View Full Version : Romney & Bain
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829
Well, that's the final word, then. Romney is out. Let's put Paul Ryan in then to solve our financial problems. You don't actually think that Mr. Obama is going to do that do you?
I"m not surprised. He has shown himself to be dishonest, at best, and a liar and possibly tax cheat at worst. He has worked every angle, scheme and loophole he could to avoid taxes and hold on to his wealth with both hands. (Possibly even cheating then taking the amnesty. Possibly still cheating, who knows?) And now he is working possibly the ultimate tax avoidance scheme of all! Get elected President and re-write the code so you can pay even less, or no taxes! Brilliant, huh?
He IS the epitome of every caricature of the obnoxious, swaggering, self important, entitled, fat cat.
From the article.
"In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC – the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers – out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829#ixzz25266IwVv
Well that just does it for me! Anyone who can engineer a federal bailout which screws the FDIC as a private individual is just the person we need to engineer away the massive debt incurred over the last few years.
Plus, on a local level, we'd have the benefit of a really, really fired up Public Policy forum, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Bush administration.
All told, Romney/Ryan is a win/win.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryan-fails----the-truth/2012/08/29/bbfe1eac-f254-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_blog.html
"Government documents obtained by Rolling Stone." How could anyone possibly doubt any statement that comes after that? A venerable political institution like Rolling Stone doesn't need any stinking Freedom of Information Act. The "document" probably fell out of Mick Jagger's guitar case when he was at the White House to play for the Black History Month concert. Me? I'm off to the store to grab a copy of Seventeen. I hear they actually TELL you how to screw the FDIC. I need a new iPhone, that could come in handy.
Plus, on a local level, we'd have the benefit of a really, really fired up Public Policy forum, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Bush administration.
Oh....joy. ;)
I watched the speakers last night on MSNBC. The one-sided commentary afterwards was hilarious. Andrea Mitchell trying to take on Condi Rice was worth my monthly cable bill, and the panel of Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton trying to go after Scott Walker was precious. The various opinion pieces being presented today are amusing as well.
During his speech last night, Paul Ryan said something to the effect of "When 20 something year old college graduates still live in their childhood rooms with fading Obama posters on the ceiling, it's time for a change." I agree!
Redfox, thanks for posting the links to get the discussion started. To all: We have kind of an unwritten rule that if you are going to post a link you should also include a brief description of what it is. Just a line or two with source and subject, more if you like. It actually was part of the written etiquette on the old boards, we just didn't think it was necessary here. Anyway, that allows fellow posters to decide if they would like to explore deeper or pass on that issue. It's just a courtesy that I think everyone appreciates. Please consider it with future posts. Thanks.
Andrea Mitchell trying to take on Condi Rice was worth my monthly cable bill...
I thought so, too. Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight...
iris lily
8-30-12, 10:20am
...During his speech last night, Paul Ryan said something to the effect of "When 20 something year old college graduates still live in their childhood rooms with fading Obama posters on the ceiling, it's time for a change." I agree!
I didn't watch last night's convention events but my friend told me this morning about that line. Pretty funny!
I thought this was interesting given Fox's reputation - I guess it's just that liberal media again.
Actually I think it's just tweaks to insure another neck and neck race down to the finish, which is in the media's best immediate interest regardless of whether they pander to the left or the right.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words
Dazzling - Deceiving - Distracting
Well, that's the final word, then. Romney is out. Let's put Paul Ryan in then to solve our financial problems. You don't actually think that Mr. Obama is going to do that do you?
I do think the Obama administration has made progress getting our economy going, but I think the problems are much deeper and long term than one administration. The crash was a long time coming, which I think everyone knows this, as well as having started under President Bush.
Congress has been intransigent in the last two years, for reasons that elude me. Congress must participate in economic recovery.
Lastly, the concentration of wealth that has accelerated in the last two decades, among other ills, has shown to me that our growth, growth, growth economic model is cracking. I am an advocate of full cost pricing, and of a steady-state economy.
Redfox, thanks for posting the links to get the discussion started. To all: We have kind of an unwritten rule that if you are going to post a link you should also include a brief description of what it is. Just a line or two with source and subject, more if you like. It actually was part of the written etiquette on the old boards, we just didn't think it was necessary here. Anyway, that allows fellow posters to decide if they would like to explore deeper or pass on that issue. It's just a courtesy that I think everyone appreciates. Please consider it with future posts. Thanks.
Good to know, thanks!
Thirty years of lowering taxes and off-shoring jobs haven't done the economy any good-nor has partisan obstructionism, but Democrats have historically been better for the economy than Republicans. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
From the article (which includes a nifty graph):
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.
I thought this was interesting given Fox's reputation - I guess it's just that liberal media again.
Actually I think it's just tweaks to insure another neck and neck race down to the finish, which is in the media's best immediate interest regardless of whether they pander to the left or the right.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words
Dazzling - Deceiving - Distracting
Not exactly what many would expect from FOX. Maybe they are a little more 'fair and balanced' than they get credit for. And I think you're spot on about a close race being good for all sides of the media. No different than a network hoping the World Series goes 7 games.
Congress has been intransigent in the last two years, for reasons that elude me. Congress must participate in economic recovery.
In my mind, the best thing Congress could do to assist in economic recovery is to not participate. If government were likely to create an environment conducive to economic recovery, that would be helpful, but that obviously hasn't been the case.
I think a strong case could be made for linking all of our economic woes to government intervention and legislated social engineering. A little intransigence now and then is a good thing.
ApatheticNoMore
8-30-12, 11:59am
I get REALLY confused about what economic problem it is Romney is supposed to solve. Is it the high unemployment or is it the deficit? I don't know if these must always conflict as an absolute rule (I mean you could argue that first we need to go into more debt in order to improve the economy and that will help the deficit in the long run, I'm sure Krugman would be right on board) but I think there is some pretty serious surface tension between the two objectives at least. That you need to explain who you can do both. Which one we are doing today maybe gets a bit etch a sketchy.
Well that just does it for me! Anyone who can engineer a federal bailout which screws the FDIC as a private individual is just the person we need to engineer away the massive debt incurred over the last few years.
Well that makes no sense.
"Government documents obtained by Rolling Stone." How could anyone possibly doubt any statement that comes after that? A venerable political institution like Rolling Stone doesn't need any stinking Freedom of Information Act. The "document" probably fell out of Mick Jagger's guitar case when he was at the White House to play for the Black History Month concert. Me? I'm off to the store to grab a copy of Seventeen. I hear they actually TELL you how to screw the FDIC. I need a new iPhone, that could come in handy.
I don't know, you question the validity of the reporting because it came from Rolling Stone. I have no reason to doubt it, either bailout money was taken or it wasn't and I have no reason to doubt it was. In fact isn't that how the whole banking system has been working for the most part? Many people have been reading Rolling Stone for political ok commentary that must be parsed for factual content for awhile (Matt Tallabi - before clicking I thought it must be him), I don't regularly, but sure I've checked it out.
I am an advocate of full cost pricing, and of a steady-state economy.
yes me too
Ok, Fox news reports on Ryan's speech:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
ApatheticNoMore
8-30-12, 12:04pm
We can chance it?
The funniest thing I noticed was Ryan and Mitt criticizing Obama for his attack ads....'nuf said.
The funniest thing I noticed was Ryan and Mitt criticizing Obama for his attack ads....'nuf said.
I was especially shocked by that ad that ran the clip of Obama promising to cut the deficit in half in his first term. Vicious!
In my mind, the best thing Congress could do to assist in economic recovery is to not participate. If government were likely to create an environment conducive to economic recovery, that would be helpful, but that obviously hasn't been the case.
I think a strong case could be made for linking all of our economic woes to government intervention and legislated social engineering. A little intransigence now and then is a good thing.
Our economic woes? Just who is "us", anyway? There's a lot of people who have done pretty well the last couple of years. I haven't watched, but I haven't heard of anyone speaking at the convention turn out their pockets and say how much they've lost recently.
If the government stayed out of it, we'd have a much stronger recovery - because we would have had a much stronger crash. A little intransigence now and then is a good thing - but not for everyone.
The funniest thing I noticed was Ryan and Mitt criticizing Obama for his attack ads....'nuf said.
You mean those felonious, women hating, dog abusing, wife killing, plant closing, tax cheating, pushing Grandma off the cliff ads? Yep, funny stuff.
Our economic woes? Just who is "us", anyway? There's a lot of people who have done pretty well the last couple of years. I haven't watched, but I haven't heard of anyone speaking at the convention turn out their pockets and say how much they've lost recently.
If the government stayed out of it, we'd have a much stronger recovery - because we would have had a much stronger crash. A little intransigence now and then is a good thing - but not for everyone.
Now there's some elements of a pretty interesting discussion.
If you think the crash would have been stronger without government intervention, are you discounting the possibility that the governments meddling in the housing market was a major aspect of the initial housing crash, from which all else followed?
If you believe that the country does not have economic woes, are you simply forgetting that our government is running annual deficits of over $1T with no end in sight? That we are borrowing 40% of our annual spend without any plan to stop? That unemployment hasn't been this high, for this long since the great depression?
Or, by asking "Just who is 'us', anyway", are you really just making an "Us vs Them" argument, preferring to promote division rather than problem solving?
It's obvious that you didn't watch because you would have heard several small business owners talk about the effects that government has had on their businesses and their ability to provide jobs for others.
If you're up for it, let's explore these things in detail. That might be productive.
Putting the wars on the budget would be a good start to financial health.
You mean those felonious, women hating, dog abusing, wife killing, plant closing, tax cheating, pushing Grandma off the cliff ads? Yep, funny stuff.
Naw, I was more thinking of the irony that the bulk of the republican campaign is based on slamming Obama. Even Conan found some humor in it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/conan-surprised-by-mitt-romney-attack-ad_n_1615877.html
Putting the wars on the budget would be a good start to financial health.
What budget is that? You know the Senate hasn't approved one since 2009. Not the ones approved by the House, not even two budget proposals that came from President Obama himself. Proposals with the dubious distinction of not receiving even one affirmative vote from his own party.
ApatheticNoMore
8-30-12, 1:30pm
If you think the crash would have been stronger without government intervention, are you discounting the possibility that the governments meddling in the housing market was a major aspect of the initial housing crash, from which all else followed?
if defined very very broadly, I mean if by government meddling we are including federal reserve interest rate policy and so on ... then yea that help create the problem, to see a bubble building and keep on adding fuel to the fire ... irresponsible for sure. Maybe past bailouts have created an environment of moral hazard. Fine, they probably haven't helped though I haven't seen direct causation, but you can argue broad effects. I mean if you define in very broad terms then I don't disagree. But no I don't agree with attempts to blame the entire housing crisis on subprime borrowers or something.
It's obvious that you didn't watch because you would have heard several small business owners talk about the effects that government has had on their businesses and their ability to provide jobs for others.
What are we talking about watching? The convention itself? I think refusing to subject one's perfectly decent brain to a barrage of pure unadulterated propaganda is nothing short of wisdom personally :) (oh and it's not only the Republican convention that will be a barrage of propaganda (I first typed it's not only the Republican propaganda that will be a pure barrage of propaganda - freudian typo).
But it is important to know what is going on to know candidates policy positions one might argue. Ok very well but can't one just read the plank, read other statements of their positions, that are less designed to manipulate emotions (not that they might still not be dishonest and manipulative but ...).
I don't even doubt that some business owners have been negatively impacted by some regulations. Actually I'd almost think duh. Anecdotes versus statistics though ...
