Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 51
An Inconvient Dog Ate My HomeworkPage 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Obama is like G-D, he gives people cheeses, and some lady in Florida, he buys her a house and her gas is FREE!! and imagine now he gives $8B to some company because he is full of love for the little man, the oppressed utilities, those poor unfortunate utilities just struggling to make it day to day until THE ONE smiled upon them and voila', like magic, $8B.

My heart is warmed. I cannot believe the generosity of the great leader. it is a thing of awe. How did we live before he smiled upon us?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 52
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/16/2010 2:32:29 PM

Obama is going to give up 8 billion


If he's offering to pay for them, it's very generous of him. I haven't heard the details of the proposal yet, but where's this money coming from? In the end, Congress has to appropriate it.

I've always been in favor of nuclear electric plants. They already supply something like 20-25% of our electricity. In countries like France and Sweden, about 75% of the electricity is generated in nuclear plants.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 12:02:01 PM
It will be 15-20 years before the things are up and producing power. The whole reason the federal government has to guarantee the loans is that the permitting process is so drawn out and unpredictable that no private lender will finance a nuclear electric plant. It's too risky.

A better, much cheaper way to do it would be to cut out the red tape so that private funding would become available again. Apparently the English have done something like that, and it's speeded the process up a lot. The last nuclear plant in the U.S. opened about 30 years ago. It also wouldn't hurt if Congress prevented environmental suits designed to kill these projects. All it would have to do is enact a law removing federal courts' jurisdiction over suits against proposed nuclear plants.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 12:05:54 PM

The only person that thinks that the government can stimulate job growth by spending money that they don't have is a fool.


I have an idea. Why doesn't the government hire a million Americans to dig holes, and another million to fill them in? That would be *two million* new jobs! If they don't have the money to pay them, they can't just print some more.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 55
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 12:43:47 PM
These Democrat presidents know very little about creating jobs and their supporters know just as much about doing jobs lol. This country recovering from a recession with 50% of it's people unable to provide enough value add to cover their cost. We're cooked with these deadbeats as fellow citizens.

I recall when Hillary was running for NY senate the first time, she was telling an audience she was going to call upon all her fance friends who would just come in and create "little people" jobs. Madoff crooks and Union deadbeats, a party that in a sane world no-one would admit to supporting.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 56
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 1:42:00 PM
The current stimulus bill has worked well, $787 B which is really $862 B has created estimates of 1.6 to 2.0 million jobs. Doing a little simple math yields a total cost of approx. $425,000 per job, pretty good job I'd say lol. Now if Obumbler drops another $119B out there we'll have about 400,000 more "gut" jobs as they say in the hood.

But since 10 million jobs have been lost, I'm not sure we can buy everyone a job with this approach lol. What a bunch of amatuers.

Oh and this news just in, the Fed says no job growth for at least two years. A week ago Obumbler said to expect 95,000 new jobs per month. God knows where he got that number but I hope he washed his hands after finding it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 57
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 2:34:17 PM

only 50% of the citizens pay federal taxes


I think it's actually less than that. The information's not hard to find. What it amounts to is that half the people in this country are working some number of hours each week to support the other half. Not too surprising that the ones working part of the time for nothing should resent an administration that wants to increase the percentage of takers even further.

Here's a quote from the man who had as much to do with designing our government as anyone. His comment on the legitimacy of the federal government's powers seems timely today. None of the three branches has any powers except those the states delegated to it in the Constitution, plus any we've added (e.g. Congress' power to tax income) through amendments.

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

Thomas Jefferson
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 58
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 4:20:50 PM
Business's add employees when there is demand for their products or services. In the absence of demand they won't add employees even if the interest rates on money are zero, or for that matter the money is free. Everytime we get a Dem elected who actually drinks their own ignorant flavored kool-aid, they attempt to overturn the iron laws of economics.

Now a number of my clients are struggling with getting business loans, primarily to fund receivables, or to invest in automation or systems...but employees? Unlikely.

This is another example of happy sounding gibberish, send Obama to night school, he is clueless.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 59
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 5:13:04 PM
Why wouldn't demand go up by giving the citizens across the board tax cuts? the answer of course, like all Dem fascists they make their personal fortunes by creating crony capitlaism, like al gre with this phony cap and trade and climate change.

They sweet talk the stupid, but give the money to the crony capitalists and bankers. the most extraorinarywealth transfer in history happening before our eyes.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 60
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 5:21:00 PM

I say put a tariff on those American companies who don't want to manufacture here in America


Firms produce goods where it's cheapest. The ones who don't do that will suffer, in a competitive market. Unless they can compensate somehow for their higher costs, they'll eventually be driven out of business.

