The week between Christmas and New Years marks the time I moved from
Ohio to Los Angeles at the end of 1989.
A lot has changed.
I left Ohio 12/26/89 and started driving South/West along I-71 and
I-70
never getting out of 4th gear since the roads were so slick as
attested
to by the collection of cars and busses that had spun out and into the
median from the storm the day before.
It wasn't until Indianapolis that I felt comfortable in 5th gear.
After that, the roads were clear and the weather began to warm.
I walked out into the court yard of my complex today to see a sign
posted
that this was a NO SMOKING facility.
Imagine that, a common outdoor area denoted as a NO SMOKING area.
I remember trying to get a table in a NO SMOKING area of a restaurant
on
a Saturday night and being told they didn't have one.
My how times have changed.
It was a long and tough war that was fought against big tobacco, led
by a
Los Angeles city councilman whose name I don't remember but to whom
I will forever be indebted.
As an ex nicotine addict, I am convinced that nicotine is the most
addictive
drug on the planet. Other than alcohol, I've never used addictive
drugs BUT
I'm convinced nicotine is the most addictive.
Monday starts a new business year, the weather is slated to return to
more typical SoCal temps, just like it was when I arrived.
Time marches on.
Lew
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:27:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/5/2015 10:53 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> On 1/5/2015 12:49 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "Martin Eastburn" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>>>
>>>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
>>>> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
>>>> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
>>>> compensate.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
>>> of gov't.
>>>
>>> The tax man has two reasons to cry.
>>>
>>> Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
>>>
>>> Overall demand is down.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>> Here in NJ they talked about taxing electric vehichles during
>> registration because they use the road but don't pay as much in taxes
>> due to the better gas mileage.
>>
>> It's all about the money here.
>>
>
>Exactly. Choose an alternative fuel and the government is going to tax
>it too.
As they should. As long as the road taxes are used only on the roads,
I really don't care what they are.
On 1/5/2015 12:49 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Martin Eastburn" wrote:
>
>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>
>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
>> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
>> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
>> compensate.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
> of gov't.
>
> The tax man has two reasons to cry.
>
> Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
>
> Overall demand is down.
>
> Lew
>
>
Here in NJ they talked about taxing electric vehichles during
registration because they use the road but don't pay as much in taxes
due to the better gas mileage.
It's all about the money here.
--
Jeff
Additions:
What I forgot to mention was the absolute explosion of the cell phone,
which now has become a hand held computer/camera, the introduction
of the internet and GPS.
Lew
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> The week between Christmas and New Years marks the time I moved from
> Ohio to Los Angeles at the end of 1989.
>
> A lot has changed.
>
> I left Ohio 12/26/89 and started driving South/West along I-71 and
> I-70
> never getting out of 4th gear since the roads were so slick as
> attested
> to by the collection of cars and busses that had spun out and into
> the
> median from the storm the day before.
>
> It wasn't until Indianapolis that I felt comfortable in 5th gear.
>
> After that, the roads were clear and the weather began to warm.
>
> I walked out into the court yard of my complex today to see a sign
> posted
> that this was a NO SMOKING facility.
>
> Imagine that, a common outdoor area denoted as a NO SMOKING area.
>
> I remember trying to get a table in a NO SMOKING area of a
> restaurant on
> a Saturday night and being told they didn't have one.
>
> My how times have changed.
>
> It was a long and tough war that was fought against big tobacco, led
> by a
> Los Angeles city councilman whose name I don't remember but to whom
> I will forever be indebted.
>
> As an ex nicotine addict, I am convinced that nicotine is the most
> addictive
> drug on the planet. Other than alcohol, I've never used addictive
> drugs BUT
> I'm convinced nicotine is the most addictive.
>
> Monday starts a new business year, the weather is slated to return
> to
> more typical SoCal temps, just like it was when I arrived.
>
> Time marches on.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
"Bill" wrote:
>> So, you didn't say what you paid for gas on your emigration from
>> sanity.
>
>
> Gosh it was 1989. Could it have been $1.65 (I'm just making a guess
> for fun)?
--------------------------------------------------
Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
Rabbit;
however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
Lew
"Larry Blanchard" wrote:
> I did the same from Kentucky to LA in Jan of 1965. My worst weather
> was
> coming down the mountain out of Flagstaff. You brought back a lot
> of
> memories.
