The New Deal did very little to ease the depression.
United States "welfare" has done nothing to ease poverty. We have more poverty, and more overcrowded jails, and a WORSE school system. (no child left behind sucks too, bush)
Governement does have a legitimate role, and it needs to be payed for by us. You are correct here. The question is, what is the role of government?
The thing is, higher corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer. That's all. If the market will not bear the higher cost, then the business will simply move to an area where they can produce cheaper. It's very simple. The net result is higher prices and fewer jobs. econ 101.
The New Deal did very little to ease the depression.
United States "welfare" has done nothing to ease poverty. We have more poverty, and more overcrowded jails, and a WORSE school system. (no child left behind sucks too, bush)
Governement does have a legitimate role, and it needs to be payed for by us. You are correct here. The question is, what is the role of government?
The thing is, higher corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer. That's all. If the market will not bear the higher cost, then the business will simply move to an area where they can produce cheaper. It's very simple. The net result is higher prices and fewer jobs. econ 101.
The New Deal comment is debatable, and I think many economists would dispute it, but I'm willing to forget about that example. What about the space program, then? A national effort with monumental governmental involvement; the question I raised in my earlier is still unanswered. Do you think that the government involvement of the U.S. hindered our race to the moon? Do you think there's any way we would have made it the moon that quickly on the engine of the private sector alone?
If you believe that the answer to that question is "no", then why do you think that similarly substantial government involvement in the development of alternative energy sources and energy independence is unnecessary? Your response to Obama's plans have been "government, get out of the way."
State Senate 25D - 15R
State Assembly (House) 48D - 32R
that's more than a little off.
California is pretty conservative in the non coastal regions.
but again, let's stay on topic ... right?
good enough, the point that the house is only slightly dominated by dems (63% and 60% respectively) is well taken. I believe you, but a link would have been helpful.
I exxaggerated.
now for some wife time.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
good enough, the point that the house is only slightly dominated by dems (63% and 60% respectively) is well taken. I believe you, but a link would have been helpful.
I exxaggerated.
now for some wife time.
A question should be asked can you or should you be believed in anything else you post on here?
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
The New Deal comment is debatable, and I think many economists would dispute it, but I'm willing to forget about that example. What about the space program, then? A national effort with monumental governmental involvement; the question I raised in my earlier is still unanswered. Do you think that the government involvement of the U.S. hindered our race to the moon? Do you think there's any way we would have made it the moon that quickly on the engine of the private sector alone?
If you believe that the answer to that question is "no", then why do you think that similarly substantial government involvement in the development of alternative energy sources and energy independence is unnecessary? Your response to Obama's plans have been "government, get out of the way."
What did society forgo to put a man on the moon? Is putting a man on the moon a productive or helpful endeavor?
What will we forgo to pursue arbitrary alternative energy? Will the best energy sources be developed, or will they be squashed by the most politically influential energy entrepreneurs?
What did society forgo to put a man on the moon? Is putting a man on the moon a productive or helpful endeavor?
What will we forgo to pursue arbitrary alternative energy? Will the best energy sources be developed, or will they be squashed by the most politically influential energy entrepreneurs?
Why would we want energy independence?
Maybe it's just that it's late, but I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
Why, maybe you know how this will bankrupt existing plants? It seems it just provides incentive to switch to cleaner energy...
exactly. Actually taking action for the enviroment and future generations... May be this guy is a radical... well, radically different than the radicals and that may be just what we need. More than likely Obama, McCain and anyone that has got a major parties' nomination in the last 30-40 years are all working for the same group of the richest people in the world, but if Obama socialized healthcare to some degree... I'll be satisfied. When I hear their policies, I definitely side with Obama (except on the gun issue). McCain seems crazy to me and that trickle down shit doesn't work in a ression.
Either way, it looks like Obama is our next president, they don't exactly give us a choice, ya know?
I'm guessing you are joking as that place was messed up before he got there.
Seriously look at the waste the taxpayers pay for in that state.
I won't hijack with another anti-California post but I only mention it because I see Illinois, where I live, going down that same path.
of course it was a joke ... democrats can fuck up a state our country just as much as republicans ...
There's a ballot initiative to fund a Clean Energy Act (Prop H) in San Francisco that sounds all green and nice and harmonious ... yet, it would give the government the right to issue bonds WITH NO VOTER RECOURSE to pay for it all ... unreal ... hopefully that shit gets shot down. Intersting idea, but piss poor execution.
As for the Pre-Governator days here in Cal-EE-foor-NEE-AAH ... I wasn't here during the whole Gray Davis (democratic governor) recall business ... that was the year before I got here.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Why is this so stupid...he did indeed say these things. I wonder if he'd stand behnd them or wants them brushed aside.