As to protective tariffs, don't forget that the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 was an important cause of the Great Depression. It came along just as the shock of the 1929 stock market crash had passed and unemployment had fallen to about six percent. A thousand professional economists signed a letter advising against this law, but Congress passed it anyway. One of its effects was to raise the price of American grain enough so it wasn't competitive overseas, and as the export markets shriveled up, a lot of farmers went under. Agriculture was a very big part of the economy in 1930, and the effects spread to other parts of it.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 61
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 5:49:50 PM

Paul,
He said he would cut taxes on capitol gains for small businesses.
Even a tax credit can get people hiring. Look, this isn't the only plan he has in his larger jobs plan. This is just one program. He is going to cut the tax incentives for those who ship jobs overseas. Maybe that will bring some of those jobs back. (I say put a tariff on those American companies who don't want to manufacture here in America)
As far as demand goes, it will go up as people get back to work.


Skooch you missed what GC said above this post. Businesses won't hire more employees unless there is a significant increase in their products or services. Tax Credits won't get people hired.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 62
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 5:50:48 PM
When the government spends money that they either have to tax to get, borrow to get, or print to get, and then spends it, when they spend it, the only thing that is accomplished is that the money is GONE. That is the ONLY thing achieved.


It depends on what the money is spent on. When it goes toward funding infrastructure and basic research that private parties have little incentive to fund, the resulting economic growth generates a higher tax base. The multiplier effect of those up-front funds generates secondary employment and spending in the private sector, which generates tertiary job creation.

The only difference between government and private investment is the timeframe in which those returns must be realized. Private investments must typically reach payback within a few years, whereas government investments can reach payback over a far longer period. Payback and net present value calculations are different. The taxpayers are presumably more patient than private investors.

Government subsidies for consumption also have secondary effects. As the subsidized consumers spend, those who sell to them generate profits and pay taxes. The net present value of consumption subsidies is still negative, but perhaps less negative than the costs of cleaning up after food riots or public health crises.


The only person that thinks that the government can stimulate job growth by spending money that they don't have is a fool.


If small businesses can stimulate job growth by borrowing to expand production capacity, so can governments. All they have to do is ensure that the net present value of the investment they plan to make exceeds the cost of the loan.

Which is a bigger waste of resources? The money spent on nannying, or the costs of making products whose only use is to destroy the lives and livelihoods of identified enemies? Don't get me wrong. Defense is necessary, but if you're going to lament big government spending, you might want to consider being consistent about it. How much precious oil did we burn to indulge Prince George and the Neocons?

I agree that there is a certain amount of immorality in enabling people to stay poor and ignorant, but funding for schools has a much better ROI for us than funding weapons systems that even the military doesn't want. What were we spending on those damned planes when our soldiers didn't have adequate body or vehicle armor?

Milton Friedman had a very good point. Direct government spending can definitely be overdone. But it is simply naive to think that government investment is always a waste. We're supposed to vote for people who have good judgment, not for people who parrot the party line we prefer.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 63
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 8:00:00 PM

I beleive that outsourcing our labor market and insourcing an illegal labor market has helped kill the economy by driving down labor rates.


Hey Skooch here's where you and I agree! If they would properly deal with the illegals, then we legals would be able to afford to pay for those USA made products here and outsourcing wouldn't be so necessary and could be penalized rightfully so to help protect our own interests.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 64
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 8:09:09 PM
Companies go offshore for two reasons; 1. to reduce costs, 2. to get closer to their markets.

One must be very careful far more careful than Obumbler could possibly understand, before messing with these business drivers.

For example if Haliburton needs to be close to a Saudi oil field, how then would punishing them help anyone? Punish them enough and one of two things will happen, a European country will win the project, Haliburton will move offshore. net effect; lose-lose for USA.

Let's suppose then Haliburton wins the project and needs metals to build things. So the American based supplier heretofore in Houston is penalized because they need to be next door to the customer in Saudi.

Get the picture?

Obviously an American based company providing products offshore is good (think GM). Why would you punish them for expanding to China and Brazil to keep the market? to create and sell products in the USA at a competitive cost to Chinese, Indian and Korean companies.

if i want a bank shaken down because some deadbeat didn't get a slum apartment financed, I'd call Obama, but he is hardly capable of understanding global economics.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 65
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/17/2010 11:26:45 PM

IE have States tell the feds that laws are unconstitutional and refuse to enact them


A state law that contradicts either the U.S. Constitution or a federal law or treaty is invalid. But in the 1990's--in the New York and Printz decisions--the Court held that the U.S. government can't directly command states to enforce federal laws.

