In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Reasonable people can argue how and why... but the surplus is a fact of
history - as are the ensuing deficits.

YOu will note that the surpluses did not occur until well after the
Congress (which decides how much is spent and what the tax levels are)
became controlled by the GOP.
(Actually if you look at reality, there was little or no change year
over year in the increase in spending. This suggests that forces outside
the politicians were really at work. So the surpluses are really just
the result of a economy that was breathtakingly overheated for awhile
that money came in faster than the combined efforts of both parties
could shovel it out the door).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
wrote:


The usual leftist's lie. The national debt went *up* every year
Clinton was in office. The books were cooked by borrowing money from
SS, federal pensions, and other sources.
But in fairness to Clinton (and you know how much that pains me),
those were practices that were in place LONG before he came on the
scene. So, he did have a relative surplus since these bookkeeping
shenanagins were in place before he came on the scene.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
notbob wrote:

Much larger, too.

A cathedral ceiling is not "larger". It's less floor space.

nb

The size of the average house has increased from 938 sq feet in the 50s
to 2,700 square feet in 2009 and that has nearly doubled from 1,400
square feet in 1970.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 2013-05-12, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The size of the average house has increased from 938 sq feet in the 50s
to 2,700 square feet in 2009 and that has nearly doubled from 1,400
square feet in 1970.

I've seen 'em. I don't need a closet big enough to park my car in.

nb

On 5/12/2013 12:54 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-12, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The size of the average house has increased from 938 sq feet in the 50s
to 2,700 square feet in 2009 and that has nearly doubled from 1,400
square feet in 1970.

I've seen 'em. I don't need a closet big enough to park my car in.

nb


Old grump!

On 2013-05-12, gonjah wrote:

Old grump!

I prefer curmudgeon.

On 05/11/13 02:51 pm, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-11, wrote:

IMO, a lot of "it" is perspective and some lack of education.

I'd say it's a lack of lifelong experience.

I remember when refrigerators lasted 30 yrs. I remember toilets that
didn't spit doody water all over the seat/floor upon flushing. I
remember when top loading washers got clothes clean and didn't retain
30% of the dirty wash water to sit and ferment in the machine between
washes. I remember when Cuisinart food processors had a lifetime
warranty on the motor. No more. Don't tell me about newer being
better. It jes isn't so. Perhaps the return policies are better, and
well they should be, cuz the products are now short term junk.

How many hours work at minimum wage (or average or median wage, if you
prefer) did it take to buy one of those long-lasting refrigerators? And
how many hours to buy one of the newer (allegedly) short-lifespan ones?

Perce

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:42:00 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


The usual leftist's lie. The national debt went *up* every year
Clinton was in office. The books were cooked by borrowing money from
SS, federal pensions, and other sources.
But in fairness to Clinton (and you know how much that pains me),
those were practices that were in place LONG before he came on the
scene. So, he did have a relative surplus since these bookkeeping
shenanagins were in place before he came on the scene.

Only a leftist idiot could say "relative surplus" with a straight
face. The *fact* is that there were no "sourpusses" and any reduction
in deficit was caused solely by an overheated market (dot.bomb,
anyone?) and couldn't be anything but fleeting.

From what I remember Rush saying, WJC slashed military spending, and declared social security to be off budget. I can have a surplus, too, if I don't pay my car repair bill, and declare my rent to be off budget.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
wrote in message ...
On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:07:44 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:


But still.... Clinton *did* leave a budget surplus.

The usual leftist's lie. The national debt went *up* every year
Clinton was in office. The books were cooked by borrowing money from
SS, federal pensions, and other sources.

Reasonable people can argue how and why... but the surplus is a fact of
history - as are the ensuing deficits.

No, it's a damned lie, or worse, a statistic. One that must be veiwed
through a leftist's prism to see.

On 12 May 2013 17:36:26 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2013-05-12, wrote:

There are perfectly good "homeowner" grade tools around. If it
matters that much to you, Snap-On is still in business.

Since they have such a wide range of tools, there's no way they make
most of 'em. I hadda return a cheapo trigger-pump oil can that may
have been branded Snap-On, but it was made in China and broke on the
2nd stroke. Junk!

You were talking about hand tools. Of course they don't make
everything themselves (who does, or for that matter, ever did?) but
they do sell excellent tools if you're willing to spend the bucks.

Other than the grease, that's mostly a result of the switch to
lead-free gas. It wasn't without its costs, though.

