PDA

View Full Version : Infra structure stimulus



beernd
06-18-2012, 10:47 AM
As far as I can google (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the GOP is blocking every stimulus plan for the infra structure.

Why |:(

I just cannot believe that they just do it because it's Obama's plan rather than their own.

IMHO this crisis is a now or never opportunity to give rail and road infra structure a real boost since there is a slump in the economy traffic must be less then usual :)

Please enlighten an ignorant forreigner Y:o

RonW
06-18-2012, 11:03 AM
Beernd -
Please enlighten an ignorant forreigner

Unlike norman's political mumbo jumbo...........I will enlighten you......

When we buy fuel at the pump there is already a road useage tax on it, that money is used to build and maintain our roads and bridges.
No additional funds are needed and if so, they raise the useage fees or tax, this is just another political confusion tactic used by the left to make brownie points with the uninformed voters that do not know better or the truth......

beernd
06-18-2012, 11:05 AM
OK so if I were a citizen of the USA It would be simply impossible for me to vote for the Repub's

I find is unbelievable, this is kindergarten.
Aren't they committing a crime for not allowing urgent problems to get adressed and solved, or some such thing?

Where is judge Judy when her country needs her :mad: :arg

RonW
06-18-2012, 11:08 AM
You seem to be still confused.............or just a good loyal socialist........

2MeterTroll
06-18-2012, 11:19 AM
its ummm preschool kindergartners are more mature. Most of all this is because the POTUS is a different colour.
The utter stupidity of our two party system should be an example of what happens when you lie long enough to a population that a representative republic believes itself a democracy. Where the voter actually has a voice. All the voter has a voice in is what kind of scumbag gets into local office.

LeeG
06-18-2012, 11:23 AM
As far as I can google (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the GOP is blocking every stimulus plan for the infra structure.



part of it is that any thought of improving the infrastructure implies there's something wrong with it. All we need to do is let business do what it's doing and everything will be AOK.

wardd
06-18-2012, 11:29 AM
Beernd -

Unlike norman's political mumbo jumbo...........I will enlighten you......

When we buy fuel at the pump there is already a road useage tax on it, that money is used to build and maintain our roads and bridges.
No additional funds are needed and if so, they raise the useage fees or tax, this is just another political confusion tactic used by the left to make brownie points with the uninformed voters that do not know better or the truth......

you need to get out more

RonW
06-18-2012, 11:34 AM
Wardd....
you need to get out more

Hey wardd, I didn't say the roads are in great shape, or that the money collected is properly managed, just that it is there and is being used as a political misinformation to distract the voters.......

LeeG
06-18-2012, 11:45 AM
Beernd -

Unlike norman's political mumbo jumbo...........I will enlighten you......

When we buy fuel at the pump there is already a road useage tax on it, that money is used to build and maintain our roads and bridges.
No additional funds are needed

there hasn't been a tax increase since 1993, revenues have not kept up with inflation resulting in the fund needing supplementary additions. Also higher mpg vehicles result in lower tax revenues but not lower road wear. Basically Americans are getting gas without paying it's total cost for highway maintenance, just as occurred with the Iraq war, the cost(financial and environmental) is deferred and kicked down the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#Federal_taxes

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.[4] The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993.

Some policy experts believe that an increased tax is needed to fund and sustain the country's transportation infrastructure. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission issued a detailed report[5] in February 2009.
An increased cost of fuel would also encourage less consumption. A growing fiscal and national security concern is America's dependence on foreign oil. Americans sent nearly $430 billion to other countries in 2008 for the cost of imported oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_(United_States)

During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices.[4] Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively. [5]

2MeterTroll
06-18-2012, 11:48 AM
Cmon Lee
that would be propaganda by the left to explaine the need for ear marks that repair bridges like the one from Alaska to Hawaii.



there hasn't been a tax increase since 1993, revenues have not kept up with inflation resulting in the fund needing supplementary additions. Also higher mpg vehicles result in lower tax revenues but not lower road wear. Basically Americans are getting gas without paying it's total cost for highway maintenance, just as occurred with the Iraq war, the cost(financial and environmental) is deferred and kicked down the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#Federal_taxes

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.[4] The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_(United_States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_%28United_States%29)

During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices.[4] Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively. [5]

LeeG
06-18-2012, 11:50 AM
you need to get out more

This is RonW and others in a nut shell, associative reasoning is easier.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-06-17/are-we-moving-toward-fact-free-future


Psychologist Daniel Kahneman likes to pose the following problem to audiences to illustrate our habitual modes of thinking:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
It turns out that about 50 percent of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology got the answer wrong. The proportion reached as high as 90 percent at other unnamed universities. Okay, now that you've had time to reflect on the answer, you'll realize that your instinct was probably to answer 10 cents. But, of course, that's wrong. And, all you have to do is some elementary math to realize it's wrong, and then arrive at the correct answer: The ball costs 5 cents.

