I don't understand how the GOP has convinced its base that energy from wind and the giant burning orb in the sky is a bad thing.
corporations can't make money on it. it is not a commodity that can be owned and sold, and it is infinite with no supply issues to cause demand and increased prices, therefore it is bad...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I don't understand how the GOP has convinced its base that energy from wind and the giant burning orb in the sky is a bad thing.
It's the strangest thing, isn't it?
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
However, green groups, renewable energy industry insiders, and Democrats were all quick to point out that Romney's desire for a level playing field on energy policy does not extend to oil and gas, where he has pledged to retain up to $40bn of subsidies and tax breaks that President Obama wants to see phased out.
Well, how efficient is solar power really likely to get?
the means of converting this energy will most certainly become more efficient.
What makes you so sure about that?
I guess I'll go do some googling.
why wouldnt it?
As more is understood about conversion and what materials would be more efficient, some bright young mind will come up with a better means of conversion.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I don't understand how the GOP has convinced its base that energy from wind and the giant burning orb in the sky is a bad thing.
Well, how efficient is solar power really likely to get?
the means of converting this energy will most certainly become more efficient.
It's just a matter of technology advancing. Unfortunately with the government always dicking around with the subsidies it makes it hard to convince investors to pony up, I would imagine.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
why wouldnt it?
As more is understood about conversion and what materials would be more efficient, some bright young mind will come up with a better means of conversion.
It isn't a given that it will get more efficient. That's all. I was wondering what the current avg was and what they currently think is likely.
why wouldnt it?
As more is understood about conversion and what materials would be more efficient, some bright young mind will come up with a better means of conversion.
It isn't a given that it will get more efficient. That's all. I was wondering what the current avg was and what they currently think is likely.
good questions. It i scertainly worth exploring, experimenting with.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
22. For the third month in a row, Mitt Romney has outraised President Obama in fundraising. Governor Romney raked in $101.3 million for the month while Obama trailed with over $75 million, according to both campaigns.
22. For the third month in a row, Mitt Romney has outraised President Obama in fundraising. Governor Romney raked in $101.3 million for the month while Obama trailed with over $75 million, according to both campaigns.
16 donors have given him over $100 million dollars.
makes you wonder why people who are so rich are so desperate to have someone who so quickly changes his positions on things. :roll:
22. For the third month in a row, Mitt Romney has outraised President Obama in fundraising. Governor Romney raked in $101.3 million for the month while Obama trailed with over $75 million, according to both campaigns.
16 donors have given him over $100 million dollars.
makes you wonder why people who are so rich are so desperate to have someone who so quickly changes his positions on things. :roll:
he changes postions more often than in a porn movie!!!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
wouldn't the list of why he is likeable be easier to compile
let's see
#1. ????
Guess not.
GOP primary participants made their bed...now they have to lie in it...good luck to them
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
GOP primary participants made their bed...now they have to lie in it...good luck to them
Funny you should say that. They haven't quite made their bed just yet.
A very close friend of mine works for CNN in the news department and covers a lot of political stories. No names.
But he was telling me that the Republican old guard is privately panicking. None of the viable candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Aaron Schock wanted to run this time. None of them want to go up against a relatively popular incumbent and they don't want to be the one who either wins or loses against the first-ever black president.
Which means the GOP had to go second string and roll out the gallery of batshit crazy.
None of them like Mitt Romeny and secretly many of them want him to fail. Which is why a lot of them seem to be stoking the fires. Telling him to release his tax records, promising insane amounts of money, not actively supporting him... calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar" and not really jumping to the defense of Mitt when he screws up. They also have been keeping the best campaign people from him. What other explanation is there for the series of commercials that VERY clearly misrepresent what the President says which only serves to drive Barack Obama's points home (that "you didn't build that" campaign of fail is the cherry on top. They intentionally took his words out of context, did a few commercials that got people talking about how government infrastructure supports small business and then encouraged him to go to London and brag about how great he did with the Olympics which resulted in him being known around the world as "Mitt The Twit" or "American Borat").
Because the GOP convention, unlike the Democratic one, isn't bound by the states primaries. Which means they can show up at the convention and nominate anyone they want. Notice how Sarah Palin hasn't been talking about politics and candidates much but HAS been keeping herself visible as a conservative social issue warrior?
GOP primary participants made their bed...now they have to lie in it...good luck to them
Funny you should say that. They haven't quite made their bed just yet.
A very close friend of mine works for CNN in the news department and covers a lot of political stories. No names.
But he was telling me that the Republican old guard is privately panicking. None of the viable candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Aaron Schock wanted to run this time. None of them want to go up against a relatively popular incumbent and they don't want to be the one who either wins or loses against the first-ever black president.
Which means the GOP had to go second string and roll out the gallery of batshit crazy.