----------------------------------------------------
Spent the night in Flagstaff where it snowed overnight.
Made for an interesting trip down the mountain the next day.
Yes the memories.
Lew
On 01/04/2015 09:27 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> On 1/4/2015 10:01 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54a8bae9$0$42942
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>>> Rabbit;
>>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
>>
>> According to this site:
>>
>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>
>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
>>
>> John
>>
> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>
> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of the
> Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with lower gas
> prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to compensate.
>
> Martin
Sorry, but federal and state taxes are a flat amount per gallon, not a
percentage of dollar amount per gallon. On gasoline, the average of
state and federal tax is $0.42 per gallon.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=10&t=10
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Martin Eastburn" wrote:
> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>
> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
> compensate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
of gov't.
The tax man has two reasons to cry.
Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
Overall demand is down.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>>> Rabbit;
>>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early
>>> 90's.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John McCoy wrote:
>> According to this site:
>>
>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>
>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) I didn't arrive in CA until 1990. Might want to verify your source.
2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
CA been doing it for years.
Lew
Somebody wrote:
>>>> Gas is Gas, ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>> But the _additives_ required aren't and CA requires blends used
>>> nowhere
>>> else in the country...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how many blends are made today, but there was a time when
more than 30 blends were offered across the country.
CA has some unique blends that meet air quality standards.
Lew
On 01/05/2015 08:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> On 1/4/2015 10:47 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 01/04/2015 09:27 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2015 10:01 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54a8bae9$0$42942
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>>>>> Rabbit;
>>>>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
>>>>
>>>> According to this site:
>>>>
>>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>>>
>>>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>>>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>>>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>>>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>>
>>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of the
>>> Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with lower gas
>>> prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to compensate.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>
>> Sorry, but federal and state taxes are a flat amount per gallon, not a
>> percentage of dollar amount per gallon. On gasoline, the average of
>> state and federal tax is $0.42 per gallon.
>>
>> http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=10&t=10
>>
>>
> There is sales tax on gasoline as well.
> Martin
California (to be expected) on top of flat $0.53/gal. Indiana just did
a sales tax. What other states?
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> Geezus - do we really need a thread of californianians defending
> california in a woodworking group? Let california do what it wants
> to do and let its people be happy with anything the state decides to
> do. Let the stupid californians stop preaching to the rest of the
> country about their brain dead decisions of how to deal with their
> brain dead self-inflicted problems, and everyone else can just move
> on.
----------------------------------------
Poor baby.
Lew
On 1/4/2015 10:47 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 01/04/2015 09:27 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> On 1/4/2015 10:01 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54a8bae9$0$42942
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>>>> Rabbit;
>>>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
>>>
>>> According to this site:
>>>
>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>>
>>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>
>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of the
>> Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with lower gas
>> prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to compensate.
>>
>> Martin
>
> Sorry, but federal and state taxes are a flat amount per gallon, not a
> percentage of dollar amount per gallon. On gasoline, the average of
> state and federal tax is $0.42 per gallon.
>
> http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=10&t=10
>
>
There is sales tax on gasoline as well.
Martin
On 1/6/2015 10:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote in news:3dGdnatmucSm9zbJnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> Here in NJ they talked about taxing electric vehichles during
>> registration because they use the road but don't pay as much in taxes
>> due to the better gas mileage.
>>
>> It's all about the money here.
>
> Well, in fairness, someone has to pay for the roads. I don't
> see that electric vehicles should get a free ride.
>
> The trick, of course, is to proportion the burden fairly (*),
> and to make sure the politicos actually spend the tax money
> for the purpose it was intended (i.e. roads).
In CT we have the highest gas tax and worst roads. ""T"hey raised the
tax so much, many of us don't pay it. I work in MA and cross the border
4 days a week and save 30¢ a gallon while I'm there.