Naw, I was more thinking of the irony that the bulk of the republican campaign is based on slamming Obama's record.
There, I fixed it for ya.
If you think the crash would have been stronger without government intervention, are you discounting the possibility that the governments meddling in the housing market was a major aspect of the initial housing crash, from which all else followed?
I think the crash was the result of more than the burst of the housing bubble (though that did have repercussions as widespread as manufacturing and individual borrowing [nothing to borrow when you're underwater]). And the housing bubble was caused by more than just some low-income buyers being "assisted" into owning homes. The big lenders had incentive after incentive to continue to loan money to any home buyer and fuel the bubble. If it was not in the lenders' interests to make ever-improbable RE loans, they woudn't have.
That said, I believe the stimulus package that was passed was inadequate. Either the government should have let GM, Chrysler, and Wall Street fail on their own or the government should have taken a much larger, more direct role in supporting the kind of businesses which will help the economy of this country. It was a half-a$$ed response and really did not have the effect it should have.
It's obvious that you didn't watch because you would have heard several small business owners talk about the effects that government has had on their businesses and their ability to provide jobs for others.
As ANM said, the Republican convention is a lesson in propaganda and lies in the service of propaganda. I don't expect the Democratic convention to be any different. Each convention will feature people whose ox has been gored by recent events. I don't plan to watch either convention.
The bit with the small-business owners is misleading, too. Many (n.b., not "most" or "all") small-business owners establish their niche in part through preferential hiring and bidding, and I'm not sure small-business owners would consider the SBA a government agency of the devil (especially since it was created during the administration of a Republican President). Oh, and I am a small-time landlord (one investment property) and a small-business owner (my photography business), so I have a good idea of the challenges small-business owners face. It ain't pretty. But it's not like the Republicans will lead us to the promised land.
But haven't you heard? Give all the small (over $250,000 in profit! Not small in my book!) business owners a huge tax break, starting with those at the very top ((cough-Romney-cough)) and the economy will just blossom! Sure, it's been tried before, many, many times, (trickle down, trickle down, supply side, etc..) and has NEVER worked, ever, ever, but hey, let's do it again! Obama has managed to back the car away from the cliff a bit, but I'm sure we can fix that by giving the keys to Romney/Ryan.
No need to ask the real small business owners what THEY want. Romney/Ryan know, cause they are, you know, small business owners (snicker..snicker).
But, if they WERE to maybe ask, they just might hear that what the business owners need isn't more tax breaks. They need CUSTOMERS! (reference the post above about how people do under each party)
Well that just does it for me! Anyone who can engineer a federal bailout which screws the FDIC as a private individual is just the person we need to engineer away the massive debt incurred over the last few years.
wow, that yoga must be paying off for you cause, I haven't seen such twists in a long time!
But here, let me try!
Anyone who can achieve health care reform, and save the auto industry while 'getting' Bin Laden while being attacked constantly for his birth, his religion, his race, his use of a teleprompter (confusingly enough), in the face of a do nothing, nope, ain't gonna let him get anything done no matter what republican congress is someone we need in the White House! Anyone who can get all that and more done while being tied to the worst republican congress EVER, (and that's saying something) is a winner in my book!
President Obama is the man!
Alan said. "If you think the crash would have been stronger without government intervention, are you discounting the possibility that the governments meddling in the housing market was a major aspect of the initial housing crash, from which all else followed?"
The housing crash was caused by greedy private industry not the government. Greenspan a free market guy should carry some of the blame.
I was in banking at the time and witnessed the greed of the free markets in action.
wow, that yoga must be paying off for you cause, I haven't seen such twists in a long time!
Not yoga, although I may try that later. I've been doing Zumba lately and routinely dance to "I've got passion in my pants and I ain't afraid to show it...show it...show it. I'm sexy and I know it. Girl look at that body, girl look at that body, girl look at that body. I work out!"
That doesn't have any "twists" in it, but it does have some wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. :cool:
But haven't you heard? Give all the small (over $250,000 in profit! Not small in my book!) business owners a huge tax break, starting with those at the very top ((cough-Romney-cough)) and the economy will just blossom! Sure, it's been tried before, many, many times, (trickle down, trickle down, supply side, etc..)...
Its always amazing to see how distorted the view of the business world is from the outside looking in. Small business is generally defined by the SBA to be one with less than 500 employees. If 500 employees make the 2011 US median wage of $26,500 that means the payroll alone would be $13,250,000. The owner of a company that pays that much out in wages (not to mention FICA, medicare, benefits, etc.) and can not manage to make $250,000 in profits is....well, there are no nice words to describe that situation. Looking at it another way, at a profit level of $250K there is no need for trickle down, in the business sense its already there.
Of course some still think a $250K profit means the owner just slips that into their pocket and lives the high life with the grunts in the back room slave with no A/C for 95 hours a week. Well, that owner has to pay aroudn 1/3 in taxes (even with the "cut"). Very few profitable businesses get that way and stay there without reinvesting a fair chunk back into it. Call that another 1/3. That gets our rich bastard business owner down to about $80K. Then he gets hit with his own tax burden, say 25%. Yea, yea, he's rich so only pays 14.2% or whatever, but still gets to participate in FICA, medicare, etc. Now he's down to $60K. Pay the mortgage, feed the dog, buy a car...he'll be ok as long as all the kids get scholarships. Rich bastard.
Now there's some elements of a pretty interesting discussion.
If you think the crash would have been stronger without government intervention, are you discounting the possibility that the governments meddling in the housing market was a major aspect of the initial housing crash, from which all else followed?
They played a big part in causing it - I'm saying they also played a big part in mitigating it. Boom and bust has been a component of capitalism long before the government heavily meddled in it. However. technically, isn't the Fed a private entity?
If you believe that the country does not have economic woes, are you simply forgetting that our government is running annual deficits of over $1T with no end in sight? That we are borrowing 40% of our annual spend without any plan to stop? That unemployment hasn't been this high, for this long since the great depression?
I think the country took a bullet to the head in the last crash - it just hasn't fallen over yet. I think only reason we didn't see annual deficits of over $1T last decade and much higher unemployment is because we were in a bubble that was masking a lot of problems. This country has big economic woes - I'm saying that it doesn't impact "us" uniformly. Some of "us" are likely even profiting from it.
We are spending phenomenal amounts of borrowed money and that does not disappear into the ether - it ends up in somebody's pocket. And others are making money lending that money to us, at least until the whole thing comes crashing down. Lots of people and businesses are making money right now, some are making a lot - so how can the economy be bad? 12k Dow, businesses are moving along, some pretty well. If you're talking about those people (mostly middle class, or were) that weren't invited to the recovery, I think globalization is finally catching up with us. China has been going gangbusters for years, acknowledged as an incredible economy - and hundreds of millions live there in what most Americans would consider extreme poverty. After years and years of outsourcing, we're finally equalizing.
I think the disintegration of the US middle class is being blamed on the "economy", though, instead. Even though many are doing quite well.
Or, by asking "Just who is 'us', anyway", are you really just making an "Us vs Them" argument, preferring to promote division rather than problem solving?
Isn't that what capitalism is? "Us" when we cooperate and "Them" when we compete? Like I said, people are making money right now. I expect that some people's solutions are going to be other people's problems - and vice versa.
It's obvious that you didn't watch because you would have heard several small business owners talk about the effects that government has had on their businesses and their ability to provide jobs for others.
If you're up for it, let's explore these things in detail. That might be productive.
Businesses (most of them) are not there to provide jobs - jobs are a huge business expense, to be avoided if at all possible and only done when that job will provide a payoff that exceeds that expense. Businesses are there to make money, jobs are side effect. I think it's funny how jobs get paraded around around like they are some charitable gift businesses provide to society when they are just a means to increase business income.
ApatheticNoMore
8-30-12, 4:21pm
Its always amazing to see how distorted the view of the business world is from the outside looking in.
I caught that too. The small to mid size businesses I worked for were usually a few hundred employees. Usually millions in profits. So calling $250k automatically not small business: I figured it was just in some sense a semantic debate on what qualifies as small business. Mom and pops only? Or do we consider the type of small to mid-size business I'm talking about which many people would consider small businesses. Of course by that point there's venture capitalists getting their hopes up etc.
Well, that owner has to pay around 1/3 in taxes (even with the "cut"). Very few profitable businesses get that way and stay there without reinvesting a fair chunk back into it. Call that another 1/3.
actually the reinvestment could be before tax, if you are talking R&D tax credits I believe that's how it works, and yea most business I've worked for are fantatical about the R&D credits. So not always *another* 1/3.
... Businesses are there to make money, jobs are side effect. I think it's funny how jobs get paraded around around like they are some charitable gift businesses provide to society when they are just a means to increase business income...
+1
Its always amazing to see how distorted the view of the business world is from the outside looking in. Small business is generally defined by the SBA to be one with less than 500 employees. If 500 employees make the 2011 US median wage of $26,500 that means the payroll alone would be $13,250,000. The owner of a company that pays that much out in wages (not to mention FICA, medicare, benefits, etc.) and can not manage to make $250,000 in profits is....well, there are no nice words to describe that situation. Looking at it another way, at a profit level of $250K there is no need for trickle down, in the business sense its already there.
Of course some still think a $250K profit means the owner just slips that into their pocket and lives the high life with the grunts in the back room slave with no A/C for 95 hours a week. Well, that owner has to pay aroudn 1/3 in taxes (even with the "cut"). Very few profitable businesses get that way and stay there without reinvesting a fair chunk back into it. Call that another 1/3. That gets our rich bastard business owner down to about $80K. Then he gets hit with his own tax burden, say 25%. Yea, yea, he's rich so only pays 14.2% or whatever, but still gets to participate in FICA, medicare, etc. Now he's down to $60K. Pay the mortgage, feed the dog, buy a car...he'll be ok as long as all the kids get scholarships. Rich bastard.
Well, i guess i was mixing my arguments. The increase in taxes would only be for those individuals who make over 250,000 IN PROFIT, twice that of couples. If someone, after taking all the loopholes and dodges and such (ask Romney, he has worked them all) depreciation, deductions, etc.. still has 250,000 in profit, then you know his REAL income is much much greater. I've known plenty of 'small' business owners and they drive around in brand new expensive cars charging it to 'the business', etc. to the point where they actually 'lost' money doing business. ((nudge nudge wink wink)) nope, no profit there. I'm sure Romney didn't make a dime in profit the last 10 years. Yes, Gregg, we DO know how business works.
Now real small business, mom and pop, who don't make in excess of 250,000 per individual in profit, won't be affected by any tax increase Obama has proposed. See, he really is looking out for small business owners.
And all the widget making, R&D, job creating, poor rich guy sweating won't mean a thing if that business owner doesn't have any customers. And there is just one way to get him customers. Strengthen the middle class. And that wouldn't happen making their life harder while giving all the tax breaks to the wealthy. Giving the corn to the cow really doesn't feed the birds.
Again i say, if Romney/Ryan want to convince me that the wealthy are under such a burden of taxes, if all those things you listed that the poor rich guy is throwing his money at is taking him to zero, because of his extraordinary tax burden, well, we know how to prove that. He can show us his taxes, and let us see for ourselves.
Don't you think it's incredibly dishonest of Romney to say Of course I've taken every deduction (dancing horses, car elevators) dodge and scheme i can to reduce my taxes to near zero, but you need to give me a huge tax break because my burden is so great! Why doesn't this just make your head explode!
It's pretty simple in my mind. If he wants the huge tax break for himself and his rich buddies, show us the taxes. Show us the burden. Pretty simple.