What's in operation here are two systems of interpreting the world, one associative and one logical, often referred to in psychology as System 1 and System 2, respectively. System 1 picks up the numbers $1.10 and $1 and makes an incorrect leap that the ball costs 10 cents. System 2 does the math and then corrects the error. It's something that happens every day in our lives. But, in this case what is at stake is regarded by most people as so trivial that even very smart ones fail to engage System 2 to check their answer. If, instead of being faced with a trivial problem that has no impact on your life, you were considering which house to buy, you would probably be engaging System 2 on a regular basis. You would be trying to determine if you were getting a fair price by, for example, checking home values nearby, comparing square footage and evaluating features such as a swimming pool or finished basement.

And, this brings me to my topic. Issues such as climate change and peak oil seem so abstract to most people that they do not see them as pressing issues that require a thorough analysis and immediate action. This is true because the effects are not immediately impinging on them or, at least, they unable to connect what effects there are to themselves. And, the usual fact-filled analysis that is often thrown at them therefore doesn't interest them much. As it turns out, information that is new, but not consistent with one's current belief system, is normally discarded by most people. Typically, only some exceptional concrete change of circumstances will cause people to open their belief systems to contradictory information.

You might say System 1 is the storytelling function and System 2 is the investigatory, scientific function. To succeed, stories need to be concrete and evocative of experiences and feelings that people can identify with. Since we operate most of the time using System 1 and since it serves us well in the vast majority of cases, the conclusion we can draw is that climate change and peak oil activists must create a narrative that can simultaneously tap into people's existing belief systems while giving them new information. This is no small task. And, it would be hard enough without all the pernicious and omnipresent propaganda emitted by the fossil fuel industry. That propaganda, incidentally, tells stories that reinforce the status quo and so don't challenge the basic worldview of most people.

RonW
06-18-2012, 12:03 PM
Sounds like more mumbo jumbo that relates to more B.S. But thanks lee, anyhow.....for what ever...

Kaa
06-18-2012, 12:06 PM
Why

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" — Margaret Thatcher

For illustrations of how this works look at Southern Europe...

2MeterTroll
06-18-2012, 12:11 PM
Would it be so simple; currently we are giving our money to business. Is that not other peoples money?



"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" Margaret Thatcher

For illustrations of how this works look at Southern Europe...

Kaa
06-18-2012, 12:15 PM
Would it be so simple; currently we are giving our money to business. Is that not other peoples money?

Who's "we", which money are we talking about, and what businesses do you have in mind? :-)

Kaa

beernd
06-18-2012, 12:26 PM
You seem to be still confused.............or just a good loyal socialist........

No no the mis use of funds is a familiar phenomenon where I live.

We pay a lot of "accijns"(governement tax?, sorry I can't find the right translation) on our car fuels and nobody knows where that money goes and BTW this tax is increased each year, come right left commies, or one of the other herd of wacko's we get in the Hague.

Than we pay road tax on our cars this at least of this tax I'm 100% sure that € 0.00 go to the maintaenance of roads (again come right come left. . .)

Anyway the Dutch governement has for decades now had the briljant policy of burning money in increasingly bigger quantities in golden times, and goes the austerity road when the economy is down and out.

Maybe good old Keynes had it the right way round :confused:

So am I confused ?, most certainly so sir :d

Politicly I can be counted to the disapointed people.

OK since this has become a bit of a rant I'll ad a nice little anecdote.
In the first year of highschool our history teacher explained the great depression to us and the fact that the dutch governement reacted foolishly in allowing prices to rise and wages to be lowered, austerity on steroids.
And as a 13yr old I thaught "Yeah thats pretty dumb they won't make that mistake anymore"

And I was wrong inthe 80', 90' 2000' and recently the excact same mistakes, were made, the effect of them worsened by the fact that they did not safe ......
Whatever :arg

beernd
06-18-2012, 12:33 PM
there hasn't been a tax increase since 1993, revenues have not kept up with inflation resulting in the fund needing supplementary additions. Also higher mpg vehicles result in lower tax revenues but not lower road wear. Basically Americans are getting gas without paying it's total cost for highway maintenance, just as occurred with the Iraq war, the cost(financial and environmental) is deferred and kicked down the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#Federal_taxes

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.[4] The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993.