Now they are talking about putting tolls back. They want to put them on
the roads as you exit the state only. That means the politicians going
to the Capitol won't pay any tolls, but tourist, passing truckers, and
those of us working out of state will. I imagine the back roads will be
very congested as I'm not going to pay a toll on my way to buy the out
of state gas and booze.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> This requires a cite. California imports 10% from the northwest
>>>> (the bulk of that is hydro), and 20% from the southwest (of which
>>>> 30% comes from coal). The remaining 70% is generated in-state. Note
>>>> that the drought has increased the draw from out-of-state due
>>>> to a 36% drop in in-state hydro in 2012 and a further 10% drop in
>>>> 2013. The shutdown of San Onofre has also increased imports.
>>>>
>>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Geezus - do we really need a thread of californianians defending
>>> california in a woodworking group? Let california do what it wants
>>> to do and let its people be happy with anything the state decides to
>>> do. Let the stupid californians stop preaching to the rest of the
>>> country about their brain dead decisions of how to deal with their
>>> brain dead self-inflicted problems, and everyone else can just move
>>> on.
>>>
>>
>> Typical ad hominem attack. You can't attack the message, you
>> must attack the messenger. Poor debating technique, and
>> poor manners. Name calling is for grade school.
>
>Scott - I was not attacking the messenger - no ad hominem attack in what I
>said. I think the people out there have the right to decide what they want
>to do. I was just voicing my opinion on the california mindset and the
>regulations they come up with. You could suggest I keep my opinions to
>myself and that would be a very valid opinion on your part, but you are
>reading into what I expressed by seeing an ad hominem attack.
as will be. but note "stupid californians" and "brain-dead" go beyond
simple disagreement, and indeed are patently false characterizations.
On 1/5/2015 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 01/05/2015 10:11 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in news:54aa27a4$0$19622
>> ...
>>
>>>> 2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
>>>>
>>>> CA been doing it for years.
>>>
>>> That was my point - Cal has had higher taxes and special pollution
>>> regulations for years (heck, there was a time when automakers had
>>> to make special California models). So, when prices elsewhere in
>>> the US were just under a dollar, I'd have expected Cal to be more
>>> different than they were.
>>
>> I'd suspect if you go look as suggested that they really were if account
>> for which level of controls were in place at the time in comparison to
>> the rest of the US.
>>
>> And, much of what CA brags about isn't them "cleaning up after
>> themselves" as much as it is pushing it out of state and then importing
>> the product...power being one prime example.
>
> This requires a cite. California imports 10% from the northwest
> (the bulk of that is hydro), and 20% from the southwest (of which
> 30% comes from coal). The remaining 70% is generated in-state. Note
> that the drought has increased the draw from out-of-state due
> to a 36% drop in in-state hydro in 2012 and a further 10% drop in
> 2013. The shutdown of San Onofre has also increased imports.
>
> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
>
And I remember when a certain northern city who had a nuke power plant
built, energized and signed off ready to dump power on the grid and
the local city voted to shut the power plant down. I don't know how
they can do that after several dozens of years of planning and spending
billions on a massive plant and only when they spend more money on
fuel and certification does some of the city complain. Likely the
college students all moved out and don't care. But want the power just
the same. About that time (shutdown) there was a power crisis and the
state went to taxes and shutdown themselves.
Martin
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54a8bae9$0$42942
[email protected]:
> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
> Rabbit;
> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
According to this site:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
gas prices were always well over a dollar.
John
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54aa27a4$0$19622
[email protected]:
> John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> According to this site:
>>>
>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>>
>>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1) I didn't arrive in CA until 1990. Might want to verify your source.
The source is .ca.gov, which is a California state government
website. It would be hard to find a more authoritative source.
> 2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
>
> CA been doing it for years.
That was my point - Cal has had higher taxes and special pollution
regulations for years (heck, there was a time when automakers had
to make special California models). So, when prices elsewhere in
the US were just under a dollar, I'd have expected Cal to be more
different than they were.
John
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:m9Aqw.173222$pr4.4819
@fx26.iad:
> Anyone who experienced a second or third-stage smog alert in the
> LA basin in the 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's knows exactly how
> beneficial those blends have been. There hasn't been a first stage
> alert since 1990, entirely due to the clean-air regulations. They're
> a _good thing_.
Yeah, I recall being out in San Berdoo in the early 90's
(working on the restoration of steam engine 3751), and every
morning we had a great view of the mountains, and by 3 every
afternoon they'd disappeared in the haze. But the locals all
said it was much better than it used to be.