Not yoga, although I may try that later. I've been doing Zumba lately and routinely dance to "I've got passion in my pants and I ain't afraid to show it...show it...show it. I'm sexy and I know it. Girl look at that body, girl look at that body, girl look at that body. I work out!"
That doesn't have any "twists" in it, but it does have some wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. :cool:
:laff::laff::laff:
What budget is that? You know the Senate hasn't approved one since 2009. Not the ones approved by the House, not even two budget proposals that came from President Obama himself. Proposals with the dubious distinction of not receiving even one affirmative vote from his own party.
The adopted governing budget of the US, for starters.
Now real small business, mom and pop, who don't make in excess of 250,000 per individual in profit, won't be affected by any tax increase Obama has proposed. See, he really is looking out for small business owners.
REAL small business??? Are you serious? What's the cutoff at which point you aren't REAL any more? Ten employees? Three? Or is it a scam to screw the government out of their fair share of your work if anyone except mom & pop work in the business? Why is it so critical to you that the owner is the one making your doughnut or turning the wrench?
DW and I sold our business in 2007. It had been our focus for the better part of 20 years. Blood, sweat and tears, all of it. Through recessions eating beans every night and mortgaging our house to the hilt to make payroll and through the boom years eating steak and driving a nice truck (that you bet your bum was a company vehicle). We averaged around 65 employees in the later years, got as high as 90 a few times. We also subcontracted enough work to provide around 30 jobs through other companies. That is only my guess, but I do think its a reasonable estimate. That means our little mom & pop was responsible for creating about 100 jobs. It was a small business and it damn sure felt REAL to me.
$250,000 is a stupid figure. Stupid. It was plucked out of a hat as a figure that sounds like a huge sum to the bulk of the President's supporters. That's all. It has no basis in the real world. It's no magic line. On one side your average, but by God if you cross that line you're RICH! Such a line might exist, but it ain't at $250K. Try $10 million, its a lot more practical if you want to get things moving, but still have to have a human sacrifice to appease the electorate.
The biggest problem with this administration is that no one knows what's coming. I've said it before and get all kinds of feedback from people who are not involved with strategic planning for a business telling me that no business would ever put off hiring if they need employees just because the cost of an employee might go up. Well, yes, they will. And they do. And they still are. Maybe some day those people will sit down and try to figure out why unemployment is at 8.4% when so many other economic indicators are favorable to growth. Creaker was spot on, businesses exist to make money for the owners. Hiring is expensive. If you hire someone and then have to let them go because the burden changed or the market changed you lose money. It's worse than if you never hired them in the first place. That's why companies don't do it. Anyone with a frugal mindset should easily be able to grasp the concept. If business owners know what's coming, regardless of how good or bad it is for them, they can plan accordingly. When they don't even have a good guess what's coming planning becomes impossible. There are too many variables so the only prudent option is to stay where you are and wait for a clearer path to emerge. The reason Mr. Obama lost the support of the small business community because they've been waiting 3 1/2 years for that path, but there still isn't one.
Where did you get that notion ANM? What's horrible would be working for someone else. To lose the independence, the relative autonomy? No thank you. Dying rich has nothing to do with it. Of all the business owners I know (and its a lot) almost none of them started up with the idea of getting rich. Besides, I have every intention of dying broke. ;)
You're exactly right, you'll probably never understand just like I will never understand how a person can go to the same place and do the same thing day after day. And for a boss that may not know any more than they do! We’re just wired differently, that’s all. The world needs all kinds of people so there is no right or wrong, only what's right for you. The real beauty is that neither can survive without the other. If it was the difference between feeding my family and watching them starve I would work for anyone doing anything. Fortunately that is not the case so you could not pay me enough to work for someone else. An office might as well be a prison cell for me.
The difference between us in terms of the economy is that I will create a job and you will fill a job. As I said above, one isn't better than the other, but the US right now has 8.4% of its workers out there waiting to fill jobs that are not being created. We need to establish an environment where it makes sense for people to take on the risk to start or expand their business so we can get more of the people who want to work back to work. No recovery can be complete without that, but so far that environment has not been created.
SteveinMN
8-31-12, 11:40am
We need to establish an environment where it makes sense for people to take on the risk to start or expand their business so we can get more of the people who want to work back to work. No recovery can be complete without that, but so far that environment has not been created.
Gregg, I agree that this environment does not now exist. But, seriously, does the current GOP have a viable solution?? Ryan's pie-in-the-sky budget plan makes a great soundbite. But when voters figure out it's their pockets which will be picked now and in the future, it will be Bowles-Simpson all over again -- maybe some decent ideas there, but politically unpalatable. If programs like Medicare and Social Security are gutted, even on a sliding scale, the next sound we'll hear is voters' wallets snapping shut so they can save the money needed to fund their own retirement and elder-care medical coverage. <-- not such a bad thing in itself, but in an economy that depends on consumer spending, a move in the wrong direction. Retreading tax cuts? Hasn't worked since Saint Ronald proposed it 30 years ago. Why do the Republicans expect a different result this time?
You know the problem is a lot more complex than the usual Republican memes of gutting regulations on business or declaring that fraud exists (in government as well as the public). Landing customers is going to take a steady economy in which people do not fear that their supports are going away. We've already learned that our real-estate holdings are pretty much useless now. The market promises unsteadiness for the near-term future (given the uncertain situation in the EU and big bills due in the U.S.), so that's not an area people feel comfortable with. So exactly what are the Republicans going to do to smooth that road? Scare people with the loss of what little is left?
I don't see how destroying what's left of unions, eliminating the minimum wage, laying off thousands of government employees, diverting monies to the richest among us, privatizing nearly all aspects of the commons (leading inevitably to increased costs to maximize profit), and reducing the old and the poor to even more straitened circumstances could possibly stimulate the economy. Can anyone explain it to me?
REAL small business??? Are you serious? What's the cutoff at which point you aren't REAL any more? Ten employees? Three? Or is it a scam to screw the government out of their fair share of your work if anyone except mom & pop work in the business? Why is it so critical to you that the owner is the one making your doughnut or turning the wrench?
DW and I sold our business in 2007. It had been our focus for the better part of 20 years. Blood, sweat and tears, all of it. Through recessions eating beans every night and mortgaging our house to the hilt to make payroll and through the boom years eating steak and driving a nice truck (that you bet your bum was a company vehicle). We averaged around 65 employees in the later years, got as high as 90 a few times. We also subcontracted enough work to provide around 30 jobs through other companies. That is only my guess, but I do think its a reasonable estimate. That means our little mom & pop was responsible for creating about 100 jobs. It was a small business and it damn sure felt REAL to me.
$250,000 is a stupid figure. Stupid. It was plucked out of a hat as a figure that sounds like a huge sum to the bulk of the President's supporters. That's all. It has no basis in the real world. It's no magic line. On one side your average, but by God if you cross that line you're RICH! Such a line might exist, but it ain't at $250K. Try $10 million, its a lot more practical if you want to get things moving, but still have to have a human sacrifice to appease the electorate.
The biggest problem with this administration is that no one knows what's coming. I've said it before and get all kinds of feedback from people who are not involved with strategic planning for a business telling me that no business would ever put off hiring if they need employees just because the cost of an employee might go up. Well, yes, they will. And they do. And they still are. Maybe some day those people will sit down and try to figure out why unemployment is at 8.4% when so many other economic indicators are favorable to growth. Creaker was spot on, businesses exist to make money for the owners. Hiring is expensive. If you hire someone and then have to let them go because the burden changed or the market changed you lose money. It's worse than if you never hired them in the first place. That's why companies don't do it. Anyone with a frugal mindset should easily be able to grasp the concept. If business owners know what's coming, regardless of how good or bad it is for them, they can plan accordingly. When they don't even have a good guess what's coming planning becomes impossible. There are too many variables so the only prudent option is to stay where you are and wait for a clearer path to emerge. The reason Mr. Obama lost the support of the small business community because they've been waiting 3 1/2 years for that path, but there still isn't one.
Gee gregg, when you get to the point where you can predict the future, you let us know, will ya? I had no idea the republicans owned a crystal ball and could guarantee you for certain what the future holds! Who knew?
Meanwhile we'll just keep trying to wrap our brains around 'I pay very little taxes yet I need a huge tax break because of my tax burden' and 'Sure, someone who makes $250,000 in profit, ($500,000 for a couple) is barely scraping by' and 'Even though that new employee might bring me $10,000 in profit, I won't hire him because he might cost me $100 more than last year, cause I'm such a smart business person, and all' and 'business people need all these tax breaks because they take risks and all, but ain't gonna hire anyone no way no how cause they can't be for certain sure just how the future will go, even if it's going ok now'.
Whew! All these mental gyrations are giving me a headache!
And, I didn't say they weren't real, I said they weren't small! I know you don't exactly live in a reality based society (Gee, I haven't seen that in MY neighborhood...racism, sexism, homelessness, bankruptcy due to illness, etc..) but if you would just look at some figures on the average household income across the nation, I think you'd be surprised at who is average, and/or struggling, and who is fairly well off. I'm just saying...;)
I don't see how destroying what's left of unions, eliminating the minimum wage, laying off thousands of government employees, diverting monies to the richest among us, privatizing nearly all aspects of the commons (leading inevitably to increased costs to maximize profit), and reducing the old and the poor to even more straitened circumstances could possibly stimulate the economy. Can anyone explain it to me?
I think you have to break it down to whose economy you are talking about - many groups would be worse off, but I expect some would do quite well.
ApatheticNoMore
8-31-12, 4:08pm
I think you have to break it down to whose economy you are talking about - many groups would be worse off, but I expect some would do quite well.
There's profit in privitization but as for the rest at a certain point I wonder if it's better for preserving the status quo just to throw the masses a bone here and there. Things like medicare and social security are partly paid for by employees anyway.
Gregg, I agree that this environment does not now exist. But, seriously, does the current GOP have a viable solution??
Gee gregg, when you get to the point where you can predict the future, you let us know, will ya? I had no idea the republicans owned a crystal ball and could guarantee you for certain what the future holds! Who knew?
I never said any Republican has an idea that I think is viable because I'm not completely convinced they do. What I am completely convinced of is that the current administration has no idea how to foster such an environment. That leaves me with a choice of voting for a candidate that is known failure on this point or a candidate that might also fail, but at least has a background that will give his administration a chance to succeed. I'm tired of having to roll the dice, but I'm more tired of failing. ETA: YMMV.
... 'Even though that new employee might bring me $10,000 in profit, I won't hire him because he might cost me $100 more than last year, cause I'm such a smart business person, and all' and 'business people need all these tax breaks because they take risks and all, but ain't gonna hire anyone no way no how cause they can't be for certain sure just how the future will go, even if it's going ok now'.
It would be impossible for me to overstate the lack of understanding of the issue you just demonstrated with that comment. It is apparently impossible for some to understand that other people aren't comfortable risking what they've worked for if they can not at least be certain the rules won't change. Perhaps that is because most people aren't wired to take a risk under any circumstances anyway so they think the rules really don't make much difference in their lives.
I know you don't exactly live in a reality based society (Gee, I haven't seen that in MY neighborhood...racism, sexism, homelessness, bankruptcy due to illness, etc..)
Such a waste. You know only as much about my neighborhood, or anything else about me, as I've shared here. Rather than respond to your insults with righteous indignation or make some crack about getting back on your meds (as provided by the great Obama, of course) I will only say that I feel pity for anyone so blinded by an ideology that they have completely closed off their mind to any other possibility. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
I second Bae's concurrence.
While I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, maybe even more than most, you simply can't debate hatred and mean spiritedness.
It's gonna be a long 8 years after the Romney/Ryan landslide. ;)
What I am completely convinced of is that the current administration has no idea how to foster such an environment. That leaves me with a choice of voting for a candidate that is known failure on this point or a candidate that might also fail, but at least has a background that will give his administration a chance to succeed.
Fair enough, though I prefer to -- err, hope -- that Obama can learn something; all I see from the Republican side is the same old same old -- which is great if you're already a scion of industry, but not really helpful to ordinary folks. And that's why we all have to vote.
It would be impossible for me to overstate the lack of understanding of the issue you just demonstrated with that comment. It is apparently impossible for some to understand that other people aren't comfortable risking what they've worked for if they can not at least be certain the rules won't change. Perhaps that is because most people aren't wired to take a risk under any circumstances anyway so they think the rules really don't make much difference in their lives.
Such a waste. You know only as much about my neighborhood, or anything else about me, as I've shared here. Rather than respond to your insults with righteous indignation or make some crack about getting back on your meds (as provided by the great Obama, of course) I will only say that I feel pity for anyone so blinded by an ideology that they have completely closed off their mind to any other possibility. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
You know, just because the republicans keep SAYING he wants to change the rules, doesn't actually MEAN he wants to change the rules. hasn't done it yet, so what's he waiting for? His second term. yeah, right, and he's also waiting for his SECOND term to turn the US over to the Europeans, or maybe communist, or china or something. WHAT a crafty fellow! I see his plan now! Don't' do any of the horrible things the republicans accused you of, or predicted you would do in your first term, but wait for the SECOND term. What a clever fellow! Hide those socialist, communist, Stalinist, European, god hating, baby killing, terrorist loving tendencies until your SECOND term!
You do realize your taxes haven't gone up a penny since he took office. You do realize he has added to the deficit less than ST. Romney, Bush Sr. or Shrub. You do realize that despite being thrown all kinds of sh-- since the minute he took office, obstructed and turned back at every turn by a do nothing republican congress, he still managed to save the auto industry (Romney-let em die!) got Bin Laden, passed health care reform, got rid of don't ask don't tell, and a host of other things.
So, where exactly did he fail? The republicans caused the downgrade. the republicans blocked every initiative that would have resulted in jobs, and despite their best efforts, the economy is actually coming back. It's just pathetic that you want to vote for a party that tried their damndest to crash the economy, as in you and I and the whole country, simply to regain power. And it was all done to this end. Paul Ryan exemplified it perfectly when he tried to blame Obama for the down grade in the rating. I believe I even posted at the time that this was their game plan, to force a downgrade and then blame it on Obama...just to regain power.
Now, as to the lack of a reality based environment, well, you bring that on yourself. Every Time we discuss the gritty realities of life in these here United States, without fail you step in with "Well, I don't see that in my community"
You never seem to see racism, as when we discussed the confederate flag, and you don't see health care issues or anyone lacking health care, as when we discussed all the people without health care and lack of options for health care. You never see irresponsible gun ownership, as in virtually everyone in your community is well trained in fire arms and of course the height of responsibility (and each and every one of them could have SAVED all those people in that theatre)
I only said that because, according your posts, you don't have any of the ills that plague the rest of the nation. so, I can only assume you live in Disney Land, where crime is unknown, as is poverty, illness, racism, sexism, discrimination, etc...Lucky you...
We will never solve the nations problems if we don't first admit they exist...everywhere!
I realized today that I am so totally horrified by the stances that Romney & Ryan take regarding women's health, especially abortion, as well as the stances on marriage equality, worker's rights, & immigration; in short, all the stances I have heard thus far regarding most of my family, friends, & neighbors, and in addition, the sheer meanness of the way in which these stances are expressed, that I cannot conceive of someone voting for them even if that voter agrees wth the fiscal policies being advocated by the GOP team.
With that, I am checking out of this distressing convo.
I realized today that I am so totally horrified by the stances that Romney & Ryan take regarding women's health, especially abortion, as well as the stances on marriage equality, worker's rights, & immigration; in short, all the stances I have heard thus far regarding most of my family, friends, & neighbors, and in addition, the sheer meanness of the way in which these stances are expressed, that I cannot conceive of someone voting for them even if that voter agrees wth the fiscal policies being advocated by the GOP team.
With that, I am checking out of this distressing convo.
me too.
I realized today that I am so totally horrified by the stances that Romney & Ryan take regarding women's health, especially abortion, as well as the stances on marriage equality, worker's rights, & immigration; in short, all the stances I have heard thus far regarding most of my family, friends, & neighbors, and in addition, the sheer meanness of the way in which these stances are expressed, that I cannot conceive of someone voting for them even if that voter agrees wth the fiscal policies being advocated by the GOP team.
I concur.
try2bfrugal
9-1-12, 2:00am
I realized today that I am so totally horrified by the stances that Romney & Ryan take regarding women's health, especially abortion, as well as the stances on marriage equality, worker's rights, & immigration; in short, all the stances I have heard thus far regarding most of my family, friends, & neighbors, and in addition, the sheer meanness of the way in which these stances are expressed, that I cannot conceive of someone voting for them even if that voter agrees wth the fiscal policies being advocated by the GOP team.
With that, I am checking out of this distressing convo.
We were discussing the same thing at our house tonight. I cannot relate to the attitudes and the meanness either, yet I heard poll results that Romney was in the lead. I don't get why the U.S. is so different than Canada and much of Europe on these kinds of issues. Too bad Canada doesn't have any warm and sunny cities.
Eventually demographics will change things anyway in the U.S. for the better long term, either way.
ApatheticNoMore
9-1-12, 2:43am
We were discussing the same thing at our house tonight. I cannot relate to the attitudes and the meanness either, yet I heard poll results that Romney was in the lead. I don't get why the U.S. is so different than Canada and much of Europe on these kinds of issues.
On economic issues they are to the left of the U.S.. However, I think some of the differences are possibly differences between a multi-party parlimentary system, and a two party presidential system. Some of Europe's hard right parties are outright neo-Nazi and overtly racist (they are scarier in some ways than the worst elements of the Republican party), but they only pull in what they pull in and end up one party among many vying for the vote.
I realized today that I am so totally horrified by the stances that Romney & Ryan take regarding women's health, especially abortion, as well as the stances on marriage equality, worker's rights, & immigration; in short, all the stances I have heard thus far regarding most of my family, friends, & neighbors, and in addition, the sheer meanness of the way in which these stances are expressed, that I cannot conceive of someone voting for them even if that voter agrees wth the fiscal policies being advocated by the GOP team.
With that, I am checking out of this distressing convo.
Fiscal responsibility trumps all for me.
I equate gun rights with abortion in my scale of voting issues, they are not at the top. The two issues are similar to me in that I want limitations to remain minimal even though I personally won't be using abortion or gun services. As long as there are avenues for reasonable people to obtain reasonable guns and abortions for reasonable situations, and that's what we have now in the U.S., I'm ok. All of the nattering of the past 30 years about these two issues haven't changed the essential fact that most people can get guns and abortions readily.
We were discussing the same thing at our house tonight. I cannot relate to the attitudes and the meanness either, yet I heard poll results that Romney was in the lead. I don't get why the U.S. is so different than Canada and much of Europe on these kinds of issues. Too bad Canada doesn't have any warm and sunny cities.
Eventually demographics will change things anyway in the U.S. for the better long term, either way.
I didn't listen to Romney or Ryan speeches at the Republican convention. Is that where the "meanness" comes in?
try2bfrugal
9-1-12, 12:46pm
I didn't listen to Romney or Ryan speeches at the Republican convention. Is that where the "meanness" comes in?
If you want some specific examples, you could watch The Daily Show reruns of the convention coverage at Comedy Central.
If you want some specific examples, you could watch The Daily Show reruns of the convention coverage at Comedy Central.
Would it be less mean if someone watched it on C-Span?
Also, just out of curiosity, at what point in the evolution of society did a fake news show become the 'go to' source for political coverage?
Also, just out of curiosity, at what point in the evolution of society did a fake news show become the 'go to' source for political coverage?
“In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”
“In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it......
Orwell was quite the sage. His track record makes him a much better 'go to' candidate.
I have the impression the meanness (on full display during GOP debates when attendees cheered the notion of an uninsured man dying for lack of care) springs from a belief in the Puritan/Calvinist doctrine that the rich and powerful are beloved by God, and the poor and struggling are hated. So to side with God's anointed is to side with God. Or something.
ETA: I don't know how the Puritans reconciled their beliefs with Christ's teachings which seem completely the opposite.
ApatheticNoMore
9-1-12, 2:52pm
Also, just out of curiosity, at what point in the evolution of society did a fake news show become the 'go to' source for political coverage?
Mainstream news sources have lost credibility for good reason. Too much media consolidation, too many corporate paymasters, to much pandering to the powerful. Still you can only mess up political coverage as such so much, especially with youtubes and transcripts for the having. I'd recommend transcripts - reading for pure written content reduces the propaganda load (on all senses) things like political conventions are deliberately designed to carry. But I watched Eastwood because I couldn't resist :)
See the convention itself is a piece of pure unadulterated propaganda, the comedy on it is propaganda on the propaganda (meta), because it seldom rises to the level of analysis, though it might hit some true notes. So sigh transcripts if you really want to hear what Romney said.
I am on a news fast until November 7. I will watch parts of the Democratic Convention, as I watched parts of the Republican Convention, but I refuse to engage in the analysis. I will make up my own mind based on my own research. I don't need a bunch of biased so-called journalists telling me what to think. MSNBC and Fox News are a joke, and there's no way that I believe either are "fair and balanced." I'm skeptical of CNN and all other news outlets, too.
It was helpful, however, to hear how much of Paul Ryan's speech was misleading. And it was helpful to hear Mitt Romney sneer at environmental issues.
try2bfrugal
9-1-12, 3:35pm
I don't know if it would be less mean to watch the convention coverage on C-Span but it would be a lot less funny. I don't know anything about the evolution of society, just what I find hysterical. I like the way Jon Stewart takes clips of politicians saying one thing and then comparing it to clips showing them saying the exact opposite or all sort of contradictions to the original statement. It is something the main stream media organizations could do but choose not to do.
The Storyteller
9-1-12, 4:12pm
I am on a news fast until November 7.
I have been for almost a year now, for the most part. Life is much more peaceful this way.
Fiscal responsibility trumps all for me.
Same here. I really don't want my government to have a hand in much else anyway.
Gregg you would take us back to the 50s. The government did away with separate but equal schools and allowed all eligible citizens to vote by the civil rights act in the 60s. The government does have a place in the US to insure the constitution is up held. We are a nation of over 300 million people. The needs of these people change as the nation matures government must meets these changes.
Speaking of The Daily Show, here's a hilarious 5 minute clip on what would actually happen if "we ran government like a business." (spoiler alert - West Virginia doesn't make it...)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-august-31-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-best-f--king-news-team-ever-audits-america
Speaking of The Daily Show, here's a hilarious 5 minute clip on what would actually happen if "we ran government like a business." (spoiler alert - West Virginia doesn't make it...)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-august-31-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-best-f--king-news-team-ever-audits-america
That was funny! It is also very true.
That was funny! It is also very true.
Sounds good - maybe we can take a handful of the worst showing states, saddle them with a good portion of the country's debt, break them off into a separate entity and send them on their way. It would make good business sense - for the remaining states, anyway.
Sounds good - maybe we can take a handful of the worst showing states, saddle them with a good portion of the country's debt, break them off into a separate entity and send them on their way. It would make good business sense - for the remaining states, anyway.