Some policy experts believe that an increased tax is needed to fund and sustain the country's transportation infrastructure. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission issued a detailed report[5] in February 2009.
An increased cost of fuel would also encourage less consumption. A growing fiscal and national security concern is America's dependence on foreign oil. Americans sent nearly $430 billion to other countries in 2008 for the cost of imported oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_(United_States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_%28United_States%29)

During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices.[4] Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively. [5]

So we need a GGG stimulus ( Gas Guzzlers Galore) :D

LeeG
06-18-2012, 01:14 PM
Sounds like more mumbo jumbo that relates to more B.S. But thanks lee, anyhow.....for what ever...

Another reminder why I put you on ignore. You post a false statement, have no counter when presented with facts then default to insults.

One more time: Federal tax revenues from gas tax have not kept up with inflation. As a percentage of fuel costs they have gone DOWN as the cost of fuel has gone up. The Highway fund has needed extra funds multiple times as it is underfunded do to idiots who think they can have a free lunch by not paying sufficient funds to maintain the highways. Back when we were most able to increase fuel taxes in the 90's to change our infrastructure for a known eventuality politicians refused because they knew people like you are a sucker for the promise of a free lunch. So the 90's came and went and that eventuality happened, world production can't keep up with consumption and the price of oil tripled. Well now there's a lot less discretionary income and NO politician will ask Americans to sacrifice so the default setting is greater economic disruption every time the price of oil jumps. Oh well. Stupid is as stupid does.

RonW
06-18-2012, 02:39 PM
LeeG. --
Another reminder why I put you on ignore. You post a false statement, have no counter when presented with facts then default to insults.

So lee, you engage in this fake ignore list that seems so popular with lefties, then some how or other you read my posts.........
So do you still hate oil ??

You run to wikipedia, which might be right and might be wrong........ Now is any of the gas tax put in the general revenue, and do the representatives have to beg for it back
under the heading of ear marks or pork barreling ?
It is real simple if it had it's very own account.....you seem to think the answer always lies in raising the tax higher, particularly if it is oil..

LeeG
06-18-2012, 03:52 PM
RonW, your comments are visible in post #9. The somehow or other is that Wardd is not on my ignore list. Ignore or not your comment is visible and an excellent representation of Americas willfully ignorant. The tax is insufficient to cover highway projects. The tax has not increased even though highway miles have increased. The tax has not increased even though the cost of maintaining highways has increased. You think the vehicles the highway dept runs don't run on more expensive fuel as the decades since 1993 have gone by? You don't think labor costs for highway construction have increased since 1993?

If you don't like wikipedia would you like the gov'ts websites on the history of the highway tax? Seriously are you that clueless about easily verified information?

LeeG
06-18-2012, 04:08 PM
For RonW. my fellow American, the gas tax was raised by Ronald Reagan, GHBush and Clinton. Free lunchers like you ensured the tax hasn't been raised since.

The is the federal highway administration website.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

This is a page on the federal highway administration website with answer about the fuel tax history

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/gastax.cfm

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.

That is where the gas tax remains today.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-18-2012, 04:17 PM
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" Margaret Thatcher

For illustrations of how this works look at Southern Europe...

If the best you can conjure up is that Greece is brankrupt because of socialism you certainly have not been keeping up with the topic.
BTW, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are all socialist and they have lifestyles as good as or better than the United States.
Your move.

LeeG
06-18-2012, 04:19 PM
It is real simple if it had it's very own account.....you seem to think the answer always lies in raising the tax higher, particularly if it is oil..

Raising taxes on a depleting resource is a way of making it's use more efficient BEFORE external shocks force you to close shop. Oh, wait, are you one of those people who think oil that took 100million years to create is going to replenish itself in a season so you can go out and harvest fresh barrels?