John
woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote in news:3dGdnatmucSm9zbJnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:
> Here in NJ they talked about taxing electric vehichles during
> registration because they use the road but don't pay as much in taxes
> due to the better gas mileage.
>
> It's all about the money here.
Well, in fairness, someone has to pay for the roads. I don't
see that electric vehicles should get a free ride.
The trick, of course, is to proportion the burden fairly (*),
and to make sure the politicos actually spend the tax money
for the purpose it was intended (i.e. roads).
(* currently it's not that way, with motorcycles paying a
disproportionally high amount, and heavy trucks paying
disproportionally low. In the case of trucks it's usually
said to be justified since trucks are essential to the
economy. I'm not sure what the justification is for
motorcycles, other than there's not enough of them for
anyone to care).
John
dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Denver in the 60s owing to the elevation was no picnic, either...
Denver can still be pretty bad...it's because it sits down in
a bit of a hole, and the bad air can get trapped, the flow
coming off the mountains just sort of goes right over it.
John
On 1/4/2015 11:57 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>>>> Rabbit;
>>>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early
>>>> 90's.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> According to this site:
>>>
>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>>
>>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1) I didn't arrive in CA until 1990. Might want to verify your source.
>
> 2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
Really, IIRC California is one of the most expensive places to do
anything. What do you suppose makes California a more expensive place
to live.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:46:50 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote in news:3dGdnatmucSm9zbJnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]:
>
>> Here in NJ they talked about taxing electric vehichles during
>> registration because they use the road but don't pay as much in taxes
>> due to the better gas mileage.
>>
>> It's all about the money here.
>
>Well, in fairness, someone has to pay for the roads. I don't
>see that electric vehicles should get a free ride.
>
>The trick, of course, is to proportion the burden fairly (*),
>and to make sure the politicos actually spend the tax money
>for the purpose it was intended (i.e. roads).
+2
>(* currently it's not that way, with motorcycles paying a
>disproportionally high amount, and heavy trucks paying
>disproportionally low. In the case of trucks it's usually
>said to be justified since trucks are essential to the
>economy. I'm not sure what the justification is for
>motorcycles, other than there's not enough of them for
>anyone to care).
Correct, though if they taxed trucks for road wear, you'd just pay
more at the store (not that that's necessarily bad either).
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:30:07 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The week between Christmas and New Years marks the time I moved from
>Ohio to Los Angeles at the end of 1989.
>
>A lot has changed.
>
>I left Ohio 12/26/89 and started driving South/West along I-71 and
>I-70
>never getting out of 4th gear since the roads were so slick as
>attested
>to by the collection of cars and busses that had spun out and into the
>median from the storm the day before.
>
>It wasn't until Indianapolis that I felt comfortable in 5th gear.
>
>After that, the roads were clear and the weather began to warm.
>
>I walked out into the court yard of my complex today to see a sign
>posted
>that this was a NO SMOKING facility.
>
>Imagine that, a common outdoor area denoted as a NO SMOKING area.
>
>I remember trying to get a table in a NO SMOKING area of a restaurant
>on
>a Saturday night and being told they didn't have one.
>
>My how times have changed.
>
>It was a long and tough war that was fought against big tobacco, led
>by a
>Los Angeles city councilman whose name I don't remember but to whom
>I will forever be indebted.
>
>As an ex nicotine addict, I am convinced that nicotine is the most
>addictive
>drug on the planet. Other than alcohol, I've never used addictive
>drugs BUT
>I'm convinced nicotine is the most addictive.
>
>Monday starts a new business year, the weather is slated to return to
>more typical SoCal temps, just like it was when I arrived.
>
>Time marches on.
>
So, you didn't say what you paid for gas on your emigration from
sanity.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:30:07 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The week between Christmas and New Years marks the time I moved from
>> Ohio to Los Angeles at the end of 1989.
>>
>> A lot has changed.
>>
>> I left Ohio 12/26/89 and started driving South/West along I-71 and
>> I-70
>> never getting out of 4th gear since the roads were so slick as
>> attested
>> to by the collection of cars and busses that had spun out and into the
>> median from the storm the day before.
>>
>> It wasn't until Indianapolis that I felt comfortable in 5th gear.
>>
>> After that, the roads were clear and the weather began to warm.
