws? If you continue to fail to cite any I will have to assume you are talking out of your @ss.

I question that it's even the best policy, as I've laid out in my response to Micheal.

Again, it is the best policy for achieving the stated goals.

Which in turn lowers volumes, which in its turn lowers profits below viablity, sooner or later.

No, not neccessarily sooner or later. And I don't buy that 3% profit margin line. At least not for the major integrated oil companies.

I wasn't advocating anything, merely pointing out the best policy for achieving the stated outcome.

I question that it's even the best policy, as I've laid out in my response to Micheal.

People want more alternative fuels. People want less oil/gasoline consumption

Well, mose specifically, they want the mobility for the lesser cost. Some go to extremes to try and get that... Me, there's only so much I'm willing to do for a gallon of gas.

People want something to be done about global warming.

Some, it's true are still on that jag. Yet, there seems to be evidence that nature's already got that well in hand.

Argumentum ad extremum. Nobody is saying that the tax has to put oil companies out of business, all it needs to do is raise the price enough to make alternatives and/or research into alternatives look more attractive.

Which in turn lowers volumes, which in its turn lowers profits below viablity, sooner or later.

Look, say what you will about the total numbers, and certainly there's a number of people out there screaming about the numbers involved in the total.... but the fact is, we're still dealing with companies which are now dealing with a 3% profit margin, more or less. Assiming of course, you don't include the costs of exploation and taxation.

What you propose is taxing something to lower consumption on it. The oil company sells less. Doesn't lower volumes mean lower profits, and lower profit returns on a given investment, meaning lower profit margins in total?

Again, 3%. What other set of companies survives for long on those kind of numbers?

It's not a matter of killing oil companies iis desired or not, ....(though I don't doubt some people would be dancing, till they saw what that really means... but I digress)... I'm saying it WOULD happen, desired outcome or not.

but if the above problems are indeed real

Well, here, I'll agree; that is a large question at least. For the record, I don't think they are.

Oh, granted, it would certainly knock out the oil companies, but what would it leave us with?

It wouldn't knock out the oil companies until there was an alternative, but it would just significantly handicap our economy if set too high. Oil companies are surviving just fine on the high taxes we're already assessing.

Seriously, It's already over-taxed, Steve. You champion lessening government and then propose to give them more power to tax? Does not compute.

I wasn't advocating anything, merely pointing out the best policy for achieving the stated outcome.

People want more alternative fuels. People want less oil/gasoline consumption. People want less pollution. People want something to be done about global warming.

The solution to these problems are clear: oil and gasoline are way under priced due to these external issues so we should increase the tax on oil/gasoline to bring it into correct marginal cost/marginal benefit ratio.

However, neither politician advocates this policy and instates comes up with addle brained pandering solutions instead, and they eat it up with a spoon.

Oh, granted, it would certainly knock out the oil companies, but what would it leave us with? I fail to see that knocking out the oil companies is a good thing. Matters of principles of private enterprise and governmental interference in a free market situation aside...There's effectively no replacement at the moment. That's not going to magically happen by itself, even with government promises about finding for research.

Argumentum ad extremum. Nobody is saying that the tax has to put oil companies out of business, all it needs to do is raise the price enough to make alternatives and/or research into alternatives look more attractive. Further, we could reduce income taxes so that the actual tax is revenue neutral. We'd still get the substitution effect due to the price increase, although we'd likely lose the income effect.

Of course there is still the issue of deadweight loss, but if the above problems are indeed real, then we actually want the deadweight loss in this case. If one were to read my initial post I note that externalities can cause a deadweight loss and to correct for it you'd want to use a unit tax on the product in question.

He wasn't suggesting that we should increase taxes on oil, he was saying that if your intention was to increase spending on alternatives, taxes are the most effective way to do it.

I still disagree, from a practical perspective.

Oh, granted, it would certainly knock out the oil companies, but what would it leave us with? I fail to see that knocking out the oil compaines is a good thing. Matters of princiles of priavte enterprise and governmental interference in a free market situation aside...There's effectively no replacement at the moment. That's not going to magically happen by itself, even with government promises about finding for research.

The economy is in trouble just nw because of energy prices. Taxing will only hurt us when we can least afford it.

Also, lets recall the number of times we've been promised a particular use for the income relative to a particular tax.

Social Security, as an example. What did those funds end up paying for?

The state lottery systems and education. Most of hem now feed not to education, but to the general funds.

Federal gasoline taxes... which supposedly were bound to highway construction and maintainence. Where'd THAT go?

You and Verdon talk loudly, (and correctly for the most part) about government abuse, (And I would certainly include the avove list as examples of such) and yet you still seem trusting that the money will go where they say it will. Doesn't your efficiency argument rather depend on the government keeping their word?

I suggest to you you're asking for more problems, that way. Witness... The degree to which we've been having energy problems is directly connected to how much governmental interference has occurred.

That's just off the top of my head; I'm just gettng started here. Sorry, still no sale.

BS

Realy? What private firm could do taht, then? particularly the military aspects, I mean.

As can any sufficiently wealthy entity

Well, there again, that's a standard set by a law the government needn't worry about. It's amazing what you can do when you set the rules...and you have an unlimited source of theft funding.

it's far more of an investment for private firms to do than government...

Again, when you set the rules, you have a rather distinct advantage. That cuts across everythnig, including pay, benefits, etc.

The laws you initially mentioned are not at fault so which laws are they that prevent this work? Please cite a few (or at least one) specific law.

A reasonable example would seem to be the post office bit as I mentioned. But when's the last time, for example we saw an environmental imact statement incidental to a lift-off at the Cape? (Hint... the private compnaies have to do it..)

I doubt they're that smart, frankly.

There are several unions for NASA employees

QED.

There are about a half dozen private companies attempting that right now,

Well, there's that time travel thing again.

It turns out that the laws of physics and the laws of economics are a much bigger obstacle to them than the laws of the US government.

The first is obvious, the second, obviously wrong. THe economics of the thing are made far more complex than needs be by the long established laws considering the conduct of private enterprise.

You and I both know government will never get out of the way long enough for us to find out.

There are about a half dozen private companies attempting that right now, within the context of current laws. One of them, SpaceX, was just recently granted the use of launch sites at Cape Canaveral.

It turns out that the laws of physics and the laws of economics are a much bigger obstacle to them than the laws of the US government.

Seriously, It's already over-taxed, Steve. You champion lessening government and then propose to give them more power to tax? Does not compute.

He wasn't suggesting that we should increase taxes on oil, he was saying that if your intention was to increase spending on alternatives, taxes are the most effective way to do it.