# The Cost of Obama's Carbon Cap and Trade Proposal



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

I am sure that most of the idiots, that voted for him, are getting happier all the time.

9000 earmarks where there were said to be NONE....

Now one of his peons is wanting to reduce the DUST a farmer makes when harvesting crops.....what rock do these clowns crawl out under????????????


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

Coley said:


> I am sure that most of the idiots, that voted for him, are getting happier all the time.
> 
> 9000 earmarks where there were said to be NONE....
> 
> Now one of his peons is wanting to reduce the DUST a farmer makes when harvesting crops.....what rock do these clowns crawl out under????????????


Hi, I'm one of the idiots that voted for him. And apparently, you're one of those idiots that measures everything in life my how much money it costs rather than beeing able to quantify good or bad based on other considerations. Such as, in this case, the fact that coal plants produce particulates and mercury... you know, the stuff that increases everyone's chance of heart attack, stoke and respiritory problems? Maybe you don't care about heading towards an early grave, but I do. So, yes - I for one am indeed getting happier all the time!


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

namyzarc said:


> Hi, I'm one of the idiots that voted for him. And apparently, you're one of those idiots that measures everything in life my how much money it costs rather than beeing able to quantify good or bad based on other considerations. Such as, in this case, the fact that coal plants produce particulates and mercury... you know, the stuff that increases everyone's chance of heart attack, stoke and respiritory problems? Maybe you don't care about heading towards an early grave, but I do. So, yes - I for one am indeed getting happier all the time!


What terrible reasoning to justify a candidate lying and nationalizing hundreds of private companies

BUT THE MERCURY!!!!!

yes you will have less mercury in the air nearby... while you have to ask the government if you can keep your pension, pay 70% taxes and use your PHD in medicine to make $60,000/yr...

Clearly the less carbon emissions is worth all that... Peron's Argentina incoming, but let's think about mercury from coal power plants


----------



## Weird Harold (Oct 4, 2008)

70% taxes? I miss so much, getting my news from the drive by media.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Weird Harold said:


> 70% taxes? I miss so much, getting my news from the drive by media.


if you make over $100k the increases in SS, Medicare, and fed taxes put you at 54% federal tax. Add roughly 18% NC income tax....

SS is going to 17% and medicare to 8% or so...add those to the 38% for just straight federal income taxes.

There you go.

Not counting gas taxes, roadway taxes, sales taxes, etc.
And people act as if those wealthy individuals who hide their revenue are bad somehow... I fully intend to mask/offshore/write off almost every dollar I ever get.


----------



## engineer_Bill (Jun 24, 2008)

namyzarc said:


> Hi, I'm one of the idiots that voted for him. And apparently, you're one of those idiots that measures everything in life my how much money it costs rather than beeing able to quantify good or bad based on other considerations. Such as, in this case, the fact that coal plants produce particulates and mercury... you know, the stuff that increases everyone's chance of heart attack, stoke and respiritory problems? Maybe you don't care about heading towards an early grave, but I do. So, yes - I for one am indeed getting happier all the time!


While we're on the subject of mercury, (which we both agree is bad), How about those new light bulbs????


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

This guy has socialist leaning tendencies.

And as Margaret Thatcher once said," The problem with socialism is that you eventually, run out of other people's money


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Cap and trade is only the begining. Eventually tax revenue will be diverted to carbon capture and storage projects. Basically its like paying to treat a terminal disease that cannot be cured.

Even the most die hard environmentalists now are admiting that climate change (whatever the real cause may be) cannot be stopped by cutting emissions however they are far from backing down on GHGs. The solution is to take or money and try to scrup CO2 from the atmosphere. I see little that could stop this movement short of an all out economic depression. 

However, they still counter by saying that doing nothing is more costly then taking action now. But since they have failed to convince everyone that the world could end based on so called science, they resort to mind games like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv...videosearch?q=global+warming&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f

There is a limit to how far I am willing to go to take advantages of the overly complex tax code. Lots of guys simply do business with cash that is untraceable by the tax man. If carbon taxes are indeed comming, then tax evasion will probably just increase to compensate.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> There is a limit to how far I am willing to go to take advantages of the overly complex tax code. Lots of guys simply do business with cash that is untraceable by the tax man. If carbon taxes are indeed comming, then tax evasion will probably just increase to compensate.


Tax evasion in heavily socialist countries is more common than people actually paying taxes... I forsee something similar here soon enough. I certainly never intend to pay 70%+ taxes... I wouldn't even pay 30%... no matter what pay scale I'm on.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

We are burning less coal (uncleaned/filtered/scrubbed) now than any time in our country's history.

Luckily we have lost most of our steel plants, steam engines and household coal consumption, so we are producing less mercury now than ever before. 

Now if we can kill off the farmers with high operating costs, emission (dust)standards, peta animal rules, no fertilzer use etc., gee, won't we be safe???? 

How in hell did we become the country that the world looked up to for so many years????

GM and Ford are just two miniature examples of how this country looks.
Pay out too much, give too much, don't make as much because of foreign competition, try to provide health care, then let the goverment tell you how to make money and servive.......

Oh yes, I guess we should look to Obama as the new coming......well that is not all that is coming......


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Tax evasion in heavily socialist countries is more common than people actually paying taxes... I forsee something similar here soon enough. I certainly never intend to pay 70%+ taxes... I wouldn't even pay 30%... no matter what pay scale I'm on.


Amen to that. I think 30% is the ceiling for maxumum tax per capita before things start to fall apart more quickly, but even then I have never paid that much and don't think anyone else should have to.

Now liberals here in canada want to fight for a national universal child care system. Basically free day car for everyone that wants it.

Sooner or later social programs will have to be cut back to maintain the financial viability of the nation, but I don't know if it will ever happen.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

My views on the environment and economy tend to vary - often depending on which side of the bed I got out of, but one thing economics DID teach me:

Equilibrium. everything seeks balance as a natural law.

Since industry is killing the planet, the planet fights back by increasing temps here and there. We respond by killing the world economy, go back to something like the 1800's and nature and the economy is in equilibrium again.

Families looking after each other, communities sharing resources, small villages producing enough food to support each other. A maximum of 20% taxes going to those who provide external security (those rough men who stand ready...and so on).

Universal childcare: sure, grandma - coz you're still living in her house.
Education? Access to the best teacher: old people's experiences via the master/apprentice structure.
Health care? organic foods grown locally using local labour and traded at the local market.
Law & order: the village polices itself. Elders can arbitrate disputes, and would probably appply more common sense than many elected/appointed judges.
Welfare? Forgotten. If you don't work, you don't eat. Simple.

It'll end up something like a cross between the Amish and the Kibbutz systems. Man and nature back in balance. Adapt or perish. Feel the Zen.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Since industry is killing the planet, the planet fights back by increasing temps here and there. We respond by killing the world economy, go back to something like the 1800's and nature and the economy is in equilibrium again.
> 
> Families looking after each other, communities sharing resources, small villages producing enough food to support each other. A maximum of 20% taxes going to those who provide external security (those rough men who stand ready...and so on).


So so we're clear... until the early 1900s there was no such thing as income taxes.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

Technologic said:


> if you make over $100k the increases in SS, Medicare, and fed taxes put you at 54% federal tax. Add roughly 18% NC income tax....
> 
> SS is going to 17% and medicare to 8% or so...add those to the 38% for just straight federal income taxes.
> 
> ...


F A L S E. I made over 100k in '07. Didn't pay 54% in taxes.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

engineer_Bill said:


> While we're on the subject of mercury, (which we both agree is bad), How about those new light bulbs????