Or maybe your retirement is nearly funded and you don't see the need to sacrifice and extra $5 a month for future generations benefit. I mean, you got your retirement savings before oil quadrupled in price right?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-short-history-of-americas-gas-tax-woes/2011/08/24/gIQAjyfXdJ_blog.html

In late September 1982, Ronald Reagan was asked whether he would support a hike in the federal gas tax. “Unless there’s a palace coup and I’m overtaken or overthrown, no, I don’t see the necessity for that,” Reagan quipped. Yet a few months later, Democrats had posted big gains in the midterm elections, and an exultant Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, delivered a speech in Washington arguing that the gas tax needed to go up — from 4 cents per gallon to 9 cents per gallon — in order to bankroll a “massive reparation of the nation’s bridges and roads.”
By December, Reagan had relented. The new gas tax would fund highways, bridges, and mass transit and was predicted to create 320,000 jobs. Reagan argued that it wasn’t really a tax, anyhow, but a “user’s fee.” What’s more, Reagan told reporters, “we’d be doing this if there were no recession at all.” Better not to think of the new five-year, $27.5 billion bill as a jobs program, Reagan explained in his weekly radio address: “We simply cannot allow this magnificent system to deteriorate beyond repair.”

Dan McCosh
06-18-2012, 04:20 PM
there hasn't been a tax increase since 1993, revenues have not kept up with inflation resulting in the fund needing supplementary additions. Also higher mpg vehicles result in lower tax revenues but not lower road wear. Basically Americans are getting gas without paying it's total cost for highway maintenance, just as occurred with the Iraq war, the cost(financial and environmental) is deferred and kicked down the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#Federal_taxes

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.[4] The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993.

Some policy experts believe that an increased tax is needed to fund and sustain the country's transportation infrastructure. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission issued a detailed report[5] in February 2009.
An increased cost of fuel would also encourage less consumption. A growing fiscal and national security concern is America's dependence on foreign oil. Americans sent nearly $430 billion to other countries in 2008 for the cost of imported oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_(United_States)

During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices.[4] Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively. [5] Question: How can revenues on a gas tax not keep up with inflation, given the increase in price of gasoline?

LeeG
06-18-2012, 04:25 PM
Question: How can revenues on a gas tax not keep up with inflation, given the increase in price of gasoline?

it's a set price per gallon, not a percentage. Fed gas tax as a percentage of fuel is less than it was in the 60's. In 1993 gasoline is $1.20, fed tax is $.18, 2012 gas is $3.70, fed tax is $.18.

Kaa
06-18-2012, 04:26 PM
Question: How can revenues on a gas tax not keep up with inflation, given the increase in price of gasoline?

It's not a percentage tax, it's a tax of fixed $/gallon so it does not depend on the price of gas.

Kaa

LeeG
06-18-2012, 04:35 PM
For RonW, my fellow American

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw714.gif

see any coincidences there? As the USofA is heading into the next century when world oil production is about to slow down and world consumption is continuing to climb do you see what WE did? We made fuel easier to buy and inefficient vehicles easier to buy. You got your free lunch and everyone gets to pay for it later. Golly, I guess non-renewable really means non-renewable. Oil doesn't grown on trees and even though there's lots and lots of oil fields in the the whole wide world, it's still a one shot deal.
Guess what RonW? We shot our deal. No more free lunches for USofA.

RonW
06-18-2012, 04:39 PM
LeeG. ------
Raising taxes on a depleting resource is a way of making it's use more efficient BEFORE external shocks force you to close shop

And right there is your whole argument in a nutshell..You feel oil is bad, so it should be taxed out of existence. And to no surprise that is exactly how Obama feels, and that is why we have messes like solyndra..Got news for both of you, energy is the lifeblood of a nation.
Do a little checking and I think you will find besides the federal tax, there is also a state tax, and right now the 2 combined equals about 50. cents per gallon, not the
.18 cents that you want to lay out to advance your agenda of putting more tax on gas, and killing the economy even more ....It won't work Barry.......

Oh by the way there Lee ...electricity costs 10 times more when produced by wind, and 100 times more when produced by solar instead of clean burning coal......
A little added info for our save the globe and raise tax crowd......

Kaa
06-18-2012, 04:41 PM
As the USofA is heading into the next century when world oil production is about to slow down and world consumption is continuing to climb...

LOL. Next century, right. Recycling doom-and-gloom peak oil warnings from the 1970s..? :-)

Kaa

wardd
06-18-2012, 04:42 PM
No no the mis use of funds is a familiar phenomenon where I live.

We pay a lot of "accijns"(governement tax?, sorry I can't find the right translation) on our car fuels and nobody knows where that money goes and BTW this tax is increased each year, come right left commies, or one of the other herd of wacko's we get in the Hague.

Than we pay road tax on our cars this at least of this tax I'm 100% sure that € 0.00 go to the maintaenance of roads (again come right come left. . .)

Anyway the Dutch governement has for decades now had the briljant policy of burning money in increasingly bigger quantities in golden times, and goes the austerity road when the economy is down and out.