Anyhow, it is interesting to think that Obama wants to eliminate coal power plants and other "dirty" means of energy in order to force a change to clean technology.
link takes you to the actual audio and full article posted here.
cap and trade to bankrupt the coal industry in the name of developing technology that isn't yet feasable, raising our enerygy bills and killing thousands of jobs in the process. Yummy!
Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine):
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them."
Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time.
UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
I read this as "if the coal industry does not produce clean technology, they will be held accountable for polluting the air"....
link takes you to the actual audio and full article posted here.
cap and trade to bankrupt the coal industry in the name of developing technology that isn't yet feasable, raising our enerygy bills and killing thousands of jobs in the process. Yummy!
Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now. Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine):
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them."
Amazing that this statement by Obama about bankrupting the coal industry has been kept under wraps until this time.
UPDATE: NewsBusters' Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama's willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the "In His Own Words" section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle! —P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
You kill me.
Funny how Fox News, Rush, Hannity, Sarah Palin, and now You have neglected to reference the other part of the speech where Obama stated:
"We need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies".
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."Okay...
I'm sorry.
apparently comprehension is your problem.
What part of "Transition from Old Technologies to New Technologies" are you failing to understand?
Obama is simply stating that the Old Technologies need to be replaced. That Coal Plants who refuse to adopt New Technology will be obsolete and thereby doomed.
If Obama stated that you should move from Dial up AOL 1.0, to High Speed Cable...Does that mean he's against the Internet??????
It's amazing how far a little common sense can go.
I'm sorry.
apparently comprehension is your problem.
What part of "Transition from Old Technologies to New Technologies" are you failing to understand?
Obama is simply stating that the Old Technologies need to be replaced. That Coal Plants who refuse to adopt New Technology will be obsolete and thereby doomed.
If Obama stated that you should move from Dial up AOL 1.0, to High Speed Cable...Does that mean he's against the Internet??????
It's amazing how far a little common sense goes.
Using your argument, his philosophy would be to force me to move from dial up to high-speed.
The technology is just not there yet for clean coal, and it's gonna be expensive to pursue the Obama policy.
Who do you think is gonna swallow that expense? The industry?
computer says nuh....
Layoffs and higher energy bills for all will be the end result.
When companies can profit from advanced technology, they will implement the new technology. This is the best course because we all will benefit. We have the ingenuity. It just takes time.
Using your argument, his philosophy would be to force me to move from dial up to high-speed.
The technology is just not there yet for clean coal, and it's gonna be expensive to pursue the Obama policy.
Who do you think is gonna swallow that expense? The industry?
computer says nuh....
Layoffs and higher energy bills for all will be the end result.
When companies can profit from advanced technology, they will implement the new technology. This is the best course because we all will benefit. We have the ingenuity. It just takes time.
Maybe the time it takes needs to be speeded up.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I'll buy that notion, just not the idea that it's the government's job to do that.
Unless the Government steps up and pushes for this, the coal companies will continue to turn a blind eye.
It's an expensive undertaking but it's definately something that has to be done.
It's very similar to the Auto Industry who unless pressured would happily contiune to produce gas guzzling SUV's instead of producing more fuel efficent vehicles.
I heard the first 2 min, I'll finish when I have time, thanks for the info.
But again, let's assume clean coal is a contradiction in terms. We are still developing technology that will capture greenhouse emissions and feed those emissions to algae. The byproduct of that interface is bio-fuel. This is a green technology being developed right now in the southwest by energy companies, and it is the spirit of this kind of private r&d which I favor.
It's kinda like the governement taxing the Pony Express because Alexander Graham Bell can't quite get the whole telephone thing perfected in time to stop some of those horses from shitting all over the place and emitting their methane gases. It just doen't make sense.
I will finish listening to the debate as time allows, and I thank you again.
Comments
Currently,
State Senate 25D - 15R
State Assembly (House) 48D - 32R
that's more than a little off.
California is pretty conservative in the non coastal regions.
but again, let's stay on topic ... right?
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
United States "welfare" has done nothing to ease poverty. We have more poverty, and more overcrowded jails, and a WORSE school system. (no child left behind sucks too, bush)
Governement does have a legitimate role, and it needs to be payed for by us. You are correct here. The question is, what is the role of government?
The thing is, higher corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer. That's all. If the market will not bear the higher cost, then the business will simply move to an area where they can produce cheaper. It's very simple. The net result is higher prices and fewer jobs. econ 101.
The New Deal comment is debatable, and I think many economists would dispute it, but I'm willing to forget about that example. What about the space program, then? A national effort with monumental governmental involvement; the question I raised in my earlier is still unanswered. Do you think that the government involvement of the U.S. hindered our race to the moon? Do you think there's any way we would have made it the moon that quickly on the engine of the private sector alone?