None of them like Mitt Romeny and secretly many of them want him to fail. Which is why a lot of them seem to be stoking the fires. Telling him to release his tax records, promising insane amounts of money, not actively supporting him... calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar" and not really jumping to the defense of Mitt when he screws up. They also have been keeping the best campaign people from him. What other explanation is there for the series of commercials that VERY clearly misrepresent what the President says which only serves to drive Barack Obama's points home (that "you didn't build that" campaign of fail is the cherry on top. They intentionally took his words out of context, did a few commercials that got people talking about how government infrastructure supports small business and then encouraged him to go to London and brag about how great he did with the Olympics which resulted in him being known around the world as "Mitt The Twit" or "American Borat").
Because the GOP convention, unlike the Democratic one, isn't bound by the states primaries. Which means they can show up at the convention and nominate anyone they want. Notice how Sarah Palin hasn't been talking about politics and candidates much but HAS been keeping herself visible as a conservative social issue warrior?
this sounds like it is certainly possible, but i doubt there will be a great september surprise switcheroo at the convention. romney has enough delegates that will be attending that he is going to be the nominee. bush can't be nominated because he did not even run or file the papers to be on the ballot in most states.
the gop has always been power hungry. i do not think they would intentially throw this election because they would never defer to "the black guy". they would want to kick the black guy's ass in the general election and "take the country back", and romney is the most palatable candidate to most republicans. if they did not want him to win they would not have given him $101 million in july.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
GOP primary participants made their bed...now they have to lie in it...good luck to them
Funny you should say that. They haven't quite made their bed just yet.
A very close friend of mine works for CNN in the news department and covers a lot of political stories. No names.
But he was telling me that the Republican old guard is privately panicking. None of the viable candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Aaron Schock wanted to run this time. None of them want to go up against a relatively popular incumbent and they don't want to be the one who either wins or loses against the first-ever black president.
Which means the GOP had to go second string and roll out the gallery of batshit crazy.
None of them like Mitt Romeny and secretly many of them want him to fail. Which is why a lot of them seem to be stoking the fires. Telling him to release his tax records, promising insane amounts of money, not actively supporting him... calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar" and not really jumping to the defense of Mitt when he screws up. They also have been keeping the best campaign people from him. What other explanation is there for the series of commercials that VERY clearly misrepresent what the President says which only serves to drive Barack Obama's points home (that "you didn't build that" campaign of fail is the cherry on top. They intentionally took his words out of context, did a few commercials that got people talking about how government infrastructure supports small business and then encouraged him to go to London and brag about how great he did with the Olympics which resulted in him being known around the world as "Mitt The Twit" or "American Borat").
Because the GOP convention, unlike the Democratic one, isn't bound by the states primaries. Which means they can show up at the convention and nominate anyone they want. Notice how Sarah Palin hasn't been talking about politics and candidates much but HAS been keeping herself visible as a conservative social issue warrior?
Delegates are bound and "unbound" for a better or worse term. They do have to cast their vote as they were elected to do at the nominating conventions around the different states, besides, any delegate who does this will be replaced by an alternate and a new round of voting will begin. Violation isn't always against the law, but many states have provisions of punishment for that behavior. It has been said in the past the delegates are all considered free agents, but that was kind of taken out of context from 2008.
The only way a brokered convention would be run now was if something disqualified mitt from the race. As it sits, Romney has the required amount of "bound" delegates. The GOP has so far failed to answer the status of delegates as bound or unbound free agents at the convention. many are bound on the first ballot due to state rules and election law (primary states). this is unfortunate as i would like nothing more than to see each delegate vote their own choice. i think the world would be very quickly surprised at how many Paul supporters actually will be in Tampa.
Besides, in order to be nominated from the floor a candidate must have won the plurality of delegates from at least 5 states. the sheer amount of legal challenges alone from delegates who were disqualified based on state party rules and were replaced at the national convention and the challenges from Romney if he were to "lose" the nomination....there wouldn't be a candidate for the GOP in time to run the race. As much as i would like to see that, Romney will be the nominee, again, short of something shocking coming out that disqualifies him.
The rules of the RNC couldn't be more confusing...now you know why the Paul supporters caused such a stir at the conventions around the country...it was simply because they knew the rules and other people didn't. Strange how that worked out...but it couldn't be more telling of a party that is a shell of its former self.
but we won't see Palin as the nominee. i would bet my left testicle on it...and that thing is pretty important to me.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being "likable" or that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, we struggled to understand why. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this "unlikablility."
Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:
1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.
2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.
3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)
4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.
5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School...and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.
6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America?
7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!
8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.
9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.
10. And one more point.....pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess
that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently,he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans.
My goodness, it's a strange world, isn't it?
..
Not that there's anything wrong with it... but, is my Gaydar picking a blip of a bromance here?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
22. For the third month in a row, Mitt Romney has outraised President Obama in fundraising. Governor Romney raked in $101.3 million for the month while Obama trailed with over $75 million, according to both campaigns.