>>
>> I walked out into the court yard of my complex today to see a sign
>> posted
>> that this was a NO SMOKING facility.
>>
>> Imagine that, a common outdoor area denoted as a NO SMOKING area.
>>
>> I remember trying to get a table in a NO SMOKING area of a restaurant
>> on
>> a Saturday night and being told they didn't have one.
>>
>> My how times have changed.
>>
>> It was a long and tough war that was fought against big tobacco, led
>> by a
>> Los Angeles city councilman whose name I don't remember but to whom
>> I will forever be indebted.
>>
>> As an ex nicotine addict, I am convinced that nicotine is the most
>> addictive
>> drug on the planet. Other than alcohol, I've never used addictive
>> drugs BUT
>> I'm convinced nicotine is the most addictive.
>>
>> Monday starts a new business year, the weather is slated to return to
>> more typical SoCal temps, just like it was when I arrived.
>>
>> Time marches on.
>>
> So, you didn't say what you paid for gas on your emigration from
> sanity.
Gosh it was 1989. Could it have been $1.65 (I'm just making a guess for
fun)?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>>> So, you didn't say what you paid for gas on your emigration from
>>> sanity.
>>
>> Gosh it was 1989. Could it have been $1.65 (I'm just making a guess
>> for fun)?
> --------------------------------------------------
> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
> Rabbit;
> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
>
> Lew
>
Here are some answers:
http://www.inthe80s.com/prices.shtml
On 01/04/2015 10:01 AM, John McCoy wrote:
...
> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
...
Check when the reg's went into effect and at what levels of severity...
--
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:30:07 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> The week between Christmas and New Years marks the time I moved from
> Ohio to Los Angeles at the end of 1989.
>
> A lot has changed.
>
> I left Ohio 12/26/89 and started driving South/West along I-71 and I-70
> never getting out of 4th gear since the roads were so slick as attested
> to by the collection of cars and busses that had spun out and into the
> median from the storm the day before.
I did the same from Kentucky to LA in Jan of 1965. My worst weather was
coming down the mountain out of Flagstaff. You brought back a lot of
memories.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Martin Eastburn" wrote:
>
>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>
>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
>> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
>> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
>> compensate.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
> of gov't.
>
> The tax man has two reasons to cry.
>
> Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
>
> Overall demand is down.
It will probably hurt your "river is ris'n" thread too!
>
> Lew
>
>
Bill wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Martin Eastburn" wrote:
>>
>>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>>
>>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
>>> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
>>> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
>>> compensate.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
>> of gov't.
>>
>> The tax man has two reasons to cry.
>>
>> Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
>>
>> Overall demand is down.
>
> It will probably hurt your "river is ris'n" thread too!
I guess what I mean is, it probably won't survive the hit.
>
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "Martin Eastburn" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>>>
>>>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
>>>> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
>>>> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
>>>> compensate.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
>>> of gov't.
>>>
>>> The tax man has two reasons to cry.
>>>
>>> Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
>>>
>>> Overall demand is down.
>>
>> It will probably hurt your "river is ris'n" thread too!
>
>
> I guess what I mean is, it probably won't survive the hit.
That was just a joke, you know!
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>
>
On 01/05/2015 10:11 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in news:54aa27a4$0$19622
...
>> 2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
>>
>> CA been doing it for years.
>
> That was my point - Cal has had higher taxes and special pollution
> regulations for years (heck, there was a time when automakers had
> to make special California models). So, when prices elsewhere in
> the US were just under a dollar, I'd have expected Cal to be more
> different than they were.
I'd suspect if you go look as suggested that they really were if account
for which level of controls were in place at the time in comparison to
the rest of the US.
And, much of what CA brags about isn't them "cleaning up after
themselves" as much as it is pushing it out of state and then importing
the product...power being one prime example.
--
On 01/05/2015 11:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> dpb<[email protected]> writes:
>> On 01/04/2015 10:27 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Gas is Gas, ...
>> ...
>>
>> But the _additives_ required aren't and CA requires blends used nowhere
>> else in the country...
>
> For which 100% of californians are _GRATEFUL_.
>
> Anyone who experienced a second or third-stage smog alert in the
> LA basin in the 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's knows exactly how
> beneficial those blends have been. There hasn't been a first stage
> alert since 1990, entirely due to the clean-air regulations. They're
> a _good thing_.