I'm so sick if this stupid myth. I ran 10% alcohol regular in my cars
for 5 yrs before it was mandated.

I'm sick of idiots who don't know what they're talking about, but that
doesn't solve anything. "Lead free" gasohol.

Improved performance in every
vehicle. Stopped the pinging in my Dodge 318 V8 van and I sold my
Honda Civic with 250K miles on the engine and it still purred. My two
Harleys ran great with never a hiccup. The only thing I see that
doesn't seem to work is small motorized tools like gas trimmers and
chain saws. From what I've read in this group, that's more cuz
quility has gone down the crapper than from alcohol gasoline

I get 10% lower mileage with E10 in every car I've owned. Runs OK but
it might just as well be air.

Much larger, too.

A cathedral ceiling is not "larger". It's less floor space.

You really are an idiot.

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:01:11 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/12/2013 12:54 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-12, Kurt Ullman wrote:

The size of the average house has increased from 938 sq feet in the 50s
to 2,700 square feet in 2009 and that has nearly doubled from 1,400
square feet in 1970.

I've seen 'em. I don't need a closet big enough to park my car in.

nb


Old grump!

No, just an old fart who never grew up and is now going the other way
towards diapers and strained prunes.

On Sun, 12 May 2013 15:02:22 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 05/11/13 02:51 pm, notbob wrote:
On 2013-05-11, wrote:

IMO, a lot of "it" is perspective and some lack of education.

I'd say it's a lack of lifelong experience.

I remember when refrigerators lasted 30 yrs. I remember toilets that
didn't spit doody water all over the seat/floor upon flushing. I
remember when top loading washers got clothes clean and didn't retain
30% of the dirty wash water to sit and ferment in the machine between
washes. I remember when Cuisinart food processors had a lifetime
warranty on the motor. No more. Don't tell me about newer being
better. It jes isn't so. Perhaps the return policies are better, and
well they should be, cuz the products are now short term junk.

How many hours work at minimum wage (or average or median wage, if you
prefer) did it take to buy one of those long-lasting refrigerators? And
how many hours to buy one of the newer (allegedly) short-lifespan ones?

Precisely!

On 2013-05-12, wrote:

No, just an old fart who never grew up and is now going the other way
towards diapers and strained prunes.

Can't wait! Some young whippersnapper like you is gonna hafta wipe
me.

nb

Per Kurt Ullman:
Not really. The surplus peaked in FY 2000 (starting in October of 1999)
and was gone by the first Bush budget (you have to remember that the
first BB wasn't until FY 2002 which would have been put in place October
2001.) But, hey, thanks for playing.

Maybe somebody can comment on:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...nfographic.pdf

Understood that deficits/surpluses are technically different from debt
as a percent of GDP.

My reading is that when Clinton left office in 2001, the US Debt was 32%
of GDP. In the ensuing years, it went up, not down. Way up after the
financial crisis... but always up post-Clinton.

Also, as I read it, the next closest to that 32% after Clinton was the
26% after Carter.

I'm assuming that "cbo.gov" is the Congressional Budget Office.

Is there room for differences of fact here?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 12 May 2013 23:52:02 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2013-05-12, wrote:

No, just an old fart who never grew up and is now going the other way
towards diapers and strained prunes.

Can't wait! Some young whippersnapper like you is gonna hafta wipe
me.

You can sit in your ****. You're already quite used to it, obviously.

In article ,
wrote:
ne.

Only a leftist idiot could say "relative surplus" with a straight
face. The *fact* is that there were no "sourpusses" and any reduction
in deficit was caused solely by an overheated market (dot.bomb,
anyone?) and couldn't be anything but fleeting.

Since the same accounting procedures had been in place since at least
the time of Reagan, it was a surplus relative to what others had had. I
did not even begin to pretend it was an actual surplus. And me a
leftist? Is to guffaw.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I remember Rush saying, WJC slashed military spending, and declared
social security to be off budget. I can have a surplus, too, if I don't pay
my car repair bill, and declare my rent to be off budget.

He cut military spending, that is what Dems do. That was the
alleged post-Cold War "Peace Dividend". Two major problems with the
assertion that he declared SS off-budget is that it happened in 1990, 2
years before he took office and Congress is the one with sole
jurisdiction to make those decisions as part of the budget process.
Anyone interested, there is a rather interesting history of the
on/off budget shenanigans at:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:29:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
ne.

Only a leftist idiot could say "relative surplus" with a straight
face. The *fact* is that there were no "sourpusses" and any reduction
in deficit was caused solely by an overheated market (dot.bomb,
anyone?) and couldn't be anything but fleeting.

Since the same accounting procedures had been in place since at least
the time of Reagan, it was a surplus relative to what others had had. I
did not even begin to pretend it was an actual surplus. And me a
leftist? Is to guffaw.

You're the one who's spouting their lies.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:29:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
ne.

Only a leftist idiot could say "relative surplus" with a straight
face. The *fact* is that there were no "sourpusses" and any reduction
in deficit was caused solely by an overheated market (dot.bomb,
anyone?) and couldn't be anything but fleeting.

Since the same accounting procedures had been in place since at least
the time of Reagan, it was a surplus relative to what others had had. I
did not even begin to pretend it was an actual surplus. And me a
leftist? Is to guffaw.

You're the one who's spouting their lies.

Find a lie in there. I double dog dare.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:17:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:29:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
ne.

Only a leftist idiot could say "relative surplus" with a straight
face. The *fact* is that there were no "sourpusses" and any reduction
in deficit was caused solely by an overheated market (dot.bomb,
anyone?) and couldn't be anything but fleeting.

Since the same accounting procedures had been in place since at least
the time of Reagan, it was a surplus relative to what others had had. I
did not even begin to pretend it was an actual surplus. And me a
leftist? Is to guffaw.

You're the one who's spouting their lies.

Find a lie in there. I double dog dare.

You can't even read what *YOU* have writen:

"So, he did have a relative surplus since these
bookkeeping shenanagins were in place before he
came on the scene."

There is no such thing as a "relative surplus". Either there is one
or there isn't. There wasn't.

On 5/11/2013 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:47:14 -0400, Frank
wrote:

On 5/11/2013 8:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

But in our area, water comes from rivers. Big, dirty rivers. The
more water I "waste" the more I dilute the sewage stream and the
easier it is to process that stuff before it goes back into the same
river. Wasted energy... maybe. Wasted water, no way.

You can MAKE water by burning hydrogen.

Every other drop of water is USED water, meaning it has already passed thru
something that made use of it for biological purposes.

Just think, every time you take a sip of designer water, you may be imbibing
a molecule that once passed through the body of Julius Caesar.



Lot of us know about Avogadro's number.

I did speak to a Canadian official once at lunch that told me he would
not to like to have a single atom of chlorine in his glass of water.

Could you keep a straight face?


Not quite but I did not say anything either. When I hear something so
stupid, I don't try to teach them chemistry as obviously they have zero
back ground knowledge. It was at a big table at a three day conference
in Toronto on Canadian chemical regulations and the only day government
officials came in for lunch with us.

All in all, at the time, a long time ago, I found Canadian regulations
easier to work with than those in the US.

In article ,
wrote:



Find a lie in there. I double dog dare.

You can't even read what *YOU* have writen:

"So, he did have a relative surplus since these
bookkeeping shenanagins were in place before he
came on the scene."

There is no such thing as a "relative surplus". Either there is one
or there isn't. There wasn't.

Okay then, according to your own statements there was a surplus under
the accounting processes legally in place at the time by the Congress.
Otherwise, it is only your personal opinion that they were cooking the
books (which I agree with BTW). However, Clinton was the beneficiary and
not the instigator, which was the point before I allowed this other
tangent to materialize.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:11:04 -0400, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

And our gas cans without vent caps work just fine -- two 6-gal. ones,
three 2-gal. ones.

After reading this thread, I took a walk around the yard and
gathered up a few of my Blitz gas cans, all relatively new.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12925521.jpg

I'll open a separate thread on just the engineering issues
with the Blitz design, complete with detailed pictures ...

On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:12:08 PM UTC-6, Danny D wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:11:04 -0400, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:



And our gas cans without vent caps work just fine -- two 6-gal. ones,

three 2-gal. ones.



After reading this thread, I took a walk around the yard and

gathered up a few of my Blitz gas cans, all relatively new.

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12925521.jpg



I'll open a separate thread on just the engineering issues

with the Blitz design, complete with detailed pictures ...