What Congress does instead is use its spending power to coerce states into enforcing federal laws by threatening to withhold related federal funds from ones that refuse. For example, if the California Clean Air Resources Board (one subdivision of the California EPA) fails to enforce the Clean Air Act thoroughly enough, the Secretary of Transportation can withhold federal grants for road projects in the region that hasn't complied. In practice, U.S. EPA has only recommended this drastic remedy a couple times, preferring to "work with" noncompliant states.

Even so, I don't think any administrative agency--not one of the employees of which is elected--should have that much power. How do they get it? Congress delegates it to them. So, EPA and dozens of other federal agencies can exercise Congress' spending power, despite the fact the Constitution gave that power only to Congress. The Court used to call Congress for "unlawful delegation," but the last time it did was in three cases in 1936. Since then, unlawful delegation's become sort of a dead letter.

But we can also have Congress write laws that limit its ability to delegate its powers. In the end, our right to vote lets us prevent any part of the U.S. government from doing anything. If enough of us want to, we can have Congress completely remove the federal courts' jurisdiction to decide an issue, demand that it impeach and convict any high official, including a U.S. President, and even amend the Constitution.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 66
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/18/2010 8:01:56 AM

It depends on what the money is spent on. When it goes toward funding infrastructure and basic research that private parties have little incentive to fund, the resulting economic growth generates a higher tax base. The multiplier effect of those up-front funds generates secondary employment and spending in the private sector, which generates tertiary job creation.


That's true--if a government builds a dam or an airport or funds research on superconducters, it creates jobs directly. The people who work at them then use various goods and services and pay various taxes.

But where does government get the money to do these things, except from taxes or from selling bonds? Either way, it is using money that otherwise would have been spent for other things. Isn't government just deciding where the money is best spent, rather than letting the workings of the marketplace do it?

If so, I don't see a problem when national-scale projects are involved. The interstate highway system, for example, benefits the whole country, and it's hard to see private investors ever building anything that took that long to complete and where a profit was so uncertain.

But for other things, why should a government decide what it's best to invest in at the moment? The Progressive movement was all about using experts and central planners to make those decisions, rather than trusting them to markets, which most Progressives distrusted as chaotic and outdated. How modern and wonderful--let Woodrow Wilson and the other professors decide things. That's a lot like what we have right now.

And the results have been awful. We've had 80 or even 100 years of federal programs, from Social Security to Head Start, that's been a complete bust. It's hard to think of even one that's worked well. Maybe the CCC or the FHA? The total amount of money spent and wasted on them during that time is hard to imagine--tens or hundreds of times the defense spending you mention.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 67
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/18/2010 11:36:20 AM

They need to take back their constitutional powers.


Agreed. One thing that hasn't helped was the loss of the congressional veto, which the Court held unconstitutional in the 1980's. Congress used to use it to overrule regulations by administrative agencies, if it didn't think they carried out the intent of its laws. That would be nice to have right now, with the EPA rule on CO2 hanging over the head of businesses throughout the country.

I see Texas has already sued over this rule, and so have a number of private business organizations. But it won't be easy to win, when the Court's just held CO2's a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 68
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/18/2010 9:00:38 PM
I think we had plenty of laws a long time ago. Someday the law writing machine needs to be turned off, at least for a while.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:23:03 PM

How is the CAA constitutional to begin with


Good question. I think Congress justified all those major federal environmental laws by its power to regulate interstate commerce. Until the mid-1930's, the Court usually didn't let Congress use the Commerce Clause as the basis for regulating an activity unless it had some clear effect on interstate or foreign commerce. But after FDR threatened to pack the Court with 12 justices, it began to interpret some parts of the Constitution--including the Commerce Clause--a lot more broadly. It didn't show signs of reversing that trend until the 1990's--20 years after the CAA and other major environmental laws were passed. And you're right--Congress could solve the problem just by revising the CAA to say that CO2 is not a "pollutant."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 8/31/2010 1:05:23 PM
^^^^^*Something* must make the earth tend to be stable, or life couldn't have survived here for so long. There have been catastrophes far, far worse than anything we'll ever be able to cause, and each time the earth recovered. The photos of Mars show something literally broke it in two, early on, and Earth was exposed to the same kind of thing. The Moon's the evidence of that, as I understand it.