Didn't say that the weren't, necessarily, only that there's something
other than "gas is gas"...and I doubt it'd be possible to find
_anything_ 100% of a population as large and diverse as CA's would be
for... :)
--
On 01/05/2015 3:49 PM, John McCoy wrote:
...
> Yeah, I recall being out in San Berdoo in the early 90's
> (working on the restoration of steam engine 3751), and every
> morning we had a great view of the mountains, and by 3 every
> afternoon they'd disappeared in the haze. But the locals all
> said it was much better than it used to be.
Spent a lot of time with Garrett-AirResearch s primary consulting client
in Torrance in early '80s...was often pretty bad then but again that was
nothing to what had been earlier.
Denver in the 60s owing to the elevation was no picnic, either...
--
On 01/05/2015 3:53 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>>>>> Gas is Gas, ...
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> But the _additives_ required aren't and CA requires blends used
>>>> nowhere
>>>> else in the country...
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure how many blends are made today, but there was a time when
> more than 30 blends were offered across the country.
>
> CA has some unique blends that meet air quality standards.
Well, that's not _exactly_ how the blends are set but the CARB does
mandate what can be sold in CA, yes.
--
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> This requires a cite. California imports 10% from the northwest
> (the bulk of that is hydro), and 20% from the southwest (of which
> 30% comes from coal). The remaining 70% is generated in-state. Note
> that the drought has increased the draw from out-of-state due
> to a 36% drop in in-state hydro in 2012 and a further 10% drop in
> 2013. The shutdown of San Onofre has also increased imports.
>
> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
Geezus - do we really need a thread of californianians defending california
in a woodworking group? Let california do what it wants to do and let its
people be happy with anything the state decides to do. Let the stupid
californians stop preaching to the rest of the country about their brain
dead decisions of how to deal with their brain dead self-inflicted problems,
and everyone else can just move on.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> This requires a cite. California imports 10% from the northwest
>>> (the bulk of that is hydro), and 20% from the southwest (of which
>>> 30% comes from coal). The remaining 70% is generated in-state. Note
>>> that the drought has increased the draw from out-of-state due
>>> to a 36% drop in in-state hydro in 2012 and a further 10% drop in
>>> 2013. The shutdown of San Onofre has also increased imports.
>>>
>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
>>
>>
>> Geezus - do we really need a thread of californianians defending
>> california in a woodworking group? Let california do what it wants
>> to do and let its people be happy with anything the state decides to
>> do. Let the stupid californians stop preaching to the rest of the
>> country about their brain dead decisions of how to deal with their
>> brain dead self-inflicted problems, and everyone else can just move
>> on.
>>
>
> Typical ad hominem attack. You can't attack the message, you
> must attack the messenger. Poor debating technique, and
> poor manners. Name calling is for grade school.
Scott - I was not attacking the messenger - no ad hominem attack in what I
said. I think the people out there have the right to decide what they want
to do. I was just voicing my opinion on the california mindset and the
regulations they come up with. You could suggest I keep my opinions to
myself and that would be a very valid opinion on your part, but you are
reading into what I expressed by seeing an ad hominem attack.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>On 01/04/2015 10:27 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>...
>
>> Gas is Gas, ...
>...
>
>But the _additives_ required aren't and CA requires blends used nowhere
>else in the country...
For which 100% of californians are _GRATEFUL_.
Anyone who experienced a second or third-stage smog alert in the
LA basin in the 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's knows exactly how
beneficial those blends have been. There hasn't been a first stage
alert since 1990, entirely due to the clean-air regulations. They're
a _good thing_.
On 1/5/2015 10:53 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/5/2015 12:49 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Martin Eastburn" wrote:
>>
>>> Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
>>>
>>> Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of
>>> the Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with
>>> lower gas prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to
>>> compensate.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sorry but gas taxes are still so many cents per gallon at all levels
>> of gov't.
>>
>> The tax man has two reasons to cry.
>>
>> Car efficiencies are up, thus fewer gallons are burned.
>>
>> Overall demand is down.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> Here in NJ they talked about taxing electric vehichles during
> registration because they use the road but don't pay as much in taxes
> due to the better gas mileage.