Agreed. First we take a big cut of their assets as our "management fee" though. And as they fail, we can say we were just putting those assets to their "highest and best use." Money will then pour into our successful states because we are such great money managers!
Gregg you would take us back to the 50s.
Free...that is beyond absurd. What gives you any right to assume something so ludicrous about someone else? Just because someone else's priorities don't align exactly with yours you automatically jump to a conclusion in which they don't give a damn about anything beyond that one point in an immensely broad discussion? I didn't expect that from you.
It apparently goes 180* against the liberal code, but just once it might be enlightening to ask a fiscal conservative WHY that form of responsibility is so very important to them. But no, that would require way too much effort beyond just swallowing. Its oh so much easier to wallow in moral superiority if you just walk into the voting booth, check every name with a "D" beside it and assume you just saved every starving baby, rape victim, broke grandma, snail darter and tall tree while sticking it to the puppet masters who would rape and pillage this land until there is nothing left to take. Mmmmmm....cherry today.
Now, as to the lack of a reality based environment, well, you bring that on yourself. Every Time we discuss the gritty realities of life in these here United States, without fail you step in with "Well, I don't see that in my community" You never seem to see racism, as when we discussed the confederate flag, and you don't see health care issues or anyone lacking health care, as when we discussed all the people without health care and lack of options for health care. You never see irresponsible gun ownership, as in virtually everyone in your community is well trained in fire arms and of course the height of responsibility (and each and every one of them could have SAVED all those people in that theatre) I only said that because, according your posts, you don't have any of the ills that plague the rest of the nation. so, I can only assume you live in Disney Land, where crime is unknown, as is poverty, illness, racism, sexism, discrimination, etc...Lucky you..
Luck has very little to do with it. We earned the ability to snuggle our family into whatever environment we choose and we chose here. It wasn't thanks to some gift or a huge advantage starting out or a winning lottery ticket or anything else beyond simple work. And although you will never admit it, anyone could do it. There are no pink elephants or giant mice here. It is simply a nice place with a strong sense of community and family values. We chose to live in a place with low crime, good schools, little discrimination, etc. because we earned it and wanted it and thought it would be best for our family. I've read what you've written about your place. I'm guessing you have options to live somewhere else. Why did you choose to live on a beautiful acreage with ponds and fens and trees and animals when you could have chosen a blighted inner city filled with crime and crippling poverty and all the other "gritty realities" that go with it? What's the crime rate on your farm?
I ask questions because I want to understand the answers. How would you propose that I comprehend the scope of issues I don't deal with every day if I don't talk to people who do? Unlike you, I am not comfortable simply accepting the party line. And I don't really accept stereotypes. Strangely enough I know Democrats that own guns. Our discussion here concluded that even the most highly trained gun owner would have had a difficult time stopping the CO shootings. I don't automatically see a Confederate flag as racist any more than I see a US flag as a symbol of oppression (alot do, you know). And on and on...
ApatheticNoMore
9-2-12, 2:29pm
Is there much historical evidence of Republicans being any better on fiscal responsibility than Dems? Are the Bush years the ideal of fiscal responsibility, the Reagan years? What about the debt that was run up then? But Romney will be different. Hmm you are free to believe that I guess, maybe he will be. It seems to me we'd get faster to fiscal responsibility (ie dealing with the deficit) without any tax cuts.
Is there much historical evidence of Republicans being any better on fiscal responsibility than Dems? Are the Bush years the ideal of fiscal responsibility, the Reagan years? What about the debt that was run up then? But Romney will be different. Hmm you are free to believe that I guess, maybe he will be. It seems to me we'd get faster to fiscal responsibility (ie dealing with the deficit) without any tax cuts.
In fact, we'd be much better off with even Clinton-era tax rates. And no, there is no historical evidence that Republicans are more fiscally responsible. As I posted upthread (it bears repeating):
Thirty years of lowering taxes and off-shoring jobs haven't done the economy any good-nor has partisan obstructionism, but Democrats have historically been better for the economy than Republicans. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
From the article (which includes a nifty graph):
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.
I do not think the republicans are focused on making the top 1 percent better off. Their economic theory of trickle down does not work. It has not worked every time they have tried it. The last try was Bush's tax cuts but they insist they will work.
Gregg I only wanted to point out there are other things besides the debt that are important. Sorry!
try2bfrugal
9-2-12, 3:41pm
Great post, Jane, though the link didn't work for me. Here is another link I found on the same subject of the economy as a whole being better off under Democrats -
http://www.currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/economy_better_under_democrats/economy_does_better_under_democrats.html
Thanks, try2bfrugal. And I fixed the link.
Free...that is beyond absurd. What gives you any right to assume something so ludicrous about someone else? Just because someone else's priorities don't align exactly with yours you automatically jump to a conclusion in which they don't give a damn about anything beyond that one point in an immensely broad discussion? I didn't expect that from you.
It apparently goes 180* against the liberal code, but just once it might be enlightening to ask a fiscal conservative WHY that form of responsibility is so very important to them. But no, that would require way too much effort beyond just swallowing. Its oh so much easier to wallow in moral superiority if you just walk into the voting booth, check every name with a "D" beside it and assume you just saved every starving baby, rape victim, broke grandma, snail darter and tall tree while sticking it to the puppet masters who would rape and pillage this land until there is nothing left to take. Mmmmmm....cherry today.
Gregg, first of all, your post would suggest that democrats don't want fiscal responsibility. That is completely absurd! And rather insulting, but I'll let that pass as this seems to be the party lie (line) about democrats. No one needs to ASK why anyone wants fiscal responsibility cause most everyone does want it.
What i would like to ask is, if fiscal responsibility is such a huge part of being conservative, then why are you and all your conservative friends so against health care reform, along with the exceedingly RESPONSIBLE individual mandate, an idea first suggested by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Romney himself? Why oh why is this very responsible act all of a sudden such a no go for the Oh So fiscally Responsible Republicans? It demands responsibility of everyone, will save the country money in the long run (The CBO has crunched the numbers) and ensures everyone will have at least basic health care. So what gives?
See, sanctimonious outrage about fiscal responsibility kind of sputters out in the face of unfiscally responsible actions. Can't have it both ways. Is the republican party's fiscally responsible 'creds' based in pragmatic reality, or is it simply a catch phrase to reliably trot out every 4 years?
Luck has very little to do with it. We earned the ability to snuggle our family into whatever environment we choose and we chose here. It wasn't thanks to some gift or a huge advantage starting out or a winning lottery ticket or anything else beyond simple work. And although you will never admit it, anyone could do it. There are no pink elephants or giant mice here. It is simply a nice place with a strong sense of community and family values. We chose to live in a place with low crime, good schools, little discrimination, etc. because we earned it and wanted it and thought it would be best for our family. I've read what you've written about your place. I'm guessing you have options to live somewhere else. Why did you choose to live on a beautiful acreage with ponds and fens and trees and animals when you could have chosen a blighted inner city filled with crime and crippling poverty and all the other "gritty realities" that go with it? What's the crime rate on your farm?
I ask questions because I want to understand the answers. How would you propose that I comprehend the scope of issues I don't deal with every day if I don't talk to people who do? Unlike you, I am not comfortable simply accepting the party line. And I don't really accept stereotypes. Strangely enough I know Democrats that own guns. Our discussion here concluded that even the most highly trained gun owner would have had a difficult time stopping the CO shootings. I don't automatically see a Confederate flag as racist any more than I see a US flag as a symbol of oppression (alot do, you know). And on and on...
No one lives in Leave it to Beaver land, guy. If you don't think your community has these things, it's because you don't look or want to know. No, I imagine you do live in a nice community, I'm not saying you live in a hotbed of crime. I don't either, but that doesn't mean these things don't exist, nor can I see them. I'm a realist. I know even my lovely community has some gang wanna be's, poverty, racism, etc... And I know the country at large has these things, in some places quite a bit. I don't actually have to fight through a gauntlet of guns and knives to know of these things. And saying because I don't see these things in my community, I'm not going to believe it's such a problem elsewhere, is not exactly accepting the realities of life for many many Americans, our neighbors. And kind of short sighted as well. No, South LA isn't my community, but it absolutely benefits me if these people are educated, and put on a path to success.
I know Ayn Rand is a hero to many on the right, but her greedy, myopic every man for himself philosophy is just that, greedy and myopic. And a recipe for disaster. Oh, sure, some individuals would succeed, but the nation would die. The Nation would fail, kind of how the republican party is failing, as the 'big tent' gets smaller and smaller.
http://gawker.com/5939404/sen-lindsey-graham-not-enough-angry-white-guys-to-sustain-gop
FWIW The reason I live in the country away from close neighbors is, one, i did want to plant many trees and shrubs and needed the space, not to mention the ponds, but two, and probably the biggest immediate reason, my husband is a musician and HE IS LOUD! :0! I simply didn't want to spend the rest of my life saying shhh.., the neighbors! shhh.. the neighbors!;)
Of course we all want fiscal responsibility. Except maybe the likes of Halliburton/Blackwater/KBR/Xe/Academi/Nom du Jour, proud manufacturer of electrocution showers, who are making billions off our endless unbudgeted wars. Why doesn't anyone audit those treasonous grifters, anyway?
There was a Republican Senator from Wyoming on PBS setting in on a round table discussion. He kept saying Wyoming had all the answers to the nations problems. Burn coal, let business run the nation do away with the EPA. Standard Republican talking points. Shields pointed out that fish were dieing in the great lakes and rivers because of pollution from industry. The senator just said we do not need the EPA today. Well industry would revert back to dumping in our water ways and polluting our water and air without the EPA.
Well Wyoming has a population of 560,000 and California has a population of almost 38 million in about the same size state Wyoming is. There is no comparison to what the needs of both states are. The senator was an MD you would think he would know the harm burning coal for energy does to the human lungs.
Gregg I only wanted to point out there are other things besides the debt that are important. Sorry!
And on that point we agree. I did say that I didn't want the government to have a hand in much beyond fiscal issues anyway. You pointed out that the government upholds the constitution and gave the necessary muscle to the civil rights movement, which are both things I readily support. Where we disconnected is, I think, the point at which I believe everything the government does is fiscal. It all costs money. I love my tax dollars supporting the SCOTUS, hate it supporting global military operations. Love paying for National Parks, hate subsidizing industrial agriculture. Love providing a safety net for someone in need, hate anyone trying to tell me who I can or can't marry. Etc.
I want us to move forward and I know you do, too. I think that basically we all want to fix everything. Some people think it is worth trying to do everything at all costs and others think we need to prioritize and fix things as we can afford to. The classic whining drum beat of "oh sure, then we will never be able to afford it and nothing will ever change" comes from people seriously lacking imagination and vision. Same is true with all the standard responses at the opposite end of the spectrum. I firmly believe it is possible to bankrupt this country. I firmly believe we are on a course that will do exactly that if we dont' get our spending under control (and significantly reduced). We need better safety nets, but right now the choice isn't whether or not to give all things to all people. The choice is whether or not we are even going to be here in 20 or 30 years to give anything to anyone. If we don't do something different we won't be. Mr. Obama had 3 1/2 years to tackle my priorities and didn't get it done so I'm going to vote to give someone else a chance. If you have other priorities then you have every right to feel, and vote, differently.
We are in agreement. Gregg what you said above, I as a democrat totally agree with. Why can't the politician do the same?