Maybe good old Keynes had it the right way round :confused:

So am I confused ?, most certainly so sir :d

Politicly I can be counted to the disapointed people.

OK since this has become a bit of a rant I'll ad a nice little anecdote.
In the first year of highschool our history teacher explained the great depression to us and the fact that the dutch governement reacted foolishly in allowing prices to rise and wages to be lowered, austerity on steroids.
And as a 13yr old I thaught "Yeah thats pretty dumb they won't make that mistake anymore"

And I was wrong inthe 80', 90' 2000' and recently the excact same mistakes, were made, the effect of them worsened by the fact that they did not safe ......
Whatever :arg

it goes to fill pot holes in the canals

LeeG
06-18-2012, 04:53 PM
LeeG. ------

And right there is your whole argument in a nutshell..You feel oil is bad, so it should be taxed out of existence. And to no surprise that is exactly how Obama feels, and that is why we have messes like solyndra..Got news for both of you, energy is the lifeblood of a nation.
Do a little checking and I think you will find besides the federal tax, there is also a state tax, and right now the 2 combined equals about 50. cents per gallon, not the
.18 cents that you want to lay out to advance your agenda of putting more tax on gas, and killing the economy even more ....It won't work Barry.......

Oh by the way there Lee ...electricity costs 10 times more when produced by wind, and 100 times more when produced by solar instead of clean burning coal......
A little added info for our save the globe and raise tax crowd......

Oh you ignorant troglodyte. I don't think oil is bad at all. I think oil is fantastic. Oil is what enabled this country to grow. A gallon of oil can do the work of ten slaves laboring for four days of hard labor. I can do with a gallon of gas what I could never do with my own muscles. The Green Revolution couldn't have happened without oil. What you don't get is that we can't afford it with our existing infrastructure built with $20/barrel oil. Seriously where the hell have you been. Do you know what the price of oil is, do you know that the decline of US consumption has gone to China because we can't afford it and they can?
That's because free-lunchers like you put off that day of reckoning when world production would slow down.

LeeG
06-18-2012, 04:57 PM
LOL. Next century, right. Recycling doom-and-gloom peak oil warnings from the 1970s..? :-)

Kaa

Are you attempting an argument? It isn't doom and gloom to say you and I will die some day. It's a fact. It's not doom and gloom to say a non-renewable energy source like oil will decline one day. It's the nature of carbon trapped for millions of years released in one. How is that doom and gloom, unless you believe you'll live forever and energy sources are infinite. Do you believe in abiotic oil and everlasting life Kaa?

LeeG
06-18-2012, 05:02 PM
here you go RonW, this isn't evil, it's comfort. One could do so many things with an engine like this. Only 18hp. 18hp could move a lot of weight around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-MeLQWzevs

RonW
06-18-2012, 05:06 PM
Hey Lee, oil is $83. a barrel , and there is no green revolution.....because it doesn't work..Japan is getting rid of all nuclear energy plants and going back to coal.
Can you guess why ??

LeeG
06-18-2012, 05:14 PM
Hey Lee, oil is $83. a barrel , and there is no green revolution.....because it doesn't work..Japan is getting rid of all nuclear energy plants and going back to coal.
Can you guess why ??

WTI isn't the price traded on the world market. You tell US farmers that the fertilizers they use don't come from fossil sources. Japan isn't getting rid of nukes but suspending operations for some strange reason. You may notice their natural gas and oil consumption has gone up considerably. I don't think they can offset the decline in electrical production with coal but I'll be glad for you to educate me with facts.

Seriously don't you understand what's happened in the last seven years? US consumption and imports of oil dropped and Chinas increased. That's because we tried having a free lunch for too long. Do you still want that free lunch or at least TRY and improve things for the next generation?

LeeG
06-18-2012, 05:18 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D9-JNTtRKgs/TT7MVywJGWI/AAAAAAAABfo/rReyFaKwYq8/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-01-25+at+8.11.58+AM.png

RonW, do you know what this means?

no more free lunch, now go away or I will taunt you another time!

Waddie
06-18-2012, 05:21 PM
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
It turns out that about 50 percent of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology got the answer wrong. The proportion reached as high as 90 percent at other unnamed universities. Okay, now that you've had time to reflect on the answer, you'll realize that your instinct was probably to answer 10 cents. But, of course, that's wrong. And, all you have to do is some elementary math to realize it's wrong, and then arrive at the correct answer: The ball costs 5 cents.

I tried that at Walmart...... they still wanted their 10cents for the ball.... :) and then they charged me tax as well !!!

regards,
Waddie