Pretty easy when all those filthy rich supporters donate because they want someone who will let them keep more of their outrageous amounts of money, see the oil industry supported, while other people go homeless or die for lack of decent health care insurance.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The central difficulty of covering this presidential campaign — which is to say, of explaining Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s disparate plans for the country — is the continued existence of what we might call the policy gap. The policy gap, put simply, is this: Obama has proposed policies. Mitt Romney hasn’t.
It is important to say that this exists separately from any judgments about the quality of either man’s policies. You can believe every idea Obama has proposed is a socialist horror inspired by Kenyan revenge fantasies. This would, I think, be a strange judgment to reach about plans to invest in infrastructure, temporarily double the size of the payroll tax cuts and raise the marginal tax rate on income over $250,000 by 4.5 percentage points. Nevertheless, Obama’s policy proposals are sufficiently detailed that they can be fully assessed and conclusions — even odd ones — confidently drawn. Romney’s policies are not.
Obama has released detailed policy proposals. Romney hasn't. (Kevin Lamarque -- Reuters)
Romney’s offerings are more like simulacra of policy proposals. They look, from far away, like policy proposals. They exist on his Web site, under the heading of “Issues,” with subheads like “Tax” and “Health care.” But read closely, they are not policy proposals. They do not include the details necessary to judge Romney’s policy ideas. In many cases, they don’t contain any details at all.
Take taxes. Romney has promised a “permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates,” alongside a grab bag of other goodies, like the end of “the death tax.” Glenn Hubbard, his top economic adviser, has promised that the plan will “broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.”
It is in the distance between “cut in marginal rates” and “revenue-neutral” that all the policy happens. That is where Romney must choose which deductions to cap or close. It’s where we learn what his plan means for the mortgage-interest deduction, and the tax-free status of employer health plans and the Child Tax Credit. It is where we learn, in other words, what his plan means for people like you and me. And it is empty. Romney does not name even one deduction that he would cap or close. He even admitted, in an interview with CNBC, that his plan “can’t be scored because those details have to be worked out.”
Compare that to Obama’s tax plan, which you can read on pages 37 through 40 of his 2013 budget proposal (though not, it should be said, on his campaign Web site, which is even less detailed than Romney’s). In these pages, Obama tells you exactly how he would like to raise taxes on the rich. He proposes allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for income over $250,000, capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28 percent, taxing carried interest as ordinary income and more. The total tax increase, compared to current policy, is $1.5 trillion.
Whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to raise taxes on the rich, Obama has told you exactly what he wants to do. Conversely, whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to cut marginal tax rates by broadening the base, Romney hasn’t actually told you what he wants to do.
The same is true in other policy areas. In health care, for instance, Obama signed the multi-thousand page Affordable Care Act into law, and has backed a number of specific reforms that would build upon the policy, including giving states waivers to go their own way while meeting the law’s standards and giving the independent Medicare board more power over benefit packages. Obama’s vision for the health-care system is almost absurdly detailed.
Romney’s plan spans 369 words. He would “promote alternatives to ‘fee for service.’” Which alternatives? It’s a mystery. He would “end tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance.” That can mean any of a couple of huge policy changes. It could mean, for the first time ever, that employer-provided health plans are taxed — a massive tax increase. It could mean that all spending on health insurance is made tax free — a giant, and expensive, tax cut. Which is it? Romney doesn’t say.
On financial regulation, Romney would “repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.” That is literally his entire plan. Three years after a homegrown financial crisis wrecked the global economy, the likely Republican nominee for president would repeal the new regulatory architecture and replace it with … something.
On deficit reduction, Romney’s plan “requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016.” He has not released spending cuts that come anywhere close to that goal. He does have some nice words to say about the Ryan budget, but Romney advisers have told the media that their candidate disagrees with large parts of it, including the Medicare cuts.
The comparison to Obama is, again, instructive. Pages 23 through 37 of Obama’s budget detail dozens of spending cuts and tell you how much money they’ll save. You might not like those spending cuts, or you might want to see more. But at least you know the specifics of the president’s plan.
You might say that this is the natural result of an incumbent running against a challenger. Obama, by virtue of being president, has to develop detailed policies, and he oversees a massive bureaucracy able to help him get specific. Romney, by virtue of his not yet having Obama’s job, does not.
But in 2008, John McCain ran on a far more detailed policy platform than Romney. To name just one example, like Romney, McCain promised to end the tax code’s discrimination against health insurance bought by individuals. But he told us how he would do it: by taxing employer-based insurance and using the savings to give families a $5,000 tax credit to put toward buying health insurance. Nor has Romney released anything that matches “Renewing America’s Purpose,” the 457-page policy book that George W. Bush released during the 2000 election. Romney’s vagueness is unique among modern presidential campaigns.