>
> It's all about the money here.
>
Exactly. Choose an alternative fuel and the government is going to tax
it too.
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:31:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/4/2015 11:57 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>>>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>>>>> Rabbit;
>>>>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early
>>>>> 90's.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> John McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>> According to this site:
>>>>
>>>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>>>>
>>>> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
>>>> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
>>>> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
>>>> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 1) I didn't arrive in CA until 1990. Might want to verify your source.
>>
>> 2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
>
>Really, IIRC California is one of the most expensive places to do
>anything. What do you suppose makes California a more expensive place
>to live.
>
Californians.
On 1/4/2015 10:01 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:54a8bae9$0$42942
> [email protected]:
>
>> Back then gas was not an issue, I was driving a 4 cyl VW Diesel
>> Rabbit;
>> however, do remember gas being less than $0.90/gal in the early 90's.
>
> According to this site:
>
> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
>
> your memory is off just a tad. It says gas in CA was les than
> 0.90 in 86-88. I was surprised, between the taxes and the
> special low-smog blends required there, I would have thought
> gas prices were always well over a dollar.
>
> John
>
Gas is Gas, Taxes are added to the Gas. Isn't that the point ?
Tax was once so many cents per gallon. Now it is a percentage of the
Dollar amount. SO the tax man is crying - less money with lower gas
prices. His/her only hope is volume is up high enough to compensate.
Martin
dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>On 01/05/2015 10:11 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in news:54aa27a4$0$19622
>...
>
>>> 2) It's not that expensive to clean up after yourself.
>>>
>>> CA been doing it for years.
>>
>> That was my point - Cal has had higher taxes and special pollution
>> regulations for years (heck, there was a time when automakers had
>> to make special California models). So, when prices elsewhere in
>> the US were just under a dollar, I'd have expected Cal to be more
>> different than they were.
>
>I'd suspect if you go look as suggested that they really were if account
>for which level of controls were in place at the time in comparison to
>the rest of the US.
>
>And, much of what CA brags about isn't them "cleaning up after
>themselves" as much as it is pushing it out of state and then importing
>the product...power being one prime example.
This requires a cite. California imports 10% from the northwest
(the bulk of that is hydro), and 20% from the southwest (of which
30% comes from coal). The remaining 70% is generated in-state. Note
that the drought has increased the draw from out-of-state due
to a 36% drop in in-state hydro in 2012 and a further 10% drop in
2013. The shutdown of San Onofre has also increased imports.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> This requires a cite. California imports 10% from the northwest
>> (the bulk of that is hydro), and 20% from the southwest (of which
>> 30% comes from coal). The remaining 70% is generated in-state. Note
>> that the drought has increased the draw from out-of-state due
>> to a 36% drop in in-state hydro in 2012 and a further 10% drop in
>> 2013. The shutdown of San Onofre has also increased imports.
>>
>> http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
>
>
>Geezus - do we really need a thread of californianians defending california
>in a woodworking group? Let california do what it wants to do and let its
>people be happy with anything the state decides to do. Let the stupid
>californians stop preaching to the rest of the country about their brain
>dead decisions of how to deal with their brain dead self-inflicted problems,
>and everyone else can just move on.
>
Typical ad hominem attack. You can't attack the message, you
must attack the messenger. Poor debating technique, and
poor manners. Name calling is for grade school.
On 1/5/2015 3:49 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:m9Aqw.173222$pr4.4819
> @fx26.iad:
>
>> Anyone who experienced a second or third-stage smog alert in the
>> LA basin in the 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's knows exactly how
>> beneficial those blends have been. There hasn't been a first stage
>> alert since 1990, entirely due to the clean-air regulations. They're
>> a _good thing_.
>
> Yeah, I recall being out in San Berdoo in the early 90's
> (working on the restoration of steam engine 3751), and every
> morning we had a great view of the mountains, and by 3 every
> afternoon they'd disappeared in the haze. But the locals all
> said it was much better than it used to be.
>
> John
>
I flew out there in 1980. June. The plane was flying through
clouds until we almost touched down. The street lights were all on
and a reddish sight looking across the runways. Not much visible.
After the eyes got used to the darkness, it was almost like day.
Martin