I don't know free... It seems like there are so many people/businesses/industries that have a vested interest in keeping us all divided that, right now, it is just about impossible for a candidate to break through based on something as foolhardy as common sense. I really, REALLY like Ron Paul. I'm not 100% in agreement with him, but he comes a whole lot closer to my personal ideology that Romney or Obama. And yet his candidacy just could never quite get the traction it needed. It's become quite obvious to me that just as everything in government takes money so does getting there in the first place. Romney has it. Obama has it. Ron Paul didn't (or at least no where near enough). I would like to see drastic campaign finance reform and eliminating PAC's and Super PAC's entirely as a way to level the field, but it will never happen. Can you imagine how quickly every lobbyist in Washington would jump to get that shot down? And even if it caught on it would be years of wrangling during which we remained at war, went farther in debt, etc. That's all just a long way of saying I don't really know what to do. I'll keep writing letters and working for candidates I believe in when they come along. I will also keep working on building my own safety net in case there is no government to provide one.
I don't know free... It seems like there are so many people/businesses/industries that have a vested interest in keeping us all divided that, right now, it is just about impossible for a candidate to break through based on something as foolhardy as common sense. I really, REALLY like Ron Paul. I'm not 100% in agreement with him, but he comes a whole lot closer to my personal ideology that Romney or Obama. And yet his candidacy just could never quite get the traction it needed. It's become quite obvious to me that just as everything in government takes money so does getting there in the first place. Romney has it. Obama has it. Ron Paul didn't (or at least no where near enough). I would like to see drastic campaign finance reform and eliminating PAC's and Super PAC's entirely as a way to level the field, but it will never happen. Can you imagine how quickly every lobbyist in Washington would jump to get that shot down? And even if it caught on it would be years of wrangling during which we remained at war, went farther in debt, etc. That's all just a long way of saying I don't really know what to do. I'll keep writing letters and working for candidates I believe in when they come along. I will also keep working on building my own safety net in case there is no government to provide one.
On this we certainly agree. Do away with the super pacs! Super pacs have silenced the average voice, and Citizens United changed the political landscape forever. What a disastrous ruling by this Court! With one swoop they changed us from We the People to U.S. inc. Sad sad sad...
We can't count on politicians to listen to us, the average middle class person, as they are only human, not super human, and will ALWAYS follow/listen to the money, and as we know, money is speech...(sigh)
ApatheticNoMore
9-3-12, 12:10pm
I firmly believe it is possible to bankrupt this country.
I don't know, it's easier for a country without it's own currency to get in trouble (Greece), but it's certainly possible for one with it's own currency (Argentenia too many times to count, only the U.S. is much more powerful economically than them). But the whole empire business to the extent it makes any sense at all in terms of national interest (not just the interest of defense contractors, and Shell Oil and Exxon etc.. (who get to drill the conquered countries oil), I guess is a bid to control real resources as an economic move? Seems dumb if this is your *only* economic policy going forward (and it seems so in the U.S.!), but I don't know how it will play to completion.
The choice is whether or not we are even going to be here in 20 or 30 years to give anything to anyone. If we don't do something different we won't be. Mr. Obama had 3 1/2 years to tackle my priorities and didn't get it done so I'm going to vote to give someone else a chance. If you have other priorities then you have every right to feel, and vote, differently.
I think the biggest wildcard for 20-30 years from now is environmental not economic. A healthy environment is the base of an economy, a healthy environment is the base of an economy .... Some things like global climate change and not entirely in a single country's control (although this U.S. *IS* still a BIG PLAYER on the scene, and it has done nothing but undermine climate talks). But a lot of other environmental issues are.
I guess is a bid to control real resources as an economic move?
I think the biggest wildcard for 20-30 years from now is environmental not economic.
Civilizations have worked to control real resources as long as civilizations have existed. The issue is that they have mostly fought over finite resources (wood, coal, oil, etc.) rather than develop more sustainable plans. I don't think it should surprise anyone that we find ourselves following in the footsteps of a thousand that came before.
I think economic interests and environmental interests are joined at the hip. One directly impacts the other all the time. That's not saying people always think that way, but the impacts are there. If we destroy our environment the economy will obviously suffer, but sometimes its harder to see that the reverse is also true. We need to start doing it right pretty quickly, I'm not sure there are a lot more second chances.
Ah, but the infinite resources are free to everyone! wind, solar...and there's not a chance in hell the big energy companies are gonna develop that! At least not to a useful, affordable level. Nope, not gonna do it, except where we, the average citizen, would be stuck on some 'new' teat, like wave or ethanol or algae or something not practical or easy for the average homeowner to produce. Gotta keep us dependant!
But, with especially solar, here is a tinker's technology. I do believe the big innovations there will be made in garages and workshops across the country, or world. Here is something still available to the little inventor/innovator to fiddle with.
Ah, but the infinite resources are free to everyone! wind, solar...and there's not a chance in hell the big energy companies are gonna develop that! At least not to a useful, affordable level. Nope, not gonna do it, except where we, the average citizen, would be stuck on some 'new' teat, like wave or ethanol or algae or something not practical or easy for the average homeowner to produce. Gotta keep us dependant!
One of the challenges in moving to any source of fuel is efficiency in production and storage as well as in actual use. Whatever we move to will have to be made available on a wide scale and the demand for it will force efficiencies in production. Oil and gas companies (as well as electric companies) already have that infrastructure in place. Does it make sense to re-invent it? I don't think so. I would argue that the big energy companies should be involved, both as sources of the infrastructure and the entities which front the capital needed to adapt it to new technologies (those windmill blades aren't cheap and they're not maintenance-free). The question then becomes whether we want to treat them more like utilities or more like profit-making corporations. It interests me that people get p!ssed off at record oil-company profits but they also got p!ssed off at what happened with Solyndra. Sounds like America should have a discussion about it -- if we can.
Ah, but the infinite resources are free to everyone! wind, solar...and there's not a chance in hell the big energy companies are gonna develop that!
Want to know how your infinite, free resources work in the real world? Contrary to your belief, it's the big energy companies that drive the alternative energy industry. The electricity generated by wind and solar has to go somewhere. Very, VERY few people are the end users of their own power. Almost all of it feeds onto the grid, available to everyone. The generation of energy can, and should, have as many small, localized producers as possible in addition to the big, central power plants. The big energy companies know that.
You may not know that most electric utilities WANT you to build that solar and wind system. It's like pennies (actually dollars, lots of dollars) from heaven for them if you do. You do all the design work and engineering, secure the permits, buy the equipment, complete the construction, maintain the system, insure the system and basically absorb every penny of cost to get it started and keep it running. And you will continue to do that for decades. The good news is that you will slowly recover the cost of your system in savings on your electric bill and with the excess power that the utility buys from you and you can sleep at night believing you helped save the planet from the oligarchs.
Now compare your solar array to their big power plants. They have to go through essentially all the same steps you do. One difference is that the approval process can take years, sometimes even decades, and will cost tens of millions of dollars where yours will take days or maybe weeks and cost them nothing. Another big difference is that it can easily cost big energy billions of dollars to actually build a new plant where yours again costs them nothing. Yes, the cost of new plants will be passed along to consumers, but it will take big energy decades to recover the full cost. Utility companies start to make a profit on your home generated power the first second you throw the switch on your shiny new solar panels (they buy it from you wholesale and sell it to the grid at retail). You become their supplier and they are your customer.
Big energy makes a profit from your power with little or no investment. Can you even imagine how rich they would get if every house in the US had a system on the roof? You do all the work and spend all the money to provide the middlemen with a product. They get all the obscene profit without ever needing to make capital outlays. Not sure what your business school taught you, but in mine that seemed like a pretty sweet deal.
But it gets even better for them. Know why they REALLY love solar? The #1 energy use day in the US every single year is in August. Different dates every year, but the absolute peak demand always comes somewhere in the afternoon of a hot day in August. Because its hot people are not only running lights and computers and TVs, they are running air conditioners. They are on in every office AND every home at that time. Federal law states that the electricity providers must be able to generate 120% of that tip-top peak even though that actual demand will only be that high for about an hour a year. That's the government's idea of an insurance policy. Now you come along with your solar panels and when do you suppose those are reaching their absolute peak of production? Take a wild guess. That's right, on hot, sunny, summer afternoons! If enough people pump all that green electricity onto the grid right then it shows up as generating capacity for the utilities. They don't have to drop an extra billion or so to expand their capacity because you just did it for them. They still get to make a profit off of every single kWh you generate, but then they get to put that billion right straight into the executive bonus plan instead of spending it on building more plants. To add insult to injury many big commercial and industrial users are on demand meters. That means they get charged more for using power at high demand times. The utility still pays you the flat, wholesale rate, but gets to make 2 or 3 times as much profit on the power you provide during those peak times. How sweet is that!!!
[QUOTE=Gregg;99290]
Big energy makes a profit from your power with little or no investment. Can you even imagine how rich they would get if every house in the US had a system on the roof? You do all the work and spend all the money to provide the middlemen with a product. They get all the obscene profit without ever needing to make capital outlays. Not sure what your business school taught you, but in mine that seemed like a pretty sweet deal. /QUOTE]
Uh, wanna think about that one again? LOL:~)
And that's actually my point. If every roof in America had a solar array, we wouldn't NEED the middle man. See, if I and my neighbors create out own energy, efficiently, and were able to store it, efficiently, and pass it back and forth among ourselves, middle man is cut out. Only the maintenance man is needed.
Sure, right now the energy companies like me making solar to feed them,(not all states have a buy back program) at rock bottom prices to sell to my neighbor at top prices. But when I and my neighbor both have panels, and the folks across the street and in the next neighborhood, etc... that's why I say they aren't in a hurry for solar to be inexpensive and efficient for the average homeowner, cause the average homeowner will send them packing, energy speaking.
Sure, they want to develop solar, for them to collect and sell to us, but they don't want me to be independent of them.
You can't tell me that if they used even a tenth of the money they use on fracking now on solar cell R&D, we couldn't have super efficient, inexpensive cells within a very, very short time. It's simple math really. They can make way more money selling me energy for 20 years than selling me an inexpensive system once every 20-30 years. So it's in their best interest to keep solar expensive, and not practical for average people.
I get my electrical power from a rural electrical cooperative, which everyone who uses owns direct shares in, and we all vote to elect members of the community to run it.
Our electrical "middle man" offers huge incentives for installing local power generation and storage systems. And huge incentives for things we can do to *reduce* the load and the amount of power we buy. And we already have some of the lowest power costs around, considering the difficulty of our circumstances - after our recent tariff increases, I'm still only paying ~7.5 cents/kWh, and ~5 cents offpeak.
Uh, wanna think about that one again?
Well, no, not really. I'm pretty sure its right.
And that's actually my point. If every roof in America had a solar array, we wouldn't NEED the middle man. See, if I and my neighbors create out own energy, efficiently, and were able to store it, efficiently, and pass it back and forth among ourselves, middle man is cut out. Only the maintenance man is needed.
Sure, you can do that. As long as you and your neighbors can come up with a few trillion dollars to build your own infrastructure you could share it with everyone. Of course you would still need someone to provide all the R&D, the raw material sourcing, the manufacturing, the engineering and design, the construction, etc. Unless, of course, you want to bring all that in house as well.
and were able to store it
That little line deserved its own quote box. Let me know if you figure out how to do this, I'd be happy to throw in some seed money. So far its been the holy grail for a bunch of pretty sharp guys who are trying to figure the secret out.
But when I and my neighbor both have panels, and the folks across the street and in the next neighborhood, etc... that's why I say they aren't in a hurry for solar to be inexpensive and efficient for the average homeowner, cause the average homeowner will send them packing, energy speaking.