It should not be considered partisan to demand details from the two men campaigning to be president. Both Republicans and Democrats should want to know the specifics of Romney’s tax plan. Both liberals and conservatives should insist that Romney reveal his plans to regulate the financial system. But so far, Romney has refused to give voters the most basic information about what he would do as president. That means he has refused to give voters the most basic information necessary for them to make an informed choice this November. That’s not acceptable. And neither voters nor the media should accept it.
The devil you know versus the devil you don't? Or a candidate who has run only because its the big brass ring going past as he rides the pony by? Seriously, think about it, why would someone disavow every core coviction they've ever had? If only to become President. "I've made my billions, I didn't pay taxes like the rest of you and now I deserve to be President, give it me, give it to me, give it to me!"
Even Bush II, ahem Doubba, wrote a tome proscribing his vision for America. For those of you who believe in Romney, you reap what you sow.
Specifics matter (but only if you know what they are).
What I find funny is he has 5 sons.....and none of them have served in the military. Sure, it is a voluntary military and all. But as a Republican who has to be pro-defense and pro-war to win the election, why wouldn't he have encouraged his boys to serve their country? We all remember how the Republicans were outraged when Obama suggested cutting the Defense budget. So Romney can't run on that ticket.
Oh I know....he's rich! Only the poor and middle class fight for America. :fp:
What I find funny is he has 5 sons.....and none of them have served in the military. Sure, it is a voluntary military and all. But as a Republican who has to be pro-defense and pro-war to win the election, why wouldn't he have encouraged his boys to serve their country? We all remember how the Republicans were outraged when Obama suggested cutting the Defense budget. So Romney can't run on that ticket.
Oh I know....he's rich! Only the poor and middle class fight for America. :fp:
How was he as Governor?
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju ... ic-success Mitt Romney [...] said the Jewish state's economic success compared with its Palestinian neighbours was due to "cultural" differences and the "hand of providence", and declared Jerusalem to be "the capital of Israel".
Economy minister Hasan Abu Libdeh says that Palestinians are prevented from achieving their potential
Harriet Sherwood in Ramallah
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 September 2011
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza deprives the Palestinian economy of almost £4.4bn a year, equivalent to about 85% of the nominal gross domestic product of Palestine, according to a report published in Ramallah .
As well as its detrimental effect on the Palestinian economy, the "occupation enterprise" allows the state of Israel and commercial firms to profit from Palestinian natural resources and tourist potential, the report said.
"No matter what the Palestinian people achieve by our own efforts, the occupation prevents us achieving our potential as a free people in our own country," said Hasan Abu Libdeh, economy minister in the Palestinian Authority, introducing the report on Thursday. "It should be clear to the international community that one reason for Israel's refusal to act in good faith as a partner for peace is the profits it makes as an occupying power."
Without the occupation, the Palestinian economy would be almost twice as large as it is and would be able to reduce its dependence on donor funding from the international community, according to the report.
Compiled jointly by the economy ministry and the independent thinktank Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem, the report was the first attempt to quantify the annual cost of the occupation to the Palestinian economy. "The total cost which we have been able to measure was $6.897bn in 2010, a staggering 84.9% of the total estimated Palestinian GDP," it said.
"The majority of these costs do not have any relationship with security concerns but, rather, come from the heavy restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the access to their own natural resources, many of which are exploited by Israel itself, including water, minerals, salts, stones and land.".
The report broke down the $6.9bn figure into components, including the blockade on Gaza ($1.9bn), water restrictions ($1.9bn), natural resource restrictions ($1.8bn), import and export limits ($288m), restrictions on movement ($184m) and tourism to the Dead Sea ($143m).
The occupation "imposes a myriad of restrictions on the Palestinian economy. It prevents Palestinians from accessing much of their land and from exploiting most of their natural resources; it isolates Palestinians from global markets, and fragments their territory into small, badly connected 'cantons'," the report said.
The blockade of Gaza placed severe restrictions on imports and exports, on which the economy was highly dependent. Electricity and water production was unable to meet demand from industry and agriculture owing to damaged infrastructure and a shortage of parts and materials. Shelling had destroyed physical assets and infrastructure.
Restrictions on the import to both the West Bank and Gaza of goods deemed as "dual use", such as chemicals and fertilisers which Israel says could be used in the manufacture of weapons, had severely affected manufacturing and agriculture.
Limits on movement for both goods and labour within the West Bank through roadblocks, checkpoints and diversionswere a critical economic constraint. The report compared the distance of direct routes between West Bank towns and cities and the routes Palestinians are required to take. For example, the distance between the city of Nablus in the north of the West Bank and al-Jiftlik in the Jordan Valley was 36 miles (58km) by the most direct route, but the route Palestinians were forced to take was 107 miles (173km), adding significantly to the time and cost of each journey.