Why would one need nine gas cans on one's property?...unless one was
a firebug? Or perhaps a collector of stuff people threw away "cause it was
NO DAMNED GOOD. I hate these new vent-less cans...seems to me they tried
to solve a problem that didn't exist or rarely existed. I've spilled
more gas with these stupid things than enough.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote in Re
The government ruined the gas can...:

I hate these new vent-less cans...seems to me they tried
to solve a problem that didn't exist or rarely existed. I've spilled
more gas with these stupid things than enough.

Welcome to the Nanny State.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:30:46 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



Find a lie in there. I double dog dare.

You can't even read what *YOU* have writen:

"So, he did have a relative surplus since these
bookkeeping shenanagins were in place before he
came on the scene."

There is no such thing as a "relative surplus". Either there is one
or there isn't. There wasn't.

Okay then, according to your own statements there was a surplus under
the accounting processes legally in place at the time by the Congress.
Otherwise, it is only your personal opinion that they were cooking the
books (which I agree with BTW). However, Clinton was the beneficiary and
not the instigator, which was the point before I allowed this other
tangent to materialize.

I never said Clinton was an "instigator", though he certainly was. I
never said that Clinton was a liar, though he clearly was. I said
that *you* were a liar, which you, and all who claim there was some
"surplus", even a "relative surplus" during the Clinton
administration. The lie is wrong on *so* many levels.

....and you defend the lie, then deny that you're a lefty.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:12:08 PM UTC-6, Danny D wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:11:04 -0400, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:



And our gas cans without vent caps work just fine -- two 6-gal. ones,

three 2-gal. ones.



After reading this thread, I took a walk around the yard and

gathered up a few of my Blitz gas cans, all relatively new.

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12925521.jpg



I'll open a separate thread on just the engineering issues

with the Blitz design, complete with detailed pictures ...

Why would one need nine gas cans on one's property?...unless one was
a firebug? Or perhaps a collector of stuff people threw away "cause it was
NO DAMNED GOOD. I hate these new vent-less cans...seems to me they tried
to solve a problem that didn't exist or rarely existed. I've spilled
more gas with these stupid things than enough.

I don't mind the ventless cans. It's the damned valve that ****es me
off.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:51:53 -0700, Roy wrote:

Why would one need nine gas cans on one's property?...

Simple. Because nine is the most I can fit in my trunk.

Or perhaps a collector of stuff people threw away

I wish I got them for free. They're all less than a year old.
Bought them all at Lowes.

I've spilled more gas with these stupid things

Me too.

They are designed to only half the problem, which is to hold
the gas *in* the can; but they forgot the other half of the
basic requirement which is to allow the gas to come *out*!

Me?

I remove the cap altogether and simply siphon the 5 gallon cans
into a vehicle and pour the 2 gallon cans into a funnel for
the lawn equipment. I have a 1 gallon can for the two-stroke
tools.

All I need is a good flat one-piece gas cap for all of them.
If only I could find it...

On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:32:58 -0400, krw wrote:

I don't mind the ventless cans.
It's the damned valve that ****es me off.

+1

It's worse than useless!

This is what I do with the valve when I need to fill or pour some gas:

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12960448.jpg

On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:57:47 -0500, CRNG wrote:

Welcome to the Nanny State.

I think the nanny state(s), with respect to gasoline containers,
are all listed he http://ezpourspout.com/wp/order/

Namely:
- California
- Connecticut
- Washington, DC
- Delaware
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- New Hampshire == this one surprises me
- New Jersey
- New York == also has whacko gasoline transportation laws
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- Virginia

But, I do agree: California CARB is the most idiotic.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:12:08 +0000, Danny D wrote:

I'll open a separate thread on just the engineering issues with the
Blitz design, complete with detailed pictures ...

I opened this thread on just the Blitz USA design flaws
and the quest for a plain Jane gasoline cap solution:

TITLE: The Blitz gasoline can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed
URL: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ir/FFIeC14xQUs
TINYURL: http://tinyurl.com/bpv84xg

On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:51:02 -0400, Ralph Mowery wrote:

There was a vid on utube about drilling a hole where the old vent plug used
to be and using a tire valve that has the plunger removed. You use the cap
on the tire valve to seal off the gas and remove it when you want to vent
the can to pour the gas out.

Interestingly, you can buy that vent (for water jugs only, wink wink) online,
at the site that Steve W. recommended:
http://ezpourspout.bluesarthouse.ws/...roducts/parts/

They even recommend a 1/2 inch blade-type (wood) drill bit over a spiral
flute drill bit (they say the hole won't be round with a spiral bit).

Once you've added back the missing vent, then you can follow the YouTube
video which shows how to modify the spout to allow the gas to flow again.

On Sat, 11 May 2013 01:25:08 -0400, Larry Weil wrote:

I have one of the cans with the vent (it's about 24 years old), but the
cap on the vent has split and I am unable to find a replacement for the
cap. Anyone have a good idea for a substitute?

Steve W suggests this:
http://ezpourspout.bluesarthouse.ws/...roducts/parts/

On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:12:45 -0700, Harry K wrote:

Most of the problem lies with the spouts.

I agree. I don't use the spout except as a "cap", so,
I'm on a quest for a dozen caps to fit.

Ideas welcome ...

On May 14, 10:29*am, Danny D wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:12:45 -0700, Harry K wrote:
Most of the problem lies with the spouts.

I agree. I don't use the spout except as a "cap", so,
I'm on a quest for a dozen caps to fit.

Ideas welcome ...

"new" and "old" caps do not interchange, thread size changed so that
option is out.

Harry K

On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:01:04 -0400, krw wrote:

Like everything Congress does, it screwed this one up *badly*.

I've been reading up on this.

The CARB/EPA apparently worked in cahoots with the gas can
manufacturer (Blitz USA, in Chapter 11 currently, who
advertises they sell 75% of all the gas cans in the USA,
says so on their web page).

Together, they "designed" the gasoline to stay *in* the can.
They did a wonderful job meeting that requirement!

The problem is that they never looked at the second half of
the requirements equation ... i.e., that the gas comes *out*.

EPA/CARB = 2 points
Consumer = 0 points

Danny D writes:

On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:01:04 -0400, krw wrote:

Like everything Congress does, it screwed this one up *badly*.

I've been reading up on this.

The CARB/EPA apparently worked in cahoots with the gas can
manufacturer (Blitz USA, in Chapter 11 currently, who
advertises they sell 75% of all the gas cans in the USA,
says so on their web page).

Together, they "designed" the gasoline to stay *in* the can.
They did a wonderful job meeting that requirement!

The problem is that they never looked at the second half of
the requirements equation ... i.e., that the gas comes *out*.

EPA/CARB = 2 points
Consumer = 0 points

Someone is missing the beauty of the master plan.

When coming out with a few model, ALWAYS make sure that
it's less than optimal.

If you don't do that, you have NO replacement market.

Maybe Blitz shot too low on their first volley.

Sort of like MSFT with their new OS versions.
Seems like they really messed up with W2K and XP.
Really not enough warts there, but how people put up with the tinker toy
interface is beyond me.
But then they unleashed Vista and created a whole new replacement market
for Win 7. Now we're in the ridiculous touch interface where it doesn't
belong phase. Whatever they come out with as a fix MUST have some warts
or they're living on OS's for new computers only revenue.

Personally, I've adapted to the new smaller cans. Had me confused for a
while, but now I think I've got it. Fortunately I have an older larger can
with a few more years on it.

--
Dan Espen

On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:39:31 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Someone is missing the beauty of the master plan.
When coming out with a few model, ALWAYS make sure
that it's less than optimal.

Well, it worked for seatbelts, didn't it?

In the beginning, they didn't retract, and had those clunky
belt buckles, and didn't allow you to adjust position.

Then they got comfortable.

I don't remember (I was a kid) how long it took between
clunky seatbelts and decent ones?

It might take *that* long for the gas can to become usable
again.

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:56:15 -0700, Harry K wrote:

"new" and "old" caps do not interchange, thread size
changed so that option is out.

Shhhh. Here's my *secret* plan.

We know, from the Plastics Group of Willowbrook, Illinois, that *nobody*
bought the spout molds from the now defunct Blitz USA of Miami Oklahoma;
but, at the same time, we are aware that Hopkins Manufacturing Corp. of
Emporia, Kansas paid $14.6 million for everything *but* the gas can molds.

That means, if we're lucky, that the Hopkins Manufacturing *water* jugs
might use the *same cap* as the Blitz USA gasoline cans!

To find out if that's true, I ordered a set of water jug caps from
Hopkins Manufacturing today. Cross your fingers and maybe they'll fit!

On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:36:27 -0700, harry wrote:

It's all down to ambulance chasing lawyers.

Check this out:
http://www.martinandjones.com/injure...ective-gas-can

It's from a law firm.

"But what most people don't know is that these gas cans...
transform into exploding bombs!"