Until you solve that pesky little storage issue you're still stuck with the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind only blows when it wants to. You can burn candles like grandma did or just go to bed when the sun goes down, I'd rather stay up a little later.
Sure, they want to develop solar, for them to collect and sell to us, but they don't want me to be independent of them.
Trust me, they're not worried about that.
It's simple math really. They can make way more money selling me energy for 20 years than selling me an inexpensive system once every 20-30 years. So it's in their best interest to keep solar expensive, and not practical for average people.
The simple math is that energy companies can make just as much money wholesaleing and reselling with minimal investment as they can by making massive capital investments that they have to staff and maintain for 20 - 30 years or more. And they know it.
(On storage) That little line deserved its own quote box. Let me know if you figure out how to do this, I'd be happy to throw in some seed money. So far its been the holy grail for a bunch of pretty sharp guys who are trying to figure the secret out.
Well, you can do *some* things sort of easily.
Every day around here somewhere, the sun evaporates ocean water. Which eventually falls, and lands on the mountain here, which we catch and store in a large reservoir that provides about half the water supply to our village. It's not big enough for Real Hydropower, and we wouldn't have overflow most of the year anyways, we fill it up during the several months of real rain, then drink it down the rest of the year.
But. It has to flow down the mountain to the village to drink. And that is a huge pressure head, about 1100 feet. So high a pressure that the system has a series of old pressure-reducing valves along the way. Which are all failing as they age and being replaced.
Replaced with microhydro generators, if we play our cards right. Which will generate enough electrical power to run our water system off of. And when water use is up, power generation will naturally be up. Yay!
Not a general solution, of course. I find the best way to store solar power in my house is with large masses that absorb the heat during the day and release it at night. My next home will be built to be very very stingy with electrical use (12v LED lighting, gravity-flow systems instead of pumps, etc.), and heavy on the passive solar.
That little line deserved its own quote box. Let me know if you figure out how to do this, I'd be happy to throw in some seed money. So far its been the holy grail for a bunch of pretty sharp guys who are trying to figure the secret out.
I know Gates has thrown seed money at this one - it sounds very interesting. Especially if they can scale it up as expected.
http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energ y.html
Well, no, not really. I'm pretty sure its right.
Sure, you can do that. As long as you and your neighbors can come up with a few trillion dollars to build your own infrastructure you could share it with everyone. Of course you would still need someone to provide all the R&D, the raw material sourcing, the manufacturing, the engineering and design, the construction, etc. Unless, of course, you want to bring all that in house as well.
That little line deserved its own quote box. Let me know if you figure out how to do this, I'd be happy to throw in some seed money. So far its been the holy grail for a bunch of pretty sharp guys who are trying to figure the secret out.
Until you solve that pesky little storage issue you're still stuck with the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind only blows when it wants to. You can burn candles like grandma did or just go to bed when the sun goes down, I'd rather stay up a little later.
Trust me, they're not worried about that.
The simple math is that energy companies can make just as much money wholesaleing and reselling with minimal investment as they can by making massive capital investments that they have to staff and maintain for 20 - 30 years or more. And they know it.
Greg, you make it too easy for me! LOL You are making my argument for me! This is what I'm saying!
If it were EASY and EFFICIENT for me and my neighbors to install solar, then the big energy wouldn't be needed! That is exactly my point! So, big energy isn't going to work really really hard to MAKE IT EASY AND EFFICENT. Even though we both know we have the intelligence and the technology driven ability to do this, it isn't encouraged so to speak, because inexpensive efficiency ISN'T what big energy wants, except for them, but not for me.
What makes you think big energy would want to work towards obsolescence? Did buggy whip makers really cheer the obsolescence of horseless transportation, even though it was more efficient?
Solar is not the panacea peggy. With current technology it is probably as dirty as coal, or worse. Several of us here have tried to get a clear picture of that, but with only limited success (so far). Regardless, we do know there are too many toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing for it to be considered benign. There are also concerns with raw material mining, packaging and shipping the finished product, etc. And if you want batteries, well, why don't you just light a few thousand dollars on fire and dump a couple hundred pounds of heavy metals on your yard. It would save time.
If you really have to feel like your screwing big energy make your house more efficient. Bae touched on it above and we've all talked about it before. Proper orientation, thermal mass, better windows, more insulation, more efficient lighting and appliances, appropriate shading, water conservation and recycling, etc. Those should be requirements in every building constructed from today on anyway. If you absolutely have to see a monster under the bed go after the 'greedy' developers who build buildings that are less than LEED Platinum. It'll have a lot bigger impact than putting a couple poison panels on your roof.
What makes you think big energy would want to work towards obsolescence? Did buggy whip makers really cheer the obsolescence of horseless transportation, even though it was more efficient?
Smart buggy-whip manufacturers did. Smart companies do. Apple continues to cannibalize their own product lines (like their original product, desktop computers) with new products like superlight notebook computers and mobile phones. HP has completely missed the boat on mobile computing and they're paying for that now. Wells Fargo (love 'em or hate 'em) foresaw decades ago that people were not going to ship themselves and their valuables by six-passenger stagecoach forever. Some retailers (Best Buy, Sears/Kmart) are hurting because they never figured out "that Internet shopping thing" and didn't improve on the virtues of brick-and-mortar. Smart business people know it's better to take sales from your own cash cows than to watch some other company do it because they weren't asleep at the switch or too proud to change.
Thing of it is, big energy is not going to make it easy and efficient for you and your neighbors to go solar (or wind or whatever) because that's not their business. Their business is the logistics of moving vast amounts of energy from one place to another. If you think about it, that's the same business model as companies like Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill -- they sponsor the recovery the crude/raw product, refine it as necessary into saleable products, and get those products to where they can be sold so they make money. Except ADM and Cargill are doing it with minerals and commodity foodstuffs. Specialized equipment and points of sale aside, there's no reason ADM and Cargill could not be "big energy" companies themselves. Not saying they should be, but it's not an unusual business model.
Big Energy and Big Food know that one tanker full of raw product is more efficient than 100 of your neighbor's powerboats toting barrels full of crude oil. Or coal. Or wheat. There's no incentive for them to localize energy generation to that degree. And there really isn't for you, either. Gregg makes a valid point about having to foot the capital bill for your own solar array multiplied by the number of houses in your neighborhood. At least at this point in time, you and your neighbors will end up with relatively inflexible generating sources and a tremendous duplication of effort. At some point, you'll end up largely dupllicating the storage and transmission facilities of the Big Energy companies. Following this same logic, maybe every family should grow all of its own food. Why support a middleman for that? In addition, manufacturing solar cells in particular generates hazardous waste and there are more dangerous materials to deal with when the array is no longer productive.
Peggy, you know I see things your way far more than I see them other ways. I don't disagree that there could (and should) be more done to make sure energy companies do not abuse their customers or the planet. But having energy readily available is crucial to living in the developed (and developing) world. A cradle-to-grave view of alternative energy demands looking at the efficiency of recovering that energy and distributing it where and when it is needed -- and justifying why the wheel has to be reinvented when a serviceable wheel already exists. The efficient and earth-kind answer to that question is not necessarily cutting out the middlemen. Regulate? To preserve safety, yes. Urge (or, better, fund) improvements in efficiencies? Sure. But why reinvent that wheel? What purpose does that serve?
I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, OR screw the big energy companies, as Gregg accuses me of. Just because solar isn't the ONLY solution doesn't mean it isn't a huge part of the solution. Tossing it aside just because it can't fulfill ALL our needs, or isn't PERFECT in every way, is kind of penny wise and pound foolish. Our energy future isn't going to be one giant solution, but rather many smaller solutions. Example, simple passive solar heat will go a long way towards NOT using fossil fuels to heat my home, or water. Solar cells on the roof of my garage can charge my electric car, which I would use to bop around town. These are the types of independence I am talking about. But we need more R&D into more efficient cells and capture, and yes, cleaner manufacturing. Gregg keeps saying Oh you can't because of the cost and efficiency and such...well, duh! That's my point!>8)
I simply want to break free of dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. And it would be nice to have a little independence myself, for fueling my car, for instance, or heating my water, or my home, and maybe running a few lights, etc...But yes, it is too expensive right now, thus the need for R&D. No, it isn't reinventing the wheel, the wheel is already there. It's just making it rounder, and smoother, so to speak. There are people now who run their entire homes on alternative energies. I just want that available to everyone, and I don't think the big energy companies do. That's not science fiction.
We need to take a look at what Germany's doing. They're up to 25% of energy from renewable sources, according to reports.
We need to take a look at what Germany's doing. They're up to 25% of energy from renewable sources, according to reports.
We should look, but it isn't necessarily going to support more investment here...
Photovoltaics are threatening to become the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy. Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country's power supply, and only erratically at that...
To keep the lights on, Germany ends up importing nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic. Grid operator Tennet even resorted to tapping an aging fossil fuel-fired power plant in Austria to compensate for shortages in solar power.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-remain-high-with-consumers-paying-the-price-a-842595.html
I work in this industry and am a fan where it makes sense, but we are nowhere close to being able to replace traditional fuels.
You're absolutely right peggy, its not science fiction. Running your house on wind, solar or most other alternatives is best suited for those who are a long way from traditional power sources because its cheaper to install than running miles of transmission lines. It also serves the need of those who see a higher potential for political unrest, natural disaster, economic collapse or other catastrophic event than I do. Aside from those situations there are better ways to go.
If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil today take the steps to make your house more efficient. You will have more dollars left over at the end of the month so will have more independence that way. If you want to use solar that actually makes sense install a solar hot water panel. Its cheap. For a few hundred bucks it will give you a far bigger payback than several thousand spent on PV panels. There's one in my garage that will be on the roof as soon as I get the roof built. If you want to sponsor a bill requiring one of those on every roof top built from now on I will be thrilled to back you. Otherwise, if the lights go out I have flashlights.
If you want to virtually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and that is something we should all get behind, make every new, non-electric vehicle sold in the US run on natural gas in, say, 5 years and stop selling gas/diesel for transportation in 15. Older cars can be retrofitted. Trucks and trains can run on it. Planes probably need to stick with liquid fuel. Anyway, the technology has been around for decades. We (the US) have all the gas we want. Its cheap. Its easy to get. The infrastructure is already in place except for the actual delivery portals, but we know how to make them. Its a one time re-tool for the manufacturers. Its efficient. Its cleaner than what we're using now. Its currently the highest, best use for our natural gas. Plus it would create tens of millions of jobs.
If you REALLY want to cut fossil fuel dependence to the core we should already be designing and planning 60 - 70 new nuclear plants. That was the D.O.E. estimate a few years back anyway. All the same design to lower costs and increase safety and security.
All that's left then is to build a smart grid to move all that power around. That should have been started 20 years ago, but better late than never. Unless its too late, that is.
Solar is not the panacea peggy. With current technology it is probably as dirty as coal, or worse. Several of us here have tried to get a clear picture of that, but with only limited success (so far). Regardless, we do know there are too many toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing for it to be considered benign. There are also concerns with raw material mining, packaging and shipping the finished product, etc. And if you want batteries, well, why don't you just light a few thousand dollars on fire and dump a couple hundred pounds of heavy metals on your yard. It would save time.
If you really have to feel like your screwing big energy make your house more efficient. Bae touched on it above and we've all talked about it before. Proper orientation, thermal mass, better windows, more insulation, more efficient lighting and appliances, appropriate shading, water conservation and recycling, etc. Those should be requirements in every building constructed from today on anyway. If you absolutely have to see a monster under the bed go after the 'greedy' developers who build buildings that are less than LEED Platinum. It'll have a lot bigger impact than putting a couple poison panels on your roof.
Or just turn it off. My biggest energy saver this summer has been not using the (used) air conditioner my mother insisted on giving me.
... stop selling gas/diesel for transportation in 15. Older cars can be retrofitted. Trucks and trains can run on it. Planes probably need to stick with liquid fuel.
Sorry, I'm not going to convert my boat to diesel, or the truck I use out in the back-of-beyond. The stone-age reliability of diesel is crucial for these applications.
We need to take a look at what Germany's doing. They're up to 25% of energy from renewable sources, according to reports.
My German utility stocks have taken a big hit because of the law. The Germans are also finding the storage of energy is a problem. They conserve a lot more than Americans. A cold or warm apartment is the norm. Almost no A/C in Germany. In my opinion conservation is the most important way to make energy available.
Sorry, I'm not going to convert my boat to diesel, or the truck I use out in the back-of-beyond. The stone-age reliability of diesel is crucial for these applications.
Lol. I forgot about boats. That happens when you live 1000 miles from the beach.
Seriously, I can't foresee a day when gas and diesel aren't available at all. I was just being melodramatic (when in Rome and all). Maybe we will get to a point where they are less common than other options, like natural gas or battery charging stations, but with the gigantic infrastructure that has been built and hundreds of millions of cars and trucks running on petrol I think it will be a very long time before anyone is forced to trade in the Unimog for a lack of fuel.
In my opinion conservation is the most important way to make energy available.
Spot on free. If we keep banging that drum maybe it will catch on.
Spot on free. If we keep banging that drum maybe it will catch on.
Doesn't seem to be working :-(
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/jimmy-carter.jpg
Doesn't seem to be working :-(
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/jimmy-carter.jpg
Yeah you're right! They vilified Jimmy and he was right all along! Put on the sweater and turn down the thermostat! And he was laughed out of office!
I think if we seriously explore alternatives, and not just for the rich who can afford it, but for everyone, then all energy sources could be used as they are useful. Solar where it is best used, and oil or natural gas where it is best used. Petroleum is very useful in it's best applications, but burning it up in our cars and for heating our homes is wasteful. The days of one source for everything is over. Conservation is fine, but it can only take us so far. We need to move beyond that. There will always be certain applications where oil is the best source of energy, and wasting it on secondary uses just because we are lazy is pointless, and destructive in the long run.
Natural gas may be plentiful, but that's just not the direction auto makers are going. They are going in the direction of electric cars. OK, fine, we can work with that. We can produce out own electricity, and more importantly, I can produce my own electricity. I can't produce my own natural gas, so I'm actually excited in the direction of autos. (this is kind of what I'm talking about with the big energy. I can't produce my own natural gas, so I'm not actually getting excited about natural gas cars, but I can produce my own electricity. Which makes me kind of suspicious of anyone who champions natural gas run cars)
Fiscal responsibility trumps all for me.
Not a hard choice then.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP726_1wedge_G_20120905181504.jpg
Not a hard choice then.
Here's another statistic, from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Here's another statistic, from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
"So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)—going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office"
The thing is, that is not true. The Democrat controlled House and Senate refused to pass the FY '09 budget in 2008. They waited until after Barack Obama was in office and sent it to him for his signature in March of 2009. That's the budget that increased by nearly 18% and is also the one used as a benchmark for the subsequent non-budgets (the Senate hasn't allowed a formal budget since that FY '09 one) which supposedly prove how frugal the current administration has been.
That '09 budget resulted in a $1.4T deficit which has continued with slight deviations for each subsequent year.
To say that the FY '09 budget was "the property of George W. Bush" is one the the most blatant, and oft repeated lies I've seen in a long time.
To say that the FY '09 budget was "the property of George W. Bush" is one the the most blatant, and oft repeated lies I've seen in a long time.
For a crowd that would have Mitt Romney brought up on capitol murder charges for a death caused by a disease he did not inflict and treatment he did not deny, by a company he did not control, through a deal he did not initiate... No, trying to dump a spending spree on a predecessor seems to be just a little white trillion dollar lie.
To say that the FY '09 budget was "the property of George W. Bush" is one the the most blatant, and oft repeated lies I've seen in a long time.
"Starving the beast" is a well-known Republican strategy, and results in budget deficits and other economic turmoil, at the expense of other programs. I remember Bush 43s first State-of-the-Union address. It was packed with all kinds of programs, like No Child Left Behind, etc. etc. He kept saying, "And we're going to spend money on this, and we're going to spend money on this." And that's not even counting the Iraq war expenses... And then there were the tax cuts.. didn't add up to me.
So I was wondering how a Republican could come up with such a huge laundry list of new programs AND cut taxes simultaneously, when I read about the starve the beast concept. It was clearly what he was doing. Risky business if you ask me, and who exactly profits?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
ETA this Wikipedia quote:
Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. That has been my observation having lived through Eisenhower through Obama administrations
ETA this Wikipedia quote:
Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending.
The main problem with "starve the beast" -- when the "beast" is social programs and not defense funding or corporate welfare -- is that it pushes natural behavior to the most expensive response. Cut medical benefits to poor people? The response is not going to be their ponying up for high-priced blood-pressure medicines. It's going to be visiting the ER pro bono to take care of the aftermath of poor (or no) hypertension care. Remove funding which is used to treat some kid who was unlucky enough to be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Makes a great soundbite. But so do the witnesses when this untreated "shy loner" shoots up a shopping mall or college campus. No, this does not always happen. But "starving the beast" the Republican way is akin to taking a couple of quarts of oil out of your car's engine and some gas out of the tank because you know the engine will use what's left more efficiently.
Yeah you're right! They vilified Jimmy and he was right all along! Put on the sweater and turn down the thermostat! And he was laughed out of office!
Mr. Carter was laughed out of office for a lot of reasons, but he really did have the right idea about conservation.
The low hanging fruit for the conservation movement isn't houses or cars. It's buildings. Everything counts, but making small changes in big buildings has a large and immediate impact. Designing new buildings correctly is even bigger.
Electric cars are great, but that pesky storage problem is still there. Who wants a car that can only go 40 miles before it needs a charge? Folks with enough resources can buy one to run errands around town then pull it into their 4 car garage and pull out the SUV when they want to go somewhere farther away than the grocery store. People who can't afford to have multiple cars for specific uses or those who need a car to be more versatile than that or those of us who just think it would be silly won't be driving electric cars until the battery technology allows them to perform close to today's gas powered cars. Think of a 400 mile range at 80 mph. Even then there probably won't be a huge market until every current gas station has a charging station AND those batteries can be charged in about the same length of time it takes to fill the tank now. I don't really want to spend the night in a truck stop because it will take 10 hours for my car to charge.
"Within a year, I hope, we shall begin the manufacture of an electric automobile. I don’t like to talk about things which are a year ahead, but I am willing to tell you something of my plans. The fact is that Mr. Edison and I have been working for some years on an electric automobile which would be cheap and practicable. Cars have been built for experimental purposes, and we are satisfied now that the way is clear to success. The problem so far has been to build a storage battery of light weight which would operate for long distances without recharging. Mr. Edison has been experimenting with such a battery for some time." Henry Ford, January 11, 1914.
So who really killed the electric car? Do a little research and you'll learn about nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries, Ovonics, lithium ion (Li-Ion) batteries, the GM EV1 and the US Auto Battery Consortium. The three big players in the USABC are the very same three big players in the whole US auto industry. It seems its not so much big energy trying to keep you in gas powered vehicles as it is the auto manufacturers. It's a pretty twisted tale if you start looking into it.
"... I remember Bush 43s first State-of-the-Union address. It was packed with all kinds of programs, like No Child Left Behind, etc. etc. He kept saying, "And we're going to spend money on this, and we're going to spend money on this." And that's not even counting the Iraq war expenses... And then there were the tax cuts.. didn't add up to me.
...
That program was Ted Kennedy's baby:
There’s probably not a better example of Ted Kennedy’s skills as a legislator than his work on No Child Left Behind, the law that Sen. Kennedy, Democratic Rep. George Miller, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg and GOP Rep. John Boehner worked on with the Bush administration in 2001.
Recall the context of those times. President Bush had won reelection after the nightmarish Florida recount and Supreme Court decision and many Democrats wanted nothing to do with him. The president nevertheless extended his right hand to Democrats, and one who took it was the biggest Democrat of all, Ted Kennedy. He came to dinner with the Bushes, watched a movie at the White House and generally started to work with Bush on reforming federal education law.
Throughout 2001, while Bush was getting hammered by many Democrats for pursuing tax cuts, Kennedy kept working on a center-out strategy with the White House and the Hill on education reform. Through painstaking negotiations, the foursome worked with Bush domestic advisers Margaret Spellings and Sandy Kress on the legislation.../COLOR] http://educationfrontblog.dallasnews.com/2009/08/ted-kennedy-and-no-child-left.html/
[/I]
And all of those spending programs was GW's downfall. We won't let that happen next time, I can assure you. We went along with him 'cause, well, he's a Republican President, and you are right, he absolutely gets the credit/blame for this monstrosity being the PRez and all. But his spending was not like that of a Republican. Never again.
For a crowd that would have Mitt Romney brought up on capitol murder charges for a death caused by a disease he did not inflict and treatment he did not deny, by a company he did not control, through a deal he did not initiate... No, trying to dump a spending spree on a predecessor seems to be just a little white trillion dollar lie.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
According to Fact Check: "..the nearly 18% spike in spending in fiscal 2009 ...was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office."
If we're really concerned about deficits, we should consider how other countries avoid them:
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10395-public-deficit-by-country.html#axzz25hoNerTK
It appears--if Norway and Sweden are any indicator--they do it with taxation. What a concept.
if Norway and Sweden are any indicator
Norway is an oil kingdom, stick with Sweeden.
If we're really concerned about deficits, we should consider how other countries avoid them:
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10395-public-deficit-by-country.html#axzz25hoNerTK
It appears--if Norway and Sweden are any indicator--they do it with taxation. What a concept.
I also believe Sweeden implemented fairly comprehensive spending cuts several years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/09/public-finance-regeneration
If we're really concerned about deficits, we should consider how other countries avoid them
If we're REALLY concerned with deficits we should stop racking up the part we spend on other countries. Maybe we could start with dissolving NATO. Wonder how the Sweedes would feel about that? And it looks like the Saudis of the Nordic North are running low on juice out there in the North Sea. It's going to be interesting to watch how Oslo deals with that little income drop.
903
C'mon Janev2.0, don't you know the revenue is going to come pouring in if only we reduce taxes even more?
It's Reagonomics, and voodoo economics, and now it's Ryanomics. Even zombies don't live as long as this myth.
If we're really concerned about deficits, we should consider how other countries avoid them:
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10395-public-deficit-by-country.html#axzz25hoNerTK
It appears--if Norway and Sweden are any indicator--they do it with taxation. What a concept.
Maybe Sweeden is on to something after all:
The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/9/picket-new-book-shows-us-top-earners-pay-larger-sh/
Citing http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us
Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income.
And your mother really should give Reagan a break up there.
1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988.
"And your mother really should give Reagan a break up there." http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_cheesy.gif
Perhaps they've achieved detente by now.
Your citations are interesting, but I'm still unconvinced that ever-lower taxes are a good thing.
Your citations are interesting, but I'm still unconvinced that ever-lower taxes are a good thing.
I agree, unless we can reduce spending first. Then they would be a good thing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.