Restrictions on Palestinian access to the Dead Sea meant a loss in income from the extraction of minerals and salts, and from tourism, from which Israel benefited economically. Dead Sea beauty and skin care products, manufactured and marketed by Israeli companies, were worth $150m (£96m) a year, the report said.
Israeli businesses also profited from mining and quarrying in the West Bank. West Bank water resources were diverted to Israeli settlements, industry and agriculture. Israel took 10 times as much water from the three West Bank aquifers as the Palestinians, the report said.
Around 2.5m trees, including olive groves, had been uprooted since 1967 for settlements, infrastructure and the separation barrier. The report estimated the average annual production of a mature olive tree at 70kg, worth around $1.1 per kilogram.
Palestinian farmers had lost land or could no longer access it. "Six hundred and twenty thousand settlers [in the West Bank and East Jerusalem] cultivate 64,000 dunams of land. Four million Palestinians in the West Bank only cultivate 100,000 dunams," said Abu Libdeh. One dunam is around 1,000 square metres.
"As we prepare for statehood we want to build a sustainable and viable Palestine which is economically feasible, environmentally sound and socially legitimate," he said. "With Israeli restrictions on access, mobility and resource availability, a viable Palestine is impossible. To make Palestine sustainable, the occupation has to end."
Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership said on Thursday there were "encouraging elements" in the statement issued by the Middle East Quartet last week in an attempt to get the parties to return to talks. "We call on Israel to announce its commitment to the principles and points of reference [the statement] identifies," said senior official Yasser Abed Rabbo, speaking after a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's executive committee.
"We consider the Quartet's reference to the obligations of the Palestinian and Israeli sides under the Road Map and the call to avoid provocative acts as a clear call for a definitive halt to settlement activity in all its forms, which is an encouraging sign."
The Israeli cabinet met on Tuesday to consider the statement but was unable to agree on a response.
Case study
Pal Karm Company for Cosmetics, located in Nablus, sells cosmetics and skin care products in the local market and exports to Israel. Glycerin is an essential raw material for the company. Israel has banned the entry of glycerin into the Palestinian Territory since mid-2007. Ever since then, the company has been unable to sell skin care products in the Israeli market because the Israeli health authorities require glycerin to be part of such products. The company estimates its losses at 30% of its sales in the Israeli market for this product.
What I find funny is he has 5 sons.....and none of them have served in the military. Sure, it is a voluntary military and all. But as a Republican who has to be pro-defense and pro-war to win the election, why wouldn't he have encouraged his boys to serve their country? We all remember how the Republicans were outraged when Obama suggested cutting the Defense budget. So Romney can't run on that ticket.
Oh I know....he's rich! Only the poor and middle class fight for America. :fp:
How was he as Governor?
Let's put it this way. His crowning achievement was Universal Healthcare for all MA residents. Kind of singing a different tune now. That should begin to explain the kind of politician he is.
What I find funny is he has 5 sons.....and none of them have served in the military. Sure, it is a voluntary military and all. But as a Republican who has to be pro-defense and pro-war to win the election, why wouldn't he have encouraged his boys to serve their country? We all remember how the Republicans were outraged when Obama suggested cutting the Defense budget. So Romney can't run on that ticket.
Oh I know....he's rich! Only the poor and middle class fight for America. :fp:
How was he as Governor?
Let's put it this way. His crowning achievement was Universal Healthcare for all MA residents. Kind of singing a different tune now. That should begin to explain the kind of politician he is.
I think now he decided to embrace RomneyCare. Jenna Jamison could never switch positions as much as this guy!
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Even on the tax returns he released he paid less than 14%. He paid $3 million on $21.7 million of taxable revenue. That's half of what most people pay.
But he'll help the middle class? :roll:
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Comments
All the sheep flock to their shepherd(s)
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Save the drama.
It's the strangest thing, isn't it?
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Well, how efficient is solar power really likely to get?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
straight into the ground.
Godfather.
What makes you so sure about that?
I guess I'll go do some googling.
As more is understood about conversion and what materials would be more efficient, some bright young mind will come up with a better means of conversion.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's just a matter of technology advancing. Unfortunately with the government always dicking around with the subsidies it makes it hard to convince investors to pony up, I would imagine.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
It isn't a given that it will get more efficient. That's all. I was wondering what the current avg was and what they currently think is likely.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
16 donors have given him over $100 million dollars.
makes you wonder why people who are so rich are so desperate to have someone who so quickly changes his positions on things. :roll:
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Probably why Jenna Jamieson endorsed him.
let's see
#1. ????
Guess not.
GOP primary participants made their bed...now they have to lie in it...good luck to them
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Funny you should say that. They haven't quite made their bed just yet.
A very close friend of mine works for CNN in the news department and covers a lot of political stories. No names.