We know the CO2 content of the atmosphere has at times been much higher than now. Movement that's caused the earth's crust to split and the ocean area to change has had a lot to do with that. And at times it's almost certain there was almost no sunlight--for who knows how long--after large meteor strikes sent smoke and dust all over the Earth.

JD, do you know anything about this? I remember reading an "albedo" theory that the reflection of sunlight from snow and ice is a big cause of cooling. If it's a little cooler one year--because the Sun hiccuped, because ash from volcanos obscured the atmosphere, because the wobble of the poles changed the angle at which sunlight falls on the Earth very slightly, because the concentration of greenhouse gases goes down a little, because there's more cloud cover, or whatever--less snow and ice melts. And that means a little more sunlight gets reflected the next year, which increases the total area of snow and ice, and a feedback cycle starts. It seemed to make sense, but in things scientific, that doesn't always mean much.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 8/31/2010 6:09:57 PM
^^^^It was a meteor that got Islam started. It's there, somewhere, and they built a shrine to it. The high panjandrums go there, bow to it, make incantations, etc. They probably figure it was Allah's brushback pitch to get their attention, and if they don't please him, the next one may not land out in the middle of the desert.

What blows me away is thinking how recent those four ice ages were, in terms of the Earth's history. I think the last one only ended about 12,000 years ago--they've found mummies from that time. For all we know, we're on the way back to saber-tooth cats and 2,000-lb. bears.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 72
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 9/1/2010 5:55:17 AM
Re: warm and cold spells, the Maunder Minimum was roughly 1560 to 1860, aka The Little Ice Age. A few things interesting about that is it was the event that may have triggered the dark age, also much of the migration to the USA, e.g., the irish Potato famine which really played out throughout Europe in different but negative ways. It is often reported that it snowed 2 feet in Chicago on the 4th of July when Lincoln was campaigning for president. Also interesting it signifies the beginning of keeping temperature records, and they are warming...relative to an ice age! So then what is normal? Is it the 9th century when Vikings farmed in greenland which is now under a mile of ice, and Great britain was renowed for it's vineyards?

If one looks at temps over the roughly 150,000 years something approximating man existed, only very brief periods were warm as our current era, and they were considered golden ages. Ice ages are far more common, and dangerous.

But the left is conditioned to fear, and lending their numbers to their masters power lust. Split the country.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 73
view profile
History
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 9/4/2010 4:03:51 PM
Does anyone know what theories there are, if any, about what caused the Maunder minimum? If it had been volcanoes somewhere, the records would show it. But in the 1500's, no one would have noticed things like the Sun faltering very slightly.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 74
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 9/4/2010 5:10:34 PM
The Maunder Minimum was entirely a sun went dormant phenomena. There are sunspot readings that can be recreated by examining ice cores, tree rings, and a number of esoteric and hard to comprehend ancillary tests.

The following is a good layman's primer on climate science, the interesting thing was this guy was way ahead of the curve on discrediting Dr. Michael Mann, the hockey stick guy, now recognized by all as a fraud.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The Stradivarias violins, long a mystery as to the source of the quality, is now attributed to this period, the growth was wo small, the wood thus becoming so dense, no violins before or since can capture the quality. Think 100 years of growth being an inch of thickness.

A researching of temperatures over time shows a almost complete correlation between sun intensity (sunspot levels) and temperature. of course it makes a more Inconvenient truth if man can cause it, it being harder to create industries and tax policies via sunspots.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 75
An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework
Posted: 7/28/2011 6:39:18 PM
Good news out there today on global warming that might just tempt some true believers that it's safe to come out from under the bed they are hiding under.

The first story concerns the the yanking of the scholarly crdentials (gag) of the clown who told Al Gore the polar bears were drowning. Anyone who actually understands the artic and polar bears knew immediately that was a BS story. How they made te bear assume a long face was this guys only achievement. The polar bear population has increased from 5,000 to 20,000 plus in recent decades and their range had expanded so much they were having unpleasant encounters with Grizzly bears.

The second concerns a NASA study wherein global alarmists computer models overstated heat retention from CO2 so dramatically that the models are completely out of whack with actual measurements. I'm surprised and delighted that NSAS was so honest The amount of fraud from governments, universities and the UN have been shocking to adults with an expectation of integrity. You Obama voters are probably still patiently waiting for him to pay your rent and remodel your kitchens.



http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Show ALL Forums  > California  > An Inconvient Dog Ate My Homework