If you believe that the answer to that question is "no", then why do you think that similarly substantial government involvement in the development of alternative energy sources and energy independence is unnecessary? Your response to Obama's plans have been "government, get out of the way."
good enough, the point that the house is only slightly dominated by dems (63% and 60% respectively) is well taken. I believe you, but a link would have been helpful.
I exxaggerated.
now for some wife time.
A question should be asked can you or should you be believed in anything else you post on here?
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Obviously if it's something attainable then it's a good thing because companies will be forced to utilize the techonology to meet the emission goals.
If the technology doesn't exist yet or is too costly to implement, then there will be a problem.
give it up
jimed14 will own you everytime because he/she sticks to the facts and doesn't post half links to suit his agenda like you do!
What did society forgo to put a man on the moon? Is putting a man on the moon a productive or helpful endeavor?
What will we forgo to pursue arbitrary alternative energy? Will the best energy sources be developed, or will they be squashed by the most politically influential energy entrepreneurs?
Why would we want energy independence?
Maybe it's just that it's late, but I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I'm guessing you are joking as that place was messed up before he got there.
Seriously look at the waste the taxpayers pay for in that state.
I won't hijack with another anti-California post but I only mention it because I see Illinois, where I live, going down that same path.
exactly. Actually taking action for the enviroment and future generations... May be this guy is a radical... well, radically different than the radicals and that may be just what we need. More than likely Obama, McCain and anyone that has got a major parties' nomination in the last 30-40 years are all working for the same group of the richest people in the world, but if Obama socialized healthcare to some degree... I'll be satisfied. When I hear their policies, I definitely side with Obama (except on the gun issue). McCain seems crazy to me and that trickle down shit doesn't work in a ression.
Either way, it looks like Obama is our next president, they don't exactly give us a choice, ya know?
of course it was a joke ... democrats can fuck up a state our country just as much as republicans ...
There's a ballot initiative to fund a Clean Energy Act (Prop H) in San Francisco that sounds all green and nice and harmonious ... yet, it would give the government the right to issue bonds WITH NO VOTER RECOURSE to pay for it all ... unreal ... hopefully that shit gets shot down. Intersting idea, but piss poor execution.
As for the Pre-Governator days here in Cal-EE-foor-NEE-AAH ... I wasn't here during the whole Gray Davis (democratic governor) recall business ... that was the year before I got here.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Why is this so stupid...he did indeed say these things. I wonder if he'd stand behnd them or wants them brushed aside.
Anyhow, it is interesting to think that Obama wants to eliminate coal power plants and other "dirty" means of energy in order to force a change to clean technology.
I read this as "if the coal industry does not produce clean technology, they will be held accountable for polluting the air"....
this is very, very scary indeed...
thanks for the info...
You kill me.
Funny how Fox News, Rush, Hannity, Sarah Palin, and now You have neglected to reference the other part of the speech where Obama stated:
"We need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies".
Way to give half the story there Pal.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them."
Okay...
To fix any of our major problems in this country, it'll be painful.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I'm sorry.
apparently comprehension is your problem.
What part of "Transition from Old Technologies to New Technologies" are you failing to understand?
Obama is simply stating that the Old Technologies need to be replaced. That Coal Plants who refuse to adopt New Technology will be obsolete and thereby doomed.
If Obama stated that you should move from Dial up AOL 1.0, to High Speed Cable...Does that mean he's against the Internet??????
It's amazing how far a little common sense can go.
Using your argument, his philosophy would be to force me to move from dial up to high-speed.
The technology is just not there yet for clean coal, and it's gonna be expensive to pursue the Obama policy.
Who do you think is gonna swallow that expense? The industry?
computer says nuh....
Layoffs and higher energy bills for all will be the end result.
When companies can profit from advanced technology, they will implement the new technology. This is the best course because we all will benefit. We have the ingenuity. It just takes time.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Maybe the time it takes needs to be speeded up.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Listen or watch this debate
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Unless the Government steps up and pushes for this, the coal companies will continue to turn a blind eye.
It's an expensive undertaking but it's definately something that has to be done.
It's very similar to the Auto Industry who unless pressured would happily contiune to produce gas guzzling SUV's instead of producing more fuel efficent vehicles.
I heard the first 2 min, I'll finish when I have time, thanks for the info.
But again, let's assume clean coal is a contradiction in terms. We are still developing technology that will capture greenhouse emissions and feed those emissions to algae. The byproduct of that interface is bio-fuel. This is a green technology being developed right now in the southwest by energy companies, and it is the spirit of this kind of private r&d which I favor.
It's kinda like the governement taxing the Pony Express because Alexander Graham Bell can't quite get the whole telephone thing perfected in time to stop some of those horses from shitting all over the place and emitting their methane gases. It just doen't make sense.
I will finish listening to the debate as time allows, and I thank you again.
Hahaha i was just looking into this, thanks for posting.... it all makes sense now prytoj = sarah palin.
mix tape
rabblerabblerabblerabble