But he was telling me that the Republican old guard is privately panicking. None of the viable candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Aaron Schock wanted to run this time. None of them want to go up against a relatively popular incumbent and they don't want to be the one who either wins or loses against the first-ever black president.
Which means the GOP had to go second string and roll out the gallery of batshit crazy.
None of them like Mitt Romeny and secretly many of them want him to fail. Which is why a lot of them seem to be stoking the fires. Telling him to release his tax records, promising insane amounts of money, not actively supporting him... calling Harry Reid a "dirty liar" and not really jumping to the defense of Mitt when he screws up. They also have been keeping the best campaign people from him. What other explanation is there for the series of commercials that VERY clearly misrepresent what the President says which only serves to drive Barack Obama's points home (that "you didn't build that" campaign of fail is the cherry on top. They intentionally took his words out of context, did a few commercials that got people talking about how government infrastructure supports small business and then encouraged him to go to London and brag about how great he did with the Olympics which resulted in him being known around the world as "Mitt The Twit" or "American Borat").
Because the GOP convention, unlike the Democratic one, isn't bound by the states primaries. Which means they can show up at the convention and nominate anyone they want. Notice how Sarah Palin hasn't been talking about politics and candidates much but HAS been keeping herself visible as a conservative social issue warrior?
the gop has always been power hungry. i do not think they would intentially throw this election because they would never defer to "the black guy". they would want to kick the black guy's ass in the general election and "take the country back", and romney is the most palatable candidate to most republicans. if they did not want him to win they would not have given him $101 million in july.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Delegates are bound and "unbound" for a better or worse term. They do have to cast their vote as they were elected to do at the nominating conventions around the different states, besides, any delegate who does this will be replaced by an alternate and a new round of voting will begin. Violation isn't always against the law, but many states have provisions of punishment for that behavior. It has been said in the past the delegates are all considered free agents, but that was kind of taken out of context from 2008.
The only way a brokered convention would be run now was if something disqualified mitt from the race. As it sits, Romney has the required amount of "bound" delegates. The GOP has so far failed to answer the status of delegates as bound or unbound free agents at the convention. many are bound on the first ballot due to state rules and election law (primary states). this is unfortunate as i would like nothing more than to see each delegate vote their own choice. i think the world would be very quickly surprised at how many Paul supporters actually will be in Tampa.
Besides, in order to be nominated from the floor a candidate must have won the plurality of delegates from at least 5 states. the sheer amount of legal challenges alone from delegates who were disqualified based on state party rules and were replaced at the national convention and the challenges from Romney if he were to "lose" the nomination....there wouldn't be a candidate for the GOP in time to run the race. As much as i would like to see that, Romney will be the nominee, again, short of something shocking coming out that disqualifies him.
The rules of the RNC couldn't be more confusing...now you know why the Paul supporters caused such a stir at the conventions around the country...it was simply because they knew the rules and other people didn't. Strange how that worked out...but it couldn't be more telling of a party that is a shell of its former self.
but we won't see Palin as the nominee. i would bet my left testicle on it...and that thing is pretty important to me.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not that there's anything wrong with it... but, is my Gaydar picking a blip of a bromance here?
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... nd-romney/
The massive policy gap between Obama and Romney
Posted by Ezra Klein on August 6, 2012 at 9:50 am
Text Size
Print
Reprints
Share:
More »
The central difficulty of covering this presidential campaign — which is to say, of explaining Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s disparate plans for the country — is the continued existence of what we might call the policy gap. The policy gap, put simply, is this: Obama has proposed policies. Mitt Romney hasn’t.
It is important to say that this exists separately from any judgments about the quality of either man’s policies. You can believe every idea Obama has proposed is a socialist horror inspired by Kenyan revenge fantasies. This would, I think, be a strange judgment to reach about plans to invest in infrastructure, temporarily double the size of the payroll tax cuts and raise the marginal tax rate on income over $250,000 by 4.5 percentage points. Nevertheless, Obama’s policy proposals are sufficiently detailed that they can be fully assessed and conclusions — even odd ones — confidently drawn. Romney’s policies are not.
Obama has released detailed policy proposals. Romney hasn't. (Kevin Lamarque -- Reuters)
Romney’s offerings are more like simulacra of policy proposals. They look, from far away, like policy proposals. They exist on his Web site, under the heading of “Issues,” with subheads like “Tax” and “Health care.” But read closely, they are not policy proposals. They do not include the details necessary to judge Romney’s policy ideas. In many cases, they don’t contain any details at all.
Take taxes. Romney has promised a “permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates,” alongside a grab bag of other goodies, like the end of “the death tax.” Glenn Hubbard, his top economic adviser, has promised that the plan will “broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.”