What about them? Yes, CFC's contain mercury. 
However the extra electricity that a normal incadecent would use during the same lifetime would produce about triple the amount of mercury. So aren't we lessening the amount of mercury overall by using them?
You just agreed that mercury is bad above, so, I'm not seeing your point at all.
And in addition to that, I can recycle a CFC thus keeping the mercury contained and out of the air I breath, the water I drink & the food I eat. Can we do that with extra mercury spilled into the air from a coal power plant?
Finally, research is beeing done on CFC's that do not use mercury at all, as well as LED lighting as an alternative.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Not all coal spews mercury and there are ways to make it burn cleaner. Remember acid rain? that was reduced by scrubbing coal smoke to capture sulfuric acid that would normally get vented to the atmosphere.

I use CFLs but am not really impressed with them. Can't wait for LEDs to get more affordable.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

david85 said:


> Not all coal spews mercury and there are ways to make it burn cleaner. Remember acid rain? that was reduced by scrubbing coal smoke to capture sulfuric acid that would normally get vented to the atmosphere.
> 
> I use CFLs but am not really impressed with them. Can't wait for LEDs to get more affordable.


Yes, but then again, for the most part they clear-cut entire mountains to get at the coal here in the US. And most of those companies don't care about safety either. look at what happened to that small town that got swept away by a retaining pond that broke it's banks. And since we do have proven better ways of making electricity, why do we insist on burnbing fossil fuels? If it were up to me, I'd build some huge geothermal plants. They don't care if it's windy or sunny and never run out of heat.
I agree LED's seem better. Although I haven't had any personal experience with them yet because my CFL's have still not burned out (I'm in my 7th year with most of them). The only LED lighting I've had experience with is some solar landscape lights I installed last year. So far, no complaints with those.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

namyzarc said:


> F A L S E. I made over 100k in '07. Didn't pay 54% in taxes.


Nobody was talking about 2007 were they?

I was talking about 2010.

Bush's tax cuts lapse this year.
Also I was explaining how both Social Security and Medicare are going UP.

Nice job totally missing the point so that you could feel good about yourself. Only a dunce would argue that 70% taxes won't soon be the norm for the top 5-8% of wage earners. Obama and Congress already have the bills on the books to increase Social security and medicare and overall taxes.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

namyzarc said:


> However the extra electricity that a normal incadecent would use during the same lifetime would produce about triple the amount of mercury. So aren't we lessening the amount of mercury overall by using them?


Hint:
Not all electricity is made with coal in the US.

So your math is still lackluster at best.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Hint:
> Not all electricity is made with coal in the US.
> 
> So your math is still lackluster at best.


LOL. Lackluster? Good one. Let me try to explain:

1. CFL's use less electricity than an incadescent.
2. Less electricity = less mercury produced from electricty even if only 50% of US electricity comes from Coal.
3. Although they contain Mercury, CFL's release NONE of it into the environment under normal operation AND they are recyclable so they don't need to end up in a landfill.
4. If you drop and break an old CFL, roughly 11% of it gets released. The rest remains fused to the glass (see CFL's in wikipedia)
4.5. Now if you drop and break a brand new CFL, good luck with that.. Yes - this is an issue!
5. As I mentioned, work is beeing done to reduce or eliminate the mercury in CFL's. I believe in the same wikipedia article I mention above, the say current CFL's from some manufacturers make them with 1 - 1.5mg of mercury per bulb vs 4 mg in older ones. So progress is beeing made.
6. Why are you so hell-bent against CFL's? If you don't like them, then don't use them. No one here is trying to force you to do anything you don't want to so no need to get defensive and use sarcasm like "Hint" & "Lackluster at best" to make a point. I'd be happy with your response if you put that effort into providing me some Data for your opposing opinion rather than sarcasm. Works much better to when trying to get someone to see your point of view.

Now what was the topic of this thread again?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Let's just premise for premise make you look foolish then




namyzarc said:


> LOL. Lackluster? Good one. Let me try to explain:
> 
> 1. CFL's use less electricity than an incadescent.
> 2. Less electricity = less mercury produced from electricty even if only 50% of US electricity comes from Coal.


You're probably one of those people that are anti-nuclear power as well?


> 3. Although they contain Mercury, CFL's release NONE of it into the environment under normal operation AND they are recyclable so they don't need to end up in a landfill.


Do you have any statistics to show that even 50% of those lightbulbs are recycled... I'm sure less than 10% are


> 4. If you drop and break an old CFL, roughly 11% of it gets released. The rest remains fused to the glass (see CFL's in wikipedia)
> 4.5. Now if you drop and break a brand new CFL, good luck with that.. Yes - this is an issue!


Ok? what does this matter?
Are you suggesting that gasifying mercury is more dangerous than dumping it in a landfill? I highly doubt that's the case.


> 5. As I mentioned, work is beeing done to reduce or eliminate the mercury in CFL's. I believe in the same wikipedia article I mention above, the say current CFL's from some manufacturers make them with 1 - 1.5mg of mercury per bulb vs 4 mg in older ones. So progress is beeing made.


Oh work is being done... got it... what a virtuous reason to vote for a president that not only promises to make medical doctors in the same salary bracket as bus drivers, but intends to press the country into 9-11 trillion dollars in deficit spending... and raise taxes for the hardest working americans to 70%+... clearly they're _working on_ it


> 6. Why are you so hell-bent against CFL's? If you don't like them, then don't use them. No one here is trying to force you to do anything you don't want to so no need to get defensive and use sarcasm like "Hint" & "Lackluster at best" to make a point. I'd be happy with your response if you put that effort into providing me some Data for your opposing opinion rather than sarcasm. Works much better to when trying to get someone to see your point of view.


I never said I was against CFLs... I think he was just pointing out that through your own self-loving narcissism and adoration of a moronic president you have become blind towards any facts on the matter.

That landfilling tons of lead from monitors, chopping down upwards of 30% of the US's entire tree canopy every 80 years to build subdivisions, and devestating massive amounts of fisheries and high end species like mountain lions causes problems that no amount of trillions in global warming spending could ever counteract.

That human beings going and hunting lions to prove that just because their "manhood" is small doesn't mean they can't needlessly kill endangered species is vastly more damaging than mercury from electricity production. Pretending your president, who promises to bankrupt a large majority of the US's GDP growing sectors (including nationalizing almost all US banks), isn't a complete douchebag won't help you actually solve any issues.

You picked one of the worst reasons to support Obama's plans... of all things to note... less mercury is #1000+ on my list of important things (and if nature had a list... she'd put it way lower)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZRL86q2rkBSw_2usQlo6UoGItZwD96O097O0

You can read some about what the "other side of the fence" is worried about. Namely their own poverty despite having PHDs etc


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm not dead set against CFLs or even long tube FLs (we use both kinds in our home and workshop). What happened here in canada is they want to ban incandescent bulbs completely because CFLs are considered good enough even though they they contain toxic materials that build up in the environment. My power comes from hydro so coal is not my problem. The choice should still me mine to make.

Things were already headed that way, but the government decided to get involved and pass another law to take yet another basic freedom away. You can bet that prices for CFLs and the better LEDs will go up once the law comes into effect.

Coal power's days are numbered, but if you decide to start knocking down an entire industry using public policy all you will end up with is more expensive power in a time when people area already having a hard time paying the bills. Let the free market work. The reality is that solar, wind, geothermal and others are on the rise all over the world even without politicians getting their thumbs in there. The less the government does to try and influence that, the better. Any company that can rise as a private enterprise will be more likely to stand the test of time.

The only - and I do mean only - reason that EVs are even being considered on a large scale is because of operating cost. The environment comes second as bad as that may sound. If electricity gets more expensive than gasoline because ~50% of the power production in the USA is banned, no one will be able to afford to 'fuel' their electric cars and we will be stuck with the other fossil fuels.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

O.K. two things,

First off I saw a comparison to America in the 1800's. In case anyone doesn't know the history, one of the biggest complaints in town centers in the 1800s was the overwhelming stench of horse manure. Lots of methane gas there by the way.

Second, producing electricity without coal is a wonderful idea. Now all we have to do is figure out how to do it cheaply and effectively so as not to bankrupt the entire nation based on the science of an invisible gas.

Besides, we are not the evil ones here. The Chinese are firing up a new coal plant every few days now. Its a pretty good bet they are not clean burning too.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> The only - and I do mean only - reason that EVs are even being considered on a large scale is because of operating cost. The environment comes second as bad as that may sound. If electricity gets more expensive than gasoline because ~50% of the power production in the USA is banned, no one will be able to afford to 'fuel' their electric cars and we will be stuck with the other fossil fuels.


Aren't solar panels even including initial cost and winter upkeep (if you need any snow removal) still way cheaper than paying for electricity for even 10 years?
I can't really recall the numbers off the top of my head... but a long term attitude is certainly a much better idea.

Though I don't like coal power (fusion and nuclear power certainly are better), it still has it's place in the grid right now.

I also like hydroelectricity, but all of the US's hydro power has be capped completely, not to mention the environmental effects of it are more severe than toxic waste.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

david85 said:


> Things were already headed that way, but the government decided to get involved and pass another law to take yet another basic freedom away. You can bet that prices for CFLs and the better LEDs will go up once the law comes into effect.


That's an excellent argument against legislation! I love CFLs, but the government passing a law to remove the lower cost alternatives will take away all incentives for businesses to push the costs of the new technology down.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Aren't solar panels even including initial cost and winter upkeep (if you need any snow removal) still way cheaper than paying for electricity for even 10 years?
> I can't really recall the numbers off the top of my head... but a long term attitude is certainly a much better idea.


True, but most people can't afford that kind of upfront investment and of those that did, they opted to just buy a bigger house instead (bank loans were also set up that way). Solar cell companies are for the most part at production capacity at the moment, so even if you did force power companies to use more solar power, actual solar power production could not increase because there are not enough quality panels to go around.

Long term I think the real solution is to generate power at the home itself (roof made of solar panels for example) and decentralize the power production itself. Instead of being power customers, we would then become power producers and feed into the grid what we don't use. Again, things are already headed in that direction and the best thing government can do is cut red tape or stay away completely.

Would bring new meaning to the term "power to the people". For once, we would no longer be at anyone else's discretion on how expensive our fuel costs, since we would make our "own electric" fuel at home. Now thats a world I would like to help build.



Technologic said:


> Though I don't like coal power (fusion and nuclear power certainly are better), it still has it's place in the grid right now.


You can'd stop burning coal anymore that you can stop burning crude oil, however long term only renewable energy is viable in the long term. Nuclear may have a role to play, but I'll admit to having a NIMBY atitude when it comes to that topic. I feel that in a world with so much renewable energy from the sun and some solar cells approaching 40% efficiency, nuclear here on earth is an old idea when you consider potential dangers.



Technologic said:


> I also like hydroelectricity, but all of the US's hydro power has be capped completely, not to mention the environmental effects of it are more severe than toxic waste.


Hydro certainly does have its limitations, but at least its clean. Far from perfect though and not completely renewable if silt ruins the reservoir.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

ClintK said:


> That's an excellent argument against legislation! I love CFLs, but the government passing a law to remove the lower cost alternatives will take away all incentives for businesses to push the costs of the new technology down.


It also plays into long term economic viability. The more you subsidize an industry, the lazier it gets.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> You can'd stop burning coal anymore that you can stop burning crude oil, however long term only renewable energy is viable in the long term. Nuclear may have a role to play, but I'll admit to having a NIMBY atitude when it comes to that topic. I feel that in a world with so much renewable energy from the sun and some solar cells approaching 40% efficiency, nuclear here on earth is an old idea when you consider potential dangers.


The sun only gives off a smaller part of it's energy in the form of photons though... what would be far more useful is something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

It doesn't need to be that large to capture a lot of heat energy, which is what most of the fusion produces (and by not large I mean clearly must be made out of single hundreds of thousands of mile long carbon nanotubes )

Fusion on earth is very viable and gives very large energy outputs. You just need tritium or deuterium... Deuterium is extremely common on earth, tritium isn't
Tritium is very very common on the moon though 

I also like the idea of using such a structure (in whatever form) to send high powered bursts of electron/photons to pour off antimatter 
Turn our sun into a pulsar.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> I also like the idea of using such a structure (in whatever form) to send high powered bursts of electron/photons to pour off antimatter
> Turn our sun into a pulsar.


I rest my NIMBY case LOL

(I have to admit, it does sound like fun)


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I look forward to what the "messiah" is able to accomplish re alternative energy. Seriously. This country wastes so much money on bullshit. He's spending 19 billion on AE, only 19? Compared to our budget for the year that is peanuts, squat! Had we been spending this for years now we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. 

I think it's Senator Reid the majority leader who is proposing a federal law to override the states ability to stop grid projects. I think this is an excellent idea that needs doing. There just hopefully will be some sensibilities applied to it so the feds can't just run roughshod over states wishes but after careful consideration with some checks built in of course, the benefit of the country as a whole must take precedent over local issues. 

I also think they need to get some shovels moving and fast or the feces is going to hit the rotary oscillator in the near future and it isn't going to be very pleasant.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> I look forward to what the "messiah" is able to accomplish re alternative energy. Seriously. This country wastes so much money on bullshit. He's spending 19 billion on AE, only 19? Compared to our budget for the year that is peanuts, squat! Had we been spending this for years now we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.


$19 billion dollars could EASILY form a massive super high mileage car company at reasonable prices... forever with no more input into it.

I don't think spending more is the answer... rather not spending it on moronic investors like Munk and such...


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> I think it's Senator Reid the majority leader who is proposing a federal law to override the states ability to stop grid projects. I think this is an excellent idea that needs doing. There just hopefully will be some sensibilities applied to it so the feds can't just run roughshod over states wishes but after careful consideration with some checks built in of course, the benefit of the country as a whole must take precedent over local issues.


I didn't think you were serious, but then I did a quick search on it...



> While states and the federal government would jointly develop "green" transmission plans for such areas, the proposal gives final say to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take land under eminent domain and issue construction permits if a project is determined to be stalled or killed by state action.


So a handful of politicians thousands of miles away are going to override my local government's decisions and build infrastructure where they decide? By its very definition they are removing the checks on power!

How will that NOT be abused? How is that NOT tyrannical? How will you feel when their green powerline must be built where your house is standing? What day did "remove your rights to benefit the country" become acceptable to say?

It's time to buy a rifle, my family is threatened.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

That is exactly why 20 some odd something states already have legislation proposed or in the works to stop the federal governments power trip.

The states have the right to do as they wish. The constitution is written very clearly. This administration is destroying our constitution every chance they get.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ClintK said:


> So a handful of politicians thousands of miles away are going to override my local government's decisions and build infrastructure where they decide? By its very definition they are removing the checks on power!
> 
> How will that NOT be abused? How is that NOT tyrannical? How will you feel when their green powerline must be built where your house is standing? What day did "remove your rights to benefit the country" become acceptable to say?
> 
> It's time to buy a rifle, my family is threatened.


yeah *sighs*

What a giant seizure of power and huge infringement upon the already destroyed rights of the states.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

The Feds are "supposed" to be limited to doing things good for the nation as a whole, the military, interstate commerce and things prohibited to the states. You don't think the national grid is beneficial for the entire country? I do. Again though, there must be restrictions clearly spelled out to prevent them from doing things without due process and due diligence.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> The Feds are "supposed" to be limited to doing things good for the nation as a whole, the military, interstate commerce and things prohibited to the states. You don't think the national grid is beneficial for the entire country? I do. Again though, there must be restrictions clearly spelled out to prevent them from doing things without due process and due diligence.


...... mind explaining what states are doing that the government needs to regulate?

Highway system certainly has been an appalling (and super expensive) failure so far... I don't like the idea of states going to the feds to make a new power station.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

ClintK said:


> It's time to buy a rifle, my family is threatened.


I recommend the XM8. It comes with an options package so you can customize it depending on the mission: sniper, light machine gun, concealed Personal Defense Weapon, regular rifle with an underslung 40mm grenade launcher... 

My personal choice for World War Z (which is a great book, by the way...)


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> The Feds are "supposed" to be limited to doing things good for the nation as a whole, the military, interstate commerce and things prohibited to the states. You don't think the national grid is beneficial for the entire country? I do. Again though, there must be restrictions clearly spelled out to prevent them from doing things without due process and due diligence.


The Great State of Texas (where I'm from and will be going back to at the end of the year) has its own power grid. http://www.slate.com/id/2087133/



> The state uses more electricity than any other, 44 percent more than runner-up California. Much of this is used by industrial customers such as petrochemical plants and oil refineries. Despite Texas' massive thirst for electricity, ERCOT has been able to provide cheap power with few service hiccups. In fact, Texas electricity is cheaper, per kilowatt hour, than the national average.


Interesting... the state that has its own power also has cheaper electricity. Texans don't need the rolling blackouts of California.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Technologic said:


> ...... mind explaining what states are doing that the government needs to regulate?
> 
> Highway system certainly has been an appalling (and super expensive) failure so far... I don't like the idea of states going to the feds to make a new power station.


What I was saying is that the feds are supposed to only handle things that I mentioned, not the vast array of things they have their hands in. If they stuck to what they're supposed to deal with maybe our economy wouldn't be in the tank. Instead they meddle where they shouldn't. A perfect example was the steroid issues of the pro ball players. That was a total waste of taxpayer money and their time when they could have been working to straighten out the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issues that McCain and Bush had expressed concerns about.

And the highways? While they may not be perfect, I know you're not old enough to remember but I am, the days of travel via two lane roads everywhere you went. What used to be an eight hour trip is now only 5-6 ours. I'm perfectly content with our interstate system. If I had to bitch it would be that there are still areas that need an interstate built.

OTOH, those trips were filled with sights and sounds you don't have much anymore, in my area anyway. Mom and Pop eateries, gas stations with two pumps, stores with wood floors etc. We've got two interstates that cross in my area so just about anywhere you want to go you can hit the interstate.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> And the highways? While they may not be perfect, I know you're not old enough to remember but I am, the days of travel via two lane roads everywhere you went. What used to be an eight hour trip is now only 5-6 ours. I'm perfectly content with our interstate system. If I had to bitch it would be that there are still areas that need an interstate built.
> 
> OTOH, those trips were filled with sights and sounds you don't have much anymore, in my area anyway. Mom and Pop eateries, gas stations with two pumps, stores with wood floors etc. We've got two interstates that cross in my area so just about anywhere you want to go you can hit the interstate.


Highways and such are massive cash cows... following a massive increase in taxation to fund them (well massive increase from pre-WWII days).

Also your shorter commute comes at a very steep cost. Your government not only uses a taxation system through traffic citations, they also must obey federal regulations in order to get any funding whatsoever.

Many states offered drinking ages of 18 etc prior to the highway system... now no state does (namely because they'd be denied funding from the feds if they did).

Of course I could name a lot more things the highway system has removed as rights, but I think it's obvious that your convenience in this matter has cost money... and also highways would have likely existed by now in a similar faction if the feds didn't step in and start progressive taxation.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Highways and such are massive cash cows... following a massive increase in taxation to fund them (well massive increase from pre-WWII days).
> 
> Also your shorter commute comes at a very steep cost. Your government not only uses a taxation system through traffic citations, they also must obey federal regulations in order to get any funding whatsoever.
> 
> ...


South Carolina is still lacking in four lane roads. They won't do it for spending the money on other BS. Most of our highways are still two lane. I travel to Georgia periodically which has been widening roads for years non stop but SC hasn't. Thus when making this trip it takes a while to get to the state line but once I do we travel via 4 lane which makes the trips much more bearable. 

Yes it may be expensive but the funds needed to maintain it are nothing percentage wise of the federal budget. I just wish they would stick to their job and stop with the pet projects.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Highways and such are massive cash cows...


I might have to disagree with you a little on that one (perhaps more of a necessary evil). 

On vancouver island where I live, there used to be only a 2 lane highway to connect the cities on the northern half together and it often went right through the main drag of each town on the east coast of the island. Also since if followed the shoreline, there were more hazardous sections to deal with since the road was mostly 2 lanes and winding much of the time. Many were killed on that highway and it was often called a "glorified cattle run".

This made travel time consuming and dangerous for anyone that had to use that highway.

About 7 years ago a 4 lane inland highway was opened with proper center dividers and medians with a much more direct route and higher speed limit. I use that highway often as a part of my line of work and its much better than the old one. Travel time is less and having 2 lanes in both directions allows a much more efficient flow of traffic as vehicles of different cruising speeds no longer hold up traffic.

Indeed to this day there are parts of the trans canada highway that are still not 4 lanes. A national embarrassment.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I might have to disagree with you a little on that one (perhaps more of a necessary evil).
> 
> Indeed to this day there are parts of the trans canada highway that are still not 4 lanes. A national embarrassment.


I'm not against highways... I'm against nationalization and lack of competition in any industry...

The high costs, horrible time tables, bad contracts, lazy workers at road sites is just an example of a very corrupted and far off out of touch system.

If states competed with other states for people to live there instead of the federal government attempting to "socialize" the entire country into a single mediocre body we'd be a lot better off.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Don't they use private contractors for public highway projects?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Don't they use private contractors for public highway projects?


Depends on the state... generally they are given contracts to do work but it's impossible to lose the work.

Similar to the what $60 billion they'd spent to make the Raptor fighter plane... no matter how overbudget they can't lose the contract.

I wouldn't really think that's anything ideal... just look at how poorly Lockhead Martin is run.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Depends on the state... generally they are given contracts to do work but it's impossible to lose the work.
> 
> Similar to the what $60 billion they'd spent to make the Raptor fighter plane... no matter how overbudget they can't lose the contract.
> 
> I wouldn't really think that's anything ideal... just look at how poorly Lockhead Martin is run.


Defense contractors control military procurement, not the government. I have too many personal experiences with this at my work. The regulations Washington politicians set up are the reason why.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Let's just premise for premise make you look foolish then


 The sign of a man that's running out of arguments: Trying to make someone look foolish. What's next? Are you gonna start correcting my spelling errors?



> You're probably one of those people that are anti-nuclear power as well?


And you're clearly one of those people that makes incorrect and baseless assumptions about others.
I'm against anything and anyone that causes me to DIE. I consider nuclear plants to be safer than coal. But more to the point, I do not see this matter in black & white. I tend to place energy sources on a scale based on their level of pollution and danger to the general public. Coal is towards the bottom, nuclear is alittle higher though not quite as good as renewables.


> Do you have any statistics to show that even 50% of those lightbulbs are recycled... I'm sure less than 10% are


Nope - I don't know. Same way I don't know about the % of aluminum cans that are recycled. I'm not in politics or in a poisition to change that statistic significantly (other than doing my own recycling).


> Ok? what does this matter?
> Are you suggesting that gasifying mercury is more dangerous than dumping it in a landfill? I highly doubt that's the case.


Nope just that CFL bulbs = less mercury.


> Oh work is being done... got it... what a virtuous reason to vote for a president that not only promises to make medical doctors in the same salary bracket as bus drivers, but intends to press the country into 9-11 trillion dollars in deficit spending... and raise taxes for the hardest working americans to 70%+... clearly they're _working on_ it
> I never said I was against CFLs... I think he was just pointing out that through your own self-loving narcissism and adoration of a moronic president you have become blind towards any facts on the matter.


The current president inherited a huge deficit from the previous one. I don't "adore" him, or trust him, or any other politician for that matter. I don't know wheather the presidents policies will improve things at all, BUT, my other option was to vote for more of the same bullsh*t, so I picked what I thought was the lesser of 2 evils. So far, I haven't regretted that decision despite not agreeing with all his policies.


> That landfilling tons of lead from monitors, chopping down upwards of 30% of the US's entire tree canopy every 80 years to build subdivisions, and devestating massive amounts of fisheries and high end species like mountain lions causes problems that no amount of trillions in global warming spending could ever counteract.
> That human beings going and hunting lions to prove that just because their "manhood" is small doesn't mean they can't needlessly kill endangered species is vastly more damaging than mercury from electricity production.


I'm not disagreeing with any of this.


> Pretending your president, who promises to bankrupt a large majority of the US's GDP growing sectors (including nationalizing almost all US banks), isn't a complete douchebag won't help you actually solve any issues.


The banks screwed up on their own under the last president. If they hadn;t screwed up, nationalization wouldn;t be an issue. Quite frankly I couldn't give a rats ass what happens to them now.


> You picked one of the worst reasons to support Obama's plans... of all things to note... less mercury is #1000+ on my list of important things (and if nature had a list... she'd put it way lower)
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZRL86q2rkBSw_2usQlo6UoGItZwD96O097O0
> You can read some about what the "other side of the fence" is worried about. Namely their own poverty despite having PHDs etc


Your list is different than mine and this is why our opinion differ. Your opinion is driven by the almighty $$$. My opinions are are driven by other considerations. Once you stop defining yourself by money, you may be able to see past it and on to other more imprtant issues. I'm not going to even read the links above but based on the URL's I'll take a wild guess and say they are about tax hikes. A controversial issue and of course one that we're all almost unanimously against. That's how Obama wants to decrease some of the deficit. Bush did it by getting us 1.5 trillion $$ in debt. There's no "good" way out of it and no matter which path the corrupt politicians take when it comes to money. there will always be people that are opposed to it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I just found out that Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research so I need to run to the kitchen and throw a few fetuses in the blender for my mid-afternoon protein shake.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

namyzarc said:


> Your list is different than mine and this is why our opinion differ. Your opinion is driven by the almighty $$$. My opinions are are driven by other considerations.


If it's not in your considerations then don't expect to ever have access to money to support your "other considerations".

If you have such "moral obligations" that must be fulfilled... spend your life and your effort to fulfill them not the effort of others or their money. 

If you're ok with that, so am I... I don't mind you doing whatever makes you happy... just don't expect anyone to have the right to pull money from others to pay for those things.

You didn't even really refute anything I said... so I can only imagine that you neither care or don't feel threatened by the intelligent and fiscally prosperous individuals in this country (or anywhere)... 

Just reminds me of the attitudes Orwen Boyle and Ellsworth Toohey had... you expect the money will always be there... people with intelligence realize that's not the case. Likewise, your "considerations", cost money... money neither you nor anyone like Obama has the capacity to earn for themselves (nor the desire to earn). You turn others into slaves to feed your "considerations"... and I hate any politicians or any people that attempt to do that.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

namyzarc said:


> The current president inherited a huge deficit from the previous one. I don't "adore" him, or trust him, or any other politician for that matter. I don't know wheather the presidents policies will improve things at all, BUT, my other option was to vote for more of the same bullsh*t, so I picked what I thought was the lesser of 2 evils. So far, I haven't regretted that decision despite not agreeing with all his policies.


You voted for a democrat, same ole spending orgy, different stuff, different party. I voted for Bob the Libertarian. Libertarians believe in smaller government, less intrusion into your personal business, legalization of pot and prostitution, which would bring in a ton of $$$ in taxes and remove the criminal element of it I believe which would reduce the load on law enforcement. I drug test my people and don't tolerate drug use just like I wouldn't tolerate one working while under the influence of alcohol. And if a woman wants to sell her stuff that's her business. It's not any of mine or the governments business. They can regulate it and tax it like any other commodity.

Never again will I vote for the "lesser of 2 evils". Done that ever since Reagan and we get shit on every time, democratic and republican alike. I'm a fiscal conservative but moderate socially. Moderate in that I believe the government needs to get the hell out of peoples life and a hell of a lot more out of our pocketbook. While I know the government needs some revenue but nothing like what they take from us now. And Technologic is right, there was no income tax pre WWI which was temporary and killed afterwards only to be revived during WWII and growing every since.


namyzarc said:


> The banks screwed up on their own under the last president. If they hadn;t screwed up, nationalization wouldn;t be an issue. Quite frankly I couldn't give a rats ass what happens to them now.


I'll second that.



namyzarc said:


> Now, if you'll excuse me, I just found out that Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research so I need to run to the kitchen and throw a few fetuses in the blender for my mid-afternoon protein shake.


If I remember correctly, the only restriction on stem cell research was using MY money to fund it using stem cells from fetuses. *I don't want my money going to fund that!* There are other ways to do stem cell research and I don't GARA if it costs more, don't use my money for it!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Hey all you Libs....

If you really want to tax to reduce emissions, here is one I would support.

Create a germ that causes 90% sterility around the world, and provide the "cure" only to the wealthy. No one gets hurt; no poor people left next generation to need a bailout (or, for that matter, to allow the "rich" to live life on their arses); and the number one emission that causes pollution (the same one that causes people) is reduced 90%.

Shouldn't cost more than a couple of billion, I would guess - and we could knock off all this silly "Carbon Credits" nonsense.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Sounds good to me.....
Oh Look! Obama's wife was worth quite a bit in Illinois, or was she....

At the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 
24th, 2009, was a short column entitled "Replacing Michelle" in the 
National Review "The Week" column. I found this interesting, so here it 
is, word for word, as it appeared two days ago......

'Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The 
University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run "programs 
for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, 
staff diversity and minority contracting."

In 2005 the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 - 
nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.

Oh did we mention that
her husband had just become a US Senator? He sure had. Requested a $1 
Million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact. Way to network 
Michelle!

But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position 
will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital 
enough to be worth $317,000?


We can think of only one explanation: Senator Roland Burris's wife 
wasn't interested.

---The Editors of National Review, writing in the Magazine's Feb 
9 issue.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

"Change!" 

You got it young people, now bend over.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Coley said:


> Sounds good to me.....
> Oh Look! Obama's wife was worth quite a bit in Illinois, or was she....
> 
> At the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January
> ...


ROFL!

Now I'm sure she has some lovely parting gifts for the visiting heads of State. Just imagine what she has picked out; no doubt she helped Obama with his tough selection for Gordon Brown...


----------



## 280z1975 (Oct 2, 2008)

I don't think the "germ" for sterility should be the cure ... it should be genetic-manipulation (using the recent stem cell research reversal to make it happen) where EVERYONE in the world is infected with a gene that makes thier ablity to procreate directly linked to thier inteligence, thereby weeding out the stupid peopl of the world.

See it's stupid people who got us into this mess ... people who wanted a home bigger than thier neighbors and took out a loan for WAY more than they could afford. A couple of years back my wife and I were apprroved for a mortgage of over 300k canadian for home loan, but I didn't go for a home that big. I bought a small apartment instead and had a 10 year loan at less than rent would have been on the same apartment. Best part is when we sold the apartment a year later (we moved to Europe) I made 20k profit. 

The problem isn't Libs or Conservitives, it's stupid people.....


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

280z1975 said:


> I don't think the "germ" for sterility should be the cure ... it should be genetic-manipulation (using the recent stem cell research reversal to make it happen) where EVERYONE in the world is infected with a gene that makes thier ablity to procreate directly linked to thier inteligence, thereby weeding out the stupid peopl of the world.
> 
> See it's stupid people who got us into this mess ... people who wanted a home bigger than thier neighbors and took out a loan for WAY more than they could afford. A couple of years back my wife and I were apprroved for a mortgage of over 300k canadian for home loan, but I didn't go for a home that big. I bought a small apartment instead and had a 10 year loan at less than rent would have been on the same apartment. Best part is when we sold the apartment a year later (we moved to Europe) I made 20k profit.
> 
> The problem isn't Libs or Conservatives, it's stupid people.....


And liberals (isn't that a mental disorder?) who passed the Community Reinvestment Act, and Bill Clinton's administration's pressure to lower loan qualifications even further. Barack Obama has also been a part of it as I understand it in that he sued Citi bank to urge them to make more loans to "sub prime" borrowers. 

And Bush and McCain both sounded warnings that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were treading in dangerous territory and needed some type oversight/reregulation or something. However our liberal republicans who got their asses handed to them in November over their stupidity and spending orgy didn't help either as they were drunk on power or something and didn't do squat to deal with the monsters the democrats created!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

ElectriCar said:


> And liberals (isn't that a mental disorder?) who passed the Community Reinvestment Act, and Bill Clinton's administration's pressure to lower loan qualifications even further. Barack Obama has also been a part of it as I understand it in that he sued Citi bank to urge them to make more loans to "sub prime" borrowers.


I was wondering if some one would bring that up. The programs were intended to counter the so called "red lining" effect in larger cities where more run down neighborhoods were denied basic services and access to credit. Racism is also said to have played a role in this.

Government stepped in and put a stop to it by making banks give out more risky loans to people that couldn't normally get it (some indeed did deserve the chance). Banks naturally fought this at first, but eventually they embraced the idea with dangerous enthusiasm and the bubble started to inflate as mortgage brokers tried to sell as many loans as possible to get as much commissions as possible. Welcome to sub prime mortgages....

In canada things were headed that way, but never got that bad. Red lining was never as bad in canada, and government never intervened to reverse the practice, so banks were for the most part free to manage their own affairs. 10 years ago you had to automatically put 40% down to buy a new house, unless you were a first time buyer, then it was only 5%. Roughly 5 years ago, the 5% rule was adopted for everyone, and in 2008 a zero down home buyers loan became possible but thankfully, credit history was not falsified nearly as often in the states.

Not to really toot my horn, look at the canadian banks now. Not one is in default. Not one has been bailed out, and some still showed a profit at the most recent quarter. Its only the damn automakers that need cash. We canadians are far from perfect, but sometimes we do get it right I guess.


----------



## BangerMan (Dec 30, 2007)

I voted for the better guy. The one who is not a Rush Limbaugh clone gone bad. 
The Republicans have almost destroyed this country and you complain about the democrats. 
The banks being bought by the government (socialism) is a process started by the republican party. 
There are some hard choices that need to be made by all. Time to grow up and work to solve our country's problems (that only got worse after 8 years of having a group of clowns lead the country). One of our problems is the oil industry. We need to get rid of it for the health of our economy and our people. 

In my opinion Rush Limbaugh is the perfect example of the Republican party. Just a dope head and sex pervert. 

If this president can not solve the problems caused by the republicans then we have to establish another 3rd party. One for Americans that work (for themselves) and have a moral leaning.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

BangerMan said:


> \
> 
> In my opinion Rush Limbaugh is the perfect example of the Republican party. Just a dope head and sex pervert.
> 
> If this president can not solve the problems caused by the republicans then we have to establish another 3rd party. One for Americans that work (for themselves) and have a moral leaning.


I'm curious what you believe spending from either party will solve in a situation such as a recession or depression.

Only one thing can satisfactorily shift debt into capital and that is savings (old world pre-keynesian economic theory). The idea that the government can turn debt into capital isn't true, they can only turn debt into greater debt.

What can turn debt into capital is economic growth from lower taxes, less social programs and less nationalization of industries (as many as we can get by without nationalizing). 

Nationalizing the banks is clearly not necessary, nationalizing health care as well a very bad idea and costly. 

Republicans got us into this because Bush was a horrible president. Kerry and Al Gore would have undergone the same sort of horrible behavior.

If you voted for the "lesser of 2 evils" you can also trust that Americans did the same with President Bush? or is that only the case now with Obama?

Likewise, I'm curious if you know enough about history to really examine steps being taken and the outcomes that will inevitably come as result of those steps. You might feel that obama's nationalization of everything will "be better", but your opinion on the matter is actually irrelevant to the truth of what will happen.

Nationalization can only cause a few things. 1) extremely high prices for whatever service/good 2) lack of innovation 3) large volumes of importation to sustain a non-innovative industry and 4) entitlement and labor reduction

If you are curious about the potential damage that nationalizing any business can cause, please look at the history of the once wealthiest per capita country in the world (right after WWII) Argentina. 
You can see the swift destruction of the buorgeouise and the horrible results including massive poverty, feudalism, and abandoned public works projects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Peron

If you do not fear massive spending will result in the same fate, I'm unsure what to say to you at all. Whether large government is made by republicans or democrats isn't relevant... all that matters is the government is getting larger, and reducing the capital of the country as it spends wildly.
The results are the same no matter who's the one doing the spending, or what letter (R or D) is next to their name.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

For the first time in my life I'm concerned that the good ol' USA may be on the verge of bankruptcy. We have little manufacturing base anymore and have been a net importer now for what 3 decades? Being a net importer means money is leaving the country at a higher rate than is coming in thus our country is getting poorer every day. 

Exporting cotton and rice to Europe after founding this nation is what got America on her feet to start with. That began to build wealth and there was no government to TAKE their money in the form of income taxes until WWI. 

The farmers and shipping companies began to acquire wealth and put men to work. Those men spent their money making more people wealthy and the economy grew. 

Now they gov. taxes the hell out of anyone who makes a dollar, the unions and minimum wage along with taxes from hell have screwed our country into the uncompetitive nation we are now. We can't compete with the world for manufacturing except for aircraft and high tech items so everything is made elsewhere and of course we all buy it sending more money out of the country.

If something doesn't give this country will be screwed I feel in 10-20 years if it takes that long.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> If something doesn't give this country will be screwed I feel in 10-20 years if it takes that long.


Unless Ron Paul (or other Libertarian) wins in 2012, I'm predicting the fall will be 2017 when social security starts taking more money than it gives.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Funny how libertarians and conservatives often profess the same basic economic ideals.......

I wish I had an answer other than burn them all.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

david85 said:


> Funny how libertarians and conservatives often profess the same basic economic ideals.......
> 
> I wish I had an answer other than burn them all.


I wish the government would try to be economically conservative for a change. Doesn't matter if its a Republican or Democrat in office, the budget always grows.


----------



## BangerMan (Dec 30, 2007)

About all our country can do is hope that this new Obama guy can do get us out of the hole that the so called conservatives put us in. All of this liberal and conservative crap is just labels which are meaningless. Even Ronald Reagan drove up the deficit and hardly (if ever) went to church, yet he is the conservative hero. What we need is a viable third party that is big enough to prevent either the Dems or Repubs from ever having total control again. Hopefully we will not have the same mistake of nature as H. Ross Perot. Then we might get a government that works for the people. 

If we do what you say and do not let the government re-invest then we will have to let the recession or depression run its course. That could last as long or as longer than what Japan went through. About history, remember Japans lost decade in the 90's? 

This is all an experiment. Who cares if you call it Keynesian or whatever. We are all the rats in this experiment. The Republicans gave us a bad disease and now all we can do is hope that Obama has some medicine that works. If our economy gets bad enough, we will have to make some hard decisions on what needs to be sacrificed. Is it health, defense, roads, entitlements (medicare, medicade and also which includes military retirees by the way)? What sacrifices are we willing to go through?

Can we sit by and see whole families on the side of the street beging for food? Do we sit by and watch people die by the side of the road because our health care is unaffordable? I have seen ALL this in other countries and I do not want to see that here. 

Socialism was started in 2008 by the Republicans and so what if the democrats have to continue it. 

I have worked in the defense industry for 20 years and I have never seen it so bad. We are producing way over priced crap that can not come close to meeting its requirements because the governments oversight is non-existant. The same is being told by folks in the FAA, FDA and etc.

But of course if you only listen to Fox News then you know none of this. It was all wonderful. 

Sorry about the rant but I work around a bunch slow thinking Fox News slugs. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielley are their gods. They exist on short term memory and the need to have their opinions provided. Accountability is the same as blasphemy to them.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

BangerMan said:


> About all our country can do is hope that this new Obama guy can do get us out of the hole that the so called conservatives put us in. All of this liberal and conservative crap is just labels which are meaningless. Even Ronald Reagan drove up the deficit and hardly (if ever) went to church, yet he is the conservative hero. What we need is a viable third party that is big enough to prevent either the Dems or Repubs from ever having total control again. Hopefully we will not have the same mistake of nature as H. Ross Perot. Then we might get a government that works for the people.


Only a fool wouldn't recognize what Reagan did... whether you like it or not, he turned around the giant mess of Jimmy Carter by simply lowering taxes.... His spending tapered off by the end of his presidency as well (decreasing quite a bit deficit wise). He turned the NYSE DJIA from being worth 1050 to over 8900 by the time his presidency was over, simply from tax reductions.



> If we do what you say and do not let the government re-invest then we will have to let the recession or depression run its course. That could last as long or as longer than what Japan went through. About history, remember Japans lost decade in the 90's?
> 
> This is all an experiment. Who cares if you call it Keynesian or whatever. We are all the rats in this experiment. The Republicans gave us a bad disease and now all we can do is hope that Obama has some medicine that works. If our economy gets bad enough, we will have to make some hard decisions on what needs to be sacrificed. Is it health, defense, roads, entitlements (medicare, medicade and also which includes military retirees by the way)? What sacrifices are we willing to go through?


What disease did Reagan give you exactly? I think it's clear maybe Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. could easily be to blame for much of the inflationary spending, but they did so through increases in taxation, not reductions



> Can we sit by and see whole families on the side of the street beging for food? Do we sit by and watch people die by the side of the road because our health care is unaffordable? I have seen ALL this in other countries and I do not want to see that here.


Yes... you can... if you want freedom... You can not have Freedom and equality... you can have slaves and equality of slaves... or freedom and the inequality of the *MIND*. Some people are intelligent some people aren't... Read the Bell Curve and subsequent sibling studies... in general people make money based upon their intelligence, not upon some kind of idea you seem to think exists where people don't "reap what they sow" to coin church dogma.



> Socialism was started in 2008 by the Republicans and so what if the democrats have to continue it.
> 
> I have worked in the defense industry for 20 years and I have never seen it so bad. We are producing way over priced crap that can not come close to meeting its requirements because the governments oversight is non-existant. The same is being told by folks in the FAA, FDA and etc.


So what if the democrats have to continue it? *rubs eyes*... you're right there's no reason to worry that the US will be destroyed... I'm hoping I can move away long before then.


> But of course if you only listen to Fox News then you know none of this. It was all wonderful.
> 
> Sorry about the rant but I work around a bunch slow thinking Fox News slugs. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielley are their gods. They exist on short term memory and the need to have their opinions provided. Accountability is the same as blasphemy to them.


I don't listen to anyone... unless you wrote a political philosophy book I probably couldn't even tell you what people in hollywood or news programs think.

I listen to logic and rationality, something your argument here has lacked entirely.

Your idea that "who cares if we continue stupidity because republicans were also stupid" is ridiculous.

Sort of ashamed again that I live and vote in a place that allows such foolishness to have a voice.
You act as if Reagan was a terrible president and though he was flawed, he wasn't anywhere near as bad as what we've been stuck with for the last decade or so.

Have you noticed a trend here? that unbelievably intelligent men once ran this country... men like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, etc that not only were amazing orators and writers, but humble and attempted to limit government control and monetary spending as much as possible.

That attitude is dead... you are bitching about stuff that's happened in the last 15 years when almost every tenant of government is broken. Telling someone that "let's help the poor more" now is about as worthwhile a fix as licking drywall. Neither will get you any closer to fixing the root causes... and likely just hasten the demise.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

If Bush (and all the other Republicans in Congress from 2000 to 2008) were fiscally conservative, then I would agree that it is a disaster.

But, Bush does not equal fiscally conservative.

A fiscally conservative government hasn't been tried in a -long- time.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> You can not have Freedom and equality... you can have slaves and equality of slaves... or freedom and the inequality of the *MIND*.


Maybe I'm too optimistic about my outlook on life, but I'd still like to think that freedom and equality do not have to be mutually exclusive. However true equality means no special recognition of visible, cultural or sexual minorities. Something that seems unlikely to ever be seen in my lifetime considering things are moving steadily in the other direction.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Maybe I'm too optimistic about my outlook on life, but I'd still like to think that freedom and equality do not have to be mutually exclusive.


People are intrinsically unequal. A person that has an IQ of 140 is over 7 standard deviations above the average person... if you take that on a scale of production, such a person could in theory produce 7 times the amount a normal person does (though standard deviations is actually more exponential increases than linear ones, meaning they likely produce like e^7 more or something similar).

That's inequality, plain and simple. There's just nothing wrong with that kind of inequality.

Some IQ scores (many of the theoretical untestable levels of 160-200) can be as high as 14-18 standard deviations above the common person.

There's very little that needs explained about such things... such people will always have the capacity to produce more than the average person... and therefore things will intrinsically be more unequal as people are more free.

People should embrace such facts with humility. The problem is the more unintelligent you are the more intelligent you feel. Don't ask me why... it's probably just leftover evolutionary genes that are attempting to kill off those people from their own arrogance.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

280z1975 said:


> I don't think the "germ" for sterility should be the cure ... it should be genetic-manipulation (using the recent stem cell research reversal to make it happen) where EVERYONE in the world is infected with a gene that makes thier ablity to procreate directly linked to thier inteligence, thereby weeding out the stupid peopl of the world.


"Intelligence" is a tricky thing. Some people have test scores higher than Mt. Everest yet can't tie their shoelaces. It also speaks nothing to motivation. I prefer a simpler test, such as "being productive." What that equates to in our society is a person who does things that others find valuable - the greatest form of Democracy, also known as the "free market."

P.S. Always use spell-check when discussing stupid people!!!





> See it's stupid people who got us into this mess ... people who wanted a home bigger than thier neighbors and took out a loan for WAY more than they could afford. A couple of years back my wife and I were apprroved for a mortgage of over 300k canadian for home loan, but I didn't go for a home that big. I bought a small apartment instead and had a 10 year loan at less than rent would have been on the same apartment. Best part is when we sold the apartment a year later (we moved to Europe) I made 20k profit.
> 
> The problem isn't Libs or Conservitives, it's stupid people.....


Well, that's partly right. However, I'll point out that it was Republicans who did not adhere to fiscally Conservative principles (and therefore are not really Conservative) who most let us down - we expect irresponsible spending from Dems.

We need a new party - one based on the science of Ethical Government. Everything Government ought to do can be reduced to a couple of simple principles:

- The individual is Sovereign except in cases where exercising that Sovereignty infringes directly on others (causes "harm," which does NOT include "hurt feelings").
- Stealing is wrong, but excusable by government (taxation) if it is done in direct support of maintaining the principle above
- Corrollary to #2 - It is unethical and a direct conflict of interest (and should therefore be absolutely prohibited) for government to provide any benefit to any group of individuals in the form of tax money taken from one group and given AS MONEY to another. 
- Exception to #3 could be food, shelter, and clothing - however, since doing so leads only to corruption if those recipients are voting Citizens, such recipients should be disqualified from voting (to prevent voting themselves more of other people's money) and having children (to prevent perpetuating that state). This would allow our Society to care for these people, but does not lock us in to shovelling money at them to let them continue living in homes they cannot afford, etc. Such remittances of voting and fertility rights should be reversible upon demonstration of 2 years' independence from Government benefit.
- Lying, when it results in violation of any of the above, is Fraud and should be criminally punishable. 
- Government officials should specifically NOT be exempt from any of these rules.

I think I'm getting close to a book. When the market is allowed to operate, we are becoming so productive that we ought to be able to do all of the things the Libs want (on a budget) while maintaining the Ethics which have been absent in our government for so long.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

BangerMan said:


> About all our country can do is hope that this new Obama guy can do get us out of the hole that the so called conservatives put us in.


Congress put us here, not Conservatives. It has been a joint effort.

Obama's only tool seems to be a shovel for digging us into deeper debt, and other "Weapons of Wealth Destruction."


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Good post Phantom. I've decided the Libertarian is going to get my vote until a Republican is running who has demonstrated he's fiscally conservative and meets my expectations otherwise. I can live with some positions contrary my own but we HAVE TO elect some fiscal conservatives in order for this country to survive. 

This spending orgy they've been on except for the most part Clinton over the last several decades must stop! It appears the desire to be re-elected overrides all sense of responsibility the wishes of the people for spending restraint.

I really think times are going to be much rougher in the coming years. I don't see how it can't but that's not my field of expertise. At some point were going to have lenders tell us our debt to income is too high and they're not going to lend us any more money. Soon after it's going to get really painful.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ya, I don't know that elections can solve our problem. The problem is that everyone, even homeless crazy people, have a vote. That was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

At this point I'm investigating moving to a fairly free country with fiscally conservative policies. NZ is high on our list - they just trashed the Libs because they (finally) figured out that perpetual motion doesn't work and that they can't afford those dewy-eyed ideas.

Money talks, everything else needs to take a hike. I don't want to keep supporting 6 illegal immigrants and welfare octo-babies with my tax money.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Ya, I don't know that elections can solve our problem. The problem is that everyone, even homeless crazy people, have a vote. That was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
> 
> At this point I'm investigating moving to a fairly free country with fiscally conservative policies. NZ is high on our list - they just trashed the Libs because they (finally) figured out that perpetual motion doesn't work and that they can't afford those dewy-eyed ideas.
> 
> Money talks, everything else needs to take a hike. I don't want to keep supporting 6 illegal immigrants and welfare octo-babies with my tax money.


Should look into Norway and Sweden as well Phantom...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Should look into Norway and Sweden as well Phantom...


Hehe - I've dropped bombs there (the little practice variety - 22lbs with a phosphorus smoke charge) but that lattitude is too cold for my old bones!

Iceland was teriffic, too - but their economy is a shambles and they are too Socialistic for my tastes.

Ireland might be ok, but I'm afraid they will get subsumed into the EU (Economic Uncertainty). Since Australia confiscated their people's guns their freedom meter has been rapidly declining.

The choices are rapidly dwindling. However, another possibility is coming to light. Enough of the States have recently posed legislation to reconfirm their States Rights that the possibility of a secession or two may not be impossible.

I always did like Texas...


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I always did like Texas...


You can't beat the Great State of Texas. My 'corridor for living' is North of I-10, South of I-20, within 100 miles either side of I-35. That keeps you North of Mexico (Mexico starts at I-10), away from the desert to the West and away from Louisiana. Closer to Oklahoma is okay, but not advisable.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ClintK said:


> You can't beat the Great State of Texas. My 'corridor for living' is North of I-10, South of I-20, within 100 miles either side of I-35. That keeps you North of Mexico (Mexico starts at I-10), away from the desert to the West and away from Louisiana. Closer to Oklahoma is okay, but not advisable.


Hehe - I always knew "Texaco" was really just mis-spelled for "Texico".

Oklahoma - too flat. Dallas - too desert. Problem is finding work away from those, but weather is good enough in Texas that commuting by plane would be an option.

There was a comic posting somewhere that if Texas DID seceed, they'd have all the oil and refining capability of the nation (among other things). Batteries will work for cars in general within a few years, but they'll still need gas for planes for some time to come.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I hope South Carolina secedes. Of course our state can't seem to manage its' money either so I don't really know if it'd make much difference but I'd like to give it a shot. We pay entirely too much in federal taxes.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

Texas is one of the few states not in a budget crisis right now.

Taken from http://www.texasgovernment.info/budget.html



> Texas has four constitutional limits on spending: a “pay-as-you-go,” or balanced budget, limit; a limit on welfare spending; a limit on the rate of growth of appropriations from certain state taxes; and a limit on debt service.


(And the state doesn't have an income tax.)


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Its no wonder they call texas a bunch of ********. A man has the right to defend himself, welfare is limited as well as taxation and they still ballance the books? Yeah, they must be stopped....


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Since Australia confiscated their people's guns their freedom meter has been rapidly declining.


Nobody confiscated our guns, man... 

The govt did a voluntary buy-back of certain guns that people couldn't really justify having, but there are heaps more registered guns now than ever before.

So much so that the tabloid papers recently ran a scare campaign about how "threatened" our society is by these large numbers of guns.

Ignoring the fact that most crime is committed by UNREGISTERED guns and so on...

Come to Australia and see for yourself, even for a vacation. It's been described "like California but with nicer people and better schools".


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Nobody confiscated our guns, man...
> 
> The govt did a voluntary buy-back of certain guns that people couldn't really justify having, but there are heaps more registered guns now than ever before.
> 
> ...


We intend to visit there and have several good friends there as well.

As for your take on the guns, all I can say is that for a country that DIDN'T confiscate all the guns there certainly are a large number of news stories to the contrary, along with personal accounts from our friends and statistics comparing crime before and after.

Don't get me wrong - I've never met an Aussie I didn't like. Their squadron in south Germany (before they packed up) was a fun bunch of blokes, and I recently spent time with one of your test pilots on the C-130 program (and she was a looker!).

Really, Australia is a player also. Heritage Foundation ranks them #3 all around in Freedom in the world, with New Zealand being #5. I just have concerns that they are headed the wrong direction, while New Zealand is moving back towards a better free market model.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> We intend to visit there and have several good friends there as well.
> 
> As for your take on the guns, all I can say is that for a country that DIDN'T confiscate all the guns there certainly are a large number of news stories to the contrary, along with personal accounts from our friends and statistics comparing crime before and after.
> 
> ...


Wow, North Korea is funny and sad at the same time. http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/NorthKorea


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> ...This spending orgy they've been on ... must stop! It appears the desire to be re-elected overrides all sense of responsibility the wishes of the people for spending restraint.
> 
> I really think times are going to be much rougher in the coming years. I don't see how it can't but that's not my field of expertise. _At some point were going to have lenders tell us our debt to income is too high and they're not going to lend us any more money._ Soon after it's going to get really painful.



It's already started. 
"Chinese worried about US Treasury holdings."

Third paragraph:
"Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference Friday after the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."


----------



## Quadranut (Dec 11, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Nobody confiscated our guns, man...
> 
> The govt did a voluntary buy-back of certain guns that people couldn't really justify having, but there are heaps more registered guns now than ever before.
> 
> ...


Dunno about schools or California but I agree with you on the tabloids and unregistered guns.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

When it comes to gun control, you need to focus on enforcement of more basic laws that organized crime routinely ignore and are able to get around. Adding more laws like a gun registry are only aimed at punishing law obiding cirizens because the politicians lack the spines to go after the real criminals. Gun control doesn't work, Its been proven time and again.

Canada's gun registry is the stuff of legands thanks to political correctness, victim's advocates that can'd see past their own noses, and politicians that like slush funds (1000% over budget). It should have been replealed a long time ago and the funds diverted to law enforcement, but to this day its still in place.

1.6 billion dollars of my tax dollars and its still in place, RRRrrrr!


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

Singapore is a serious option for me to live and commute to work from.

One of the wealthest countries, english as the national language, and easily the most limited government in the world.

Only 12% of the GDP is spent via the government or through government assets.

Top tax rates are only 15% FLAT tax.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Have any of you guys seen this yet?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=441320645893216983&hl=en

Not saying I believe it all, but there is some detailed explaination for world wide carbon taxes near the end (2H long).


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Are there one or more elite groups striving for global totalitarian government?

Most certainly.

Is it anything new?

Not at all.

Is Obama a sock-puppet for one of these groups?

Undoubtedly.

Will he be successful?

I hope not.


----------