It is in the distance between “cut in marginal rates” and “revenue-neutral” that all the policy happens. That is where Romney must choose which deductions to cap or close. It’s where we learn what his plan means for the mortgage-interest deduction, and the tax-free status of employer health plans and the Child Tax Credit. It is where we learn, in other words, what his plan means for people like you and me. And it is empty. Romney does not name even one deduction that he would cap or close. He even admitted, in an interview with CNBC, that his plan “can’t be scored because those details have to be worked out.”
Compare that to Obama’s tax plan, which you can read on pages 37 through 40 of his 2013 budget proposal (though not, it should be said, on his campaign Web site, which is even less detailed than Romney’s). In these pages, Obama tells you exactly how he would like to raise taxes on the rich. He proposes allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for income over $250,000, capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28 percent, taxing carried interest as ordinary income and more. The total tax increase, compared to current policy, is $1.5 trillion.
Whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to raise taxes on the rich, Obama has told you exactly what he wants to do. Conversely, whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to cut marginal tax rates by broadening the base, Romney hasn’t actually told you what he wants to do.
The same is true in other policy areas. In health care, for instance, Obama signed the multi-thousand page Affordable Care Act into law, and has backed a number of specific reforms that would build upon the policy, including giving states waivers to go their own way while meeting the law’s standards and giving the independent Medicare board more power over benefit packages. Obama’s vision for the health-care system is almost absurdly detailed.
Romney’s plan spans 369 words. He would “promote alternatives to ‘fee for service.’” Which alternatives? It’s a mystery. He would “end tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance.” That can mean any of a couple of huge policy changes. It could mean, for the first time ever, that employer-provided health plans are taxed — a massive tax increase. It could mean that all spending on health insurance is made tax free — a giant, and expensive, tax cut. Which is it? Romney doesn’t say.
On financial regulation, Romney would “repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.” That is literally his entire plan. Three years after a homegrown financial crisis wrecked the global economy, the likely Republican nominee for president would repeal the new regulatory architecture and replace it with … something.
On deficit reduction, Romney’s plan “requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016.” He has not released spending cuts that come anywhere close to that goal. He does have some nice words to say about the Ryan budget, but Romney advisers have told the media that their candidate disagrees with large parts of it, including the Medicare cuts.
The comparison to Obama is, again, instructive. Pages 23 through 37 of Obama’s budget detail dozens of spending cuts and tell you how much money they’ll save. You might not like those spending cuts, or you might want to see more. But at least you know the specifics of the president’s plan.
You might say that this is the natural result of an incumbent running against a challenger. Obama, by virtue of being president, has to develop detailed policies, and he oversees a massive bureaucracy able to help him get specific. Romney, by virtue of his not yet having Obama’s job, does not.
But in 2008, John McCain ran on a far more detailed policy platform than Romney. To name just one example, like Romney, McCain promised to end the tax code’s discrimination against health insurance bought by individuals. But he told us how he would do it: by taxing employer-based insurance and using the savings to give families a $5,000 tax credit to put toward buying health insurance. Nor has Romney released anything that matches “Renewing America’s Purpose,” the 457-page policy book that George W. Bush released during the 2000 election. Romney’s vagueness is unique among modern presidential campaigns.
It should not be considered partisan to demand details from the two men campaigning to be president. Both Republicans and Democrats should want to know the specifics of Romney’s tax plan. Both liberals and conservatives should insist that Romney reveal his plans to regulate the financial system. But so far, Romney has refused to give voters the most basic information about what he would do as president. That means he has refused to give voters the most basic information necessary for them to make an informed choice this November. That’s not acceptable. And neither voters nor the media should accept it.
The devil you know versus the devil you don't? Or a candidate who has run only because its the big brass ring going past as he rides the pony by? Seriously, think about it, why would someone disavow every core coviction they've ever had? If only to become President. "I've made my billions, I didn't pay taxes like the rest of you and now I deserve to be President, give it me, give it to me, give it to me!"
Even Bush II, ahem Doubba, wrote a tome proscribing his vision for America. For those of you who believe in Romney, you reap what you sow.
Specifics matter (but only if you know what they are).
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Oh I know....he's rich! Only the poor and middle class fight for America. :fp:
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Mitt Romney [...] said the Jewish state's economic success compared with its Palestinian neighbours was due to "cultural" differences and the "hand of providence", and declared Jerusalem to be "the capital of Israel".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... an-economy
Israeli occupation hitting Palestinian economy, claims report
Economy minister Hasan Abu Libdeh says that Palestinians are prevented from achieving their potential
Harriet Sherwood in Ramallah
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 September 2011
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza deprives the Palestinian economy of almost £4.4bn a year, equivalent to about 85% of the nominal gross domestic product of Palestine, according to a report published in Ramallah .
As well as its detrimental effect on the Palestinian economy, the "occupation enterprise" allows the state of Israel and commercial firms to profit from Palestinian natural resources and tourist potential, the report said.
"No matter what the Palestinian people achieve by our own efforts, the occupation prevents us achieving our potential as a free people in our own country," said Hasan Abu Libdeh, economy minister in the Palestinian Authority, introducing the report on Thursday. "It should be clear to the international community that one reason for Israel's refusal to act in good faith as a partner for peace is the profits it makes as an occupying power."
Without the occupation, the Palestinian economy would be almost twice as large as it is and would be able to reduce its dependence on donor funding from the international community, according to the report.
Compiled jointly by the economy ministry and the independent thinktank Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem, the report was the first attempt to quantify the annual cost of the occupation to the Palestinian economy. "The total cost which we have been able to measure was $6.897bn in 2010, a staggering 84.9% of the total estimated Palestinian GDP," it said.
"The majority of these costs do not have any relationship with security concerns but, rather, come from the heavy restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the access to their own natural resources, many of which are exploited by Israel itself, including water, minerals, salts, stones and land.".
The report broke down the $6.9bn figure into components, including the blockade on Gaza ($1.9bn), water restrictions ($1.9bn), natural resource restrictions ($1.8bn), import and export limits ($288m), restrictions on movement ($184m) and tourism to the Dead Sea ($143m).
The occupation "imposes a myriad of restrictions on the Palestinian economy. It prevents Palestinians from accessing much of their land and from exploiting most of their natural resources; it isolates Palestinians from global markets, and fragments their territory into small, badly connected 'cantons'," the report said.
The blockade of Gaza placed severe restrictions on imports and exports, on which the economy was highly dependent. Electricity and water production was unable to meet demand from industry and agriculture owing to damaged infrastructure and a shortage of parts and materials. Shelling had destroyed physical assets and infrastructure.
Restrictions on the import to both the West Bank and Gaza of goods deemed as "dual use", such as chemicals and fertilisers which Israel says could be used in the manufacture of weapons, had severely affected manufacturing and agriculture.
Limits on movement for both goods and labour within the West Bank through roadblocks, checkpoints and diversionswere a critical economic constraint. The report compared the distance of direct routes between West Bank towns and cities and the routes Palestinians are required to take. For example, the distance between the city of Nablus in the north of the West Bank and al-Jiftlik in the Jordan Valley was 36 miles (58km) by the most direct route, but the route Palestinians were forced to take was 107 miles (173km), adding significantly to the time and cost of each journey.
Restrictions on Palestinian access to the Dead Sea meant a loss in income from the extraction of minerals and salts, and from tourism, from which Israel benefited economically. Dead Sea beauty and skin care products, manufactured and marketed by Israeli companies, were worth $150m (£96m) a year, the report said.
Israeli businesses also profited from mining and quarrying in the West Bank. West Bank water resources were diverted to Israeli settlements, industry and agriculture. Israel took 10 times as much water from the three West Bank aquifers as the Palestinians, the report said.
Around 2.5m trees, including olive groves, had been uprooted since 1967 for settlements, infrastructure and the separation barrier. The report estimated the average annual production of a mature olive tree at 70kg, worth around $1.1 per kilogram.
Palestinian farmers had lost land or could no longer access it. "Six hundred and twenty thousand settlers [in the West Bank and East Jerusalem] cultivate 64,000 dunams of land. Four million Palestinians in the West Bank only cultivate 100,000 dunams," said Abu Libdeh. One dunam is around 1,000 square metres.
"As we prepare for statehood we want to build a sustainable and viable Palestine which is economically feasible, environmentally sound and socially legitimate," he said. "With Israeli restrictions on access, mobility and resource availability, a viable Palestine is impossible. To make Palestine sustainable, the occupation has to end."
Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership said on Thursday there were "encouraging elements" in the statement issued by the Middle East Quartet last week in an attempt to get the parties to return to talks. "We call on Israel to announce its commitment to the principles and points of reference [the statement] identifies," said senior official Yasser Abed Rabbo, speaking after a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's executive committee.
"We consider the Quartet's reference to the obligations of the Palestinian and Israeli sides under the Road Map and the call to avoid provocative acts as a clear call for a definitive halt to settlement activity in all its forms, which is an encouraging sign."
The Israeli cabinet met on Tuesday to consider the statement but was unable to agree on a response.
Case study
Pal Karm Company for Cosmetics, located in Nablus, sells cosmetics and skin care products in the local market and exports to Israel. Glycerin is an essential raw material for the company. Israel has banned the entry of glycerin into the Palestinian Territory since mid-2007. Ever since then, the company has been unable to sell skin care products in the Israeli market because the Israeli health authorities require glycerin to be part of such products. The company estimates its losses at 30% of its sales in the Israeli market for this product.
Let's put it this way. His crowning achievement was Universal Healthcare for all MA residents. Kind of singing a different tune now. That should begin to explain the kind of politician he is.
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
I think now he decided to embrace RomneyCare. Jenna Jamison could never switch positions as much as this guy!
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
But he'll help the middle class? :roll: