PDA

View Full Version : Obama gets 1 right.... finally



zraver
16 Feb 10,, 20:00
Loan guarantees pave way for first new U.S. nuclear reactors in years - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/obama.jobs/index.html?hpt=T2)

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.

A new nuclear power plant has not been built in the United States in three decades.

The new reactors are to be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility near Augusta, Georgia, operated by Atlanta-based Southern Co.

The loan guarantees will help create 3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs, administration officials claimed. The reactors will help provide power to over 550,000 homes and 1.4 million people, it said.

"This is only the beginning," Obama said during a visit to an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training facility in Lanham, Maryland. "We'll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects ... across America."...

highsea
16 Feb 10,, 20:04
2 reactors. It's a green revolution. :rolleyes:

gunnut
16 Feb 10,, 20:24
I would rather have him junk some regulations and environmental restrictions. Better yet, junk the EPA.

Ironduke
16 Feb 10,, 21:35
Definitely a good development. We need more nuke plants.

highsea
16 Feb 10,, 21:52
It will all happen at a snails pace. Southern was short-listed for the loan guarantees (along with 3 other plants) over a year ago. These reactors won't be up and running for at least ten more years, and no doubt the inevitable lawsuits by environmental groups will addd a few years to that. :(

wellman
16 Feb 10,, 22:08
i just think they should just down all the wind generator and replace them with nuclear or coal. if he was smart enough to know that green energy has almost no job value then maybe we could get out of this slump faster. in fact after that lets start drilling to

ErrantVenture11
16 Feb 10,, 22:37
Maybe if the oil companies spring for 1-2 more refineries we can get gas prices to go down. Wait, they won't spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to be able to charge us less...that's just silly :)

wellman
16 Feb 10,, 22:38
and do you have a better plan? or do you want the goverment to start there own oil company? :D

zraver
16 Feb 10,, 23:25
Maybe if the oil companies spring for 1-2 more refineries we can get gas prices to go down. Wait, they won't spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to be able to charge us less...that's just silly :)

But there is a problem- in a truly free market someone would be willing to spend the money to charge us less because it would take customers away from someone else and bring them to the new provider.

paintgun
16 Feb 10,, 23:31
i just think they should just down all the wind generator and replace them with nuclear or coal. if he was smart enough to know that green energy has almost no job value then maybe we could get out of this slump faster. in fact after that lets start drilling to

green energy do have job values
i know that every policy comes with strings attached, but wonder why many American opinions are very resistant towards green energy
Is going green really bad? Sure you need to work out the political kinks and corporate piggyriding, carbon tax and evil schemes, but green energy is the future
Europe is going green, China(i know) is going green, Japan is going green

the world will get sober from its oil booze once its no more
and human will look at the carbon-fuel history as a past oil addiction craze when oil is depleted and we move on to future and green energy

wellman
16 Feb 10,, 23:35
yea but that times not now. we will have enough oil to last us a long time so i see no need to switch now. i would rather invest in something that cant run out (sure in energy terms solar panals work good). i dont really like this E85 stuff since i dont care if its animal food being used it can still run out if we try to replace gas with e85. overall im not saying i hate the change i just want to wait for something better to come around.

paintgun
17 Feb 10,, 00:15
i agree that not yet mature green energy will need cost for development and research, and money is one thing short of supply these days
but the green train is on the move, contrary to many people say or believe, green energy makes lots $$ and its an investment opportunity
and as the tech and infrastructure grow from investment, industry leadership and experience will come as a benefit

China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html)

And Europe is leading in fusion research (http://www.todaysengineer.org/2009/Dec/fusion.asp)

though we all might agree that china is not into this for the sake of global warming and a green world, it won't hurt to be a leader
when the fruit is ripe and ready for picking, i hope the U.S is also there under the tree

politics are just making everything harder

and yes more nuke pls, but no coal

wellman
17 Feb 10,, 00:18
and what about jobs? last i heard a coal plant employs more people then a wind turbine. and besides you cant make everything nuclear not enough money yet so we have to make more coal plants in the mean time

Julie
17 Feb 10,, 00:25
Definitely a good development. We need more nuke plants.Yeah, but why Georgia? Why not Minnesota? :redface:

paintgun
17 Feb 10,, 00:29
it is hard to offer a simple answer to the jobs question, as it is the part of the bigger economy and job equation that U.S is facing right now

yes coal and conventional power plant will offer more jobs and provide cheap electricity in the short term
if you favor short term coal is the way to go, the chinese will agree

although green energy is the one of the fastest growing job industry in the states

didn't Obama say he will create green jobs? :redface:

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 00:44
green energy do have job values
i know that every policy comes with strings attached, but wonder why many American opinions are very resistant towards green energy
Is going green really bad? Sure you need to work out the political kinks and corporate piggyriding, carbon tax and evil schemes, but green energy is the future
Europe is going green, China(i know) is going green, Japan is going green

the world will get sober from its oil booze once its no more
and human will look at the carbon-fuel history as a past oil addiction craze when oil is depleted and we move on to future and green energy

We're not against green jobs, or any jobs, per se.

We're against paying more money for the same thing.

As of now, no "green" energy is economically viable. They are all sustained by the government, meaning using tax dollars. As we know, the government doesn't manufacture anything of real value, so it is parasitic in nature. It takes money away from the private sector to fund pet projects deemed "good" by some dumb ass bureaucrats.

We're against dumb asses making stupid decisions with our money.

paintgun
17 Feb 10,, 00:59
As of now, no "green" energy is economically viable. They are all sustained by the government, meaning using tax dollars.

I will not try to defend that green energy is economically thriving and successful as a good economic opportunity, let us hold our own beliefs on that :)

Green energy projects just like every other projects, especially those which needs a fair amount of R&D need substantial investment to start. Funding can come from private tenders or contracts which can be long and fruitless or from the government if it has gathered enough support. Government providing fund for research and investment for a renewable energy source and industry basis. No?

Want to hear more about paying for the same thing.
Clean coal, carbon tax, and carbon credit... that's all i know, and i agree, they all sounds fishy


As we know, the government doesn't manufacture anything of real value, so it is parasitic in nature.
I'll have to differ on that as well


We're against dumb asses making stupid decisions with our money.
Understood and agreed

btw, ahem.. socialist France is quite happy and green with that many nuclear power plants

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 01:48
I will not try to defend that green energy is economically thriving and successful as a good economic opportunity, let us hold our own beliefs on that :)

Green energy projects just like every other projects, especially those which needs a fair amount of R&D need substantial investment to start. Funding can come from private tenders or contracts which can be long and fruitless or from the government if it has gathered enough support. Government providing fund for research and investment for a renewable energy source and industry basis. No?

Our government sends research dollars to those who have contributed to politicians. That I have a problem with.

Who's to determine which direction we should go? Who's to determine which technology has the most potential? Who's to determine which technology has the best chance for success? Those politicians don't know jack. Most of this money vanishes into thin air.



Want to hear more about paying for the same thing.

Paying more for the same thing? Easy. Coal is cheap. Coal fire plants make cheap electricity. Why should I buy wind power or solar power, which is much more expensive than coal? Here the government will come in and mandate a certain percentage of our power to come from "green" technology. The cost is spread across the entire user base. Thus we pay more. And we aren't even talking about cap and tax.



Clean coal, carbon tax, and carbon credit... that's all i know, and i agree, they all sounds fishy

Yes, for one, who sells this "carbon credit?" Where did it come from? Did someone dig into a credit mine and found some carbon credit deposit?



I'll have to differ on that as well

Name a single profitable government that doesn't tax people.



btw, ahem.. socialist France is quite happy and green with that many nuclear power plants

I like nuke plants. We haven't had one built in this country for 30 years. Guess why? The same people who are pushing "green" energy are the same ones who championed against nuke plants 30 years ago.

paintgun
17 Feb 10,, 02:42
Our government sends research dollars to those who have contributed to politicians. That I have a problem with.

Who's to determine which direction we should go? Who's to determine which technology has the most potential? Who's to determine which technology has the best chance for success? Those politicians don't know jack. Most of this money vanishes into thin air.
Nods


Paying more for the same thing? Easy. Coal is cheap. Coal fire plants make cheap electricity. Why should I buy wind power or solar power, which is much more expensive than coal? Here the government will come in and mandate a certain percentage of our power to come from "green" technology. The cost is spread across the entire user base. Thus we pay more. And we aren't even talking about cap and tax.
It is well understood that coal-fired powerplant is one of the dirtiest electricity sources, though cheap it is.
Say,
X company is generating 10 cent/Kwh coal electricity in your neighbouring town producing smog, health risks, and environmental hazard
Z company is generating 25 cent/Kwh "green" electricity in another neighbouring town from a solar panel farm
Which one will you buy? Are they the same thing? I think they are not.
Although power companies don't operate that way but that's a simpler picture to put it



Name a single profitable government that doesn't tax people.

Is there a government that don't tax people? Is tax a forced upon obligation or a mandatory conscientious act?



I like nuke plants. We haven't had one built in this country for 30 years. Guess why? The same people who are pushing "green" energy are the same ones who championed against nuke plants 30 years ago.
Sad :(

I understand that American people are naturally suspicious and vigilant towards their government, and such vigilance is good if well put.
A simple question (with no simple answers :redface:) :
How much trust do you put in your government and how much are you willing to let its politicians run loose?
I think the answer will provide a good backdrop to our opinions

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 02:52
It is well understood that coal-fired powerplant is one of the dirtiest electricity sources, though cheap it is.
Say,
X company is generating 10 cent/Kwh coal electricity in your neighbouring town producing smog, health risks, and environmental hazard
Z company is generating 25 cent/Kwh "green" electricity in another neighbouring town from a solar panel farm
Which one will you buy? Are they the same thing? I think they are not.
Although power companies don't operate that way but that's a simpler picture to put it

Then let the market decide. Tell people that we can either pay more for clean energy or pay less but at the cost of our environment. Let us decide.



Is there a government that don't tax people? Is tax a forced upon obligation or a mandatory conscientious act?

So it's a parasitic organization that does not produce anything useful.



Sad :(

I understand that American people are naturally suspicious and vigilant towards their government, and such vigilance is good if well put.
A simple question (with no simple answers :redface:) :
How much trust do you put in your government and how much are you willing to let its politicians run loose?
I think the answer will provide a good backdrop to our opinions

I do not trust our government. Not the federal. Not the state. Not the county. And not the city. The less government we have, the better. Let the federal government focus on defending this nation from our enemies, mint money, run the post office, and make treaties. It doesn't need to get into the car business, the green energy business, the health insurance business, the education business, and a host of other crap.

paintgun
17 Feb 10,, 03:15
Gunnut you made me went over the role of government in American constitution and surprisingly yes, the constitution doesn't say the federal goverment is responsible for providing education.
and business is obviously not

And i thought all governments are responsible for its people' education :redface:

I think i get your point now, thanks

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 05:11
Gunnut you made me went over the role of government in American constitution and surprisingly yes, the constitution doesn't say the federal goverment is responsible for providing education.
and business is obviously not

And i thought all governments are responsible for its people' education :redface:

I think i get your point now, thanks

Thank you for reading our constitution, and understanding it. That's a lot more than what most of our citizens could do.

Our constitution is for us. It may not suit all nations and all people, but it explains our reluctance for government sponsored anything.

astralis
17 Feb 10,, 05:27
gunnut,


As of now, no "green" energy is economically viable. They are all sustained by the government, meaning using tax dollars.

how is this different from oil, or coal? there is no such thing as the "free market" for energy commodities-- because it is classified as a matter of national security/power by every nation out there. we haven't even discussed the OPEC cartel, or the hidden costs in fossil fuels. (or rather we have, over and over again...:biggrin:)


They are all sustained by the government, meaning using tax dollars. As we know, the government doesn't manufacture anything of real value, so it is parasitic in nature. It takes money away from the private sector to fund pet projects deemed "good" by some dumb ass bureaucrats.

if that were so, then there would be a very strong advantage in anarchy, even feudalism. the general correlation between centralization and national power would indicate that this is false. as with most things, the amount/effectiveness of government balances out at a happy medium.

Bigfella
17 Feb 10,, 05:36
gunnut,

how is this different from oil, or coal? there is no such thing as the "free market" for energy commodities-- because it is classified as a matter of national security/power by every nation out there. we haven't even discussed the OPEC cartel, or the hidden costs in fossil fuels. (or rather we have, over and over again...:biggrin:)


Wonder how much government money has been expended over the past 100 years securing 'access' to 'vital commodities' outside the US or simply ensuring that the ability to do so existed. Wonder how much 'green power' could be purchased or developed to the point of being commercially viable with that money?

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 07:27
gunnut,

how is this different from oil, or coal? there is no such thing as the "free market" for energy commodities-- because it is classified as a matter of national security/power by every nation out there. we haven't even discussed the OPEC cartel, or the hidden costs in fossil fuels. (or rather we have, over and over again...:biggrin:)

The difference is we are not using our own oil. Would we need to secure our own oil on our own soil? Our own coal? Our own natural gas? Who do we have to invade to put a few hundred oil rigs off the coast of California?



if that were so, then there would be a very strong advantage in anarchy, even feudalism. the general correlation between centralization and national power would indicate that this is false. as with most things, the amount/effectiveness of government balances out at a happy medium.

We are not at that happy medium right now. The federal government is stepping way out of line. The proof is our debt. The government is doing too much. It doesn't need to be the retirement fund. It doesn't need to be the hospital. It doesn't need to be the classroom. It doesn't need to be the car dealer. And most important of all, government employees should not be allowed to form labor unions.

Vinod2070
17 Feb 10,, 11:51
Wonder how much government money has been expended over the past 100 years securing 'access' to 'vital commodities' outside the US or simply ensuring that the ability to do so existed. Wonder how much 'green power' could be purchased or developed to the point of being commercially viable with that money?

I read somewhere that USA spent close to $250 billion in securing the sea lanes for the oil to keep flowing, more than its oil import bill.

astralis
17 Feb 10,, 14:58
gunnut,


The difference is we are not using our own oil. Would we need to secure our own oil on our own soil? Our own coal? Our own natural gas? Who do we have to invade to put a few hundred oil rigs off the coast of California?

it doesn't matter, because you're still not factoring the worldwide cost of gas. the worldwide cost is warped by a major oil cartel and multiple government-owned monopolies (russia; venezuela, etc).

use "our" own oil, and the oil STILL goes on the global market; with the anticipated amount of oil-- which is absolutely insignificant compared to, say, the recent venezuela find (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8476395.stm), and you're talking a few more cents down on a warped market.

then, you haven't factored in the various environmental, disruption, and health costs of doing it here in the US.


The proof is our debt. The government is doing too much. It doesn't need to be the retirement fund. It doesn't need to be the hospital. It doesn't need to be the classroom. It doesn't need to be the car dealer. And most important of all, government employees should not be allowed to form labor unions.

i agree the debt is serious, but compared to the size of the economy (the usual int'l measure) the US is at the median, even after this latest round of deficit spending. if you look at the size of the government, compared to the modern US historical average, it is low. if you look at the tax rates, it is also at the modern US historical low (which is, incidentally, one of the reasons we have such high debt-- we substituted borrowing instead of high tax rates).

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 19:04
gunnut,

it doesn't matter, because you're still not factoring the worldwide cost of gas. the worldwide cost is warped by a major oil cartel and multiple government-owned monopolies (russia; venezuela, etc).

use "our" own oil, and the oil STILL goes on the global market; with the anticipated amount of oil-- which is absolutely insignificant compared to, say, the recent venezuela find (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8476395.stm), and you're talking a few more cents down on a warped market.

then, you haven't factored in the various environmental, disruption, and health costs of doing it here in the US.

i agree the debt is serious, but compared to the size of the economy (the usual int'l measure) the US is at the median, even after this latest round of deficit spending. if you look at the size of the government, compared to the modern US historical average, it is low. if you look at the tax rates, it is also at the modern US historical low (which is, incidentally, one of the reasons we have such high debt-- we substituted borrowing instead of high tax rates).

OK, forget all of these. Let me turn the question around. What services do you NOT want the government to provide?

Parihaka
17 Feb 10,, 21:37
gunnut,

the general correlation between centralization and national power would indicate that this is false. as with most things, the amount/effectiveness of government balances out at a happy medium.

But it doesn't balance out. The last hundred years, not just in the US but everywhere, has seen a constant expansion of state powers and interference over their populations.

astralis
17 Feb 10,, 21:40
gunnut,

you can't really turn this question around because government is not a "fee-for-service" operation, ie, it is not personalized. in a democracy, it by definition cannot be.

i'm sure all of us can come up with a raft of government subsidies or interventions we hate (i personally am disgusted with the farm bill, for instance). but when you say that "the federal government is stepping way out of line", you can only frame this in reference to your own political philosophy, because historically speaking, it isn't.

astralis
17 Feb 10,, 21:43
pari,


But it doesn't balance out. The last hundred years, not just in the US but everywhere, has seen a constant expansion of state powers and interference over their populations.

i'm stating ideally. gunnut's stated ideal is very minimal government. i'm sure crook's ideal is probably a bit more so. but history demonstrates that neither somalia nor the soviet union were successful states, while governments whom take the median tend to be better off.

highsea
17 Feb 10,, 21:44
...but when you say that "the federal government is stepping way out of line", you can only frame this in reference to your own political philosophy, because historically speaking, it isn't.

^^^ Only if your history starts with FDR.

There was a time in US history when we weren't a welfare state.

astralis
17 Feb 10,, 21:52
pari,


The last hundred years, not just in the US but everywhere, has seen a constant expansion of state powers and interference over their populations.

also, i've heard this statement before, and i think there should be a * over it. it's true that in certain areas there's been an expansion of state powers and interference. yet that's largely balanced out by an enormous increase in individual powers and a concurrent rise in civil society.

we might pay more in taxes than our 1860s counterpart (but not in comparison to a 1400s peasant), but we also earn a lot more. and even compared to then, we have a lot more defenses against state-orchestrated abuse. ie, you had political machines in the US/UK paying gangsters and mobs to intimidate/kill their political enemies; or on the Continent, Austrian/Russian secret police whom could pretty much kidnap/kill at will.

astralis
17 Feb 10,, 21:56
highsea,


There was a time in US history when we weren't a welfare state.

there was a time where we weren't collecting income taxes and had a miniscule government and military, too; but that was prior to the Civil War. society simply wasn't the same as it is now, ie we're not a close-knit, small-town agricultural society anymore.

there was a reason why welfare and other social protections were instituted after the Great Depression; the fear was that desperate populists would turn the US communist. (by the way, note that this was also the very reason why Bismarck...not exactly a lefty... instituted the beginnings of the German welfare state, too, in the 1880s/early 1890s.)

highsea
18 Feb 10,, 00:38
...there was a reason why welfare and other social protections were instituted after the Great Depression; the fear was that desperate populists would turn the US communist. (by the way, note that this was also the very reason why Bismarck...not exactly a lefty... instituted the beginnings of the German welfare state, too, in the 1880s/early 1890s.)I don't put much stock in the reasoning, i.e. that you must accept a bad thing to avoid a worse thing. Especially when that reasoning comes from a proponent of the bad thing. Saw that with TARP.

Something either stands on it's own merits or it doesn't. I don't accept that we had to become a welfare state to avoid becoming a communist one. There is very little separating the two anyway.

Gunnut is spot-on- the Government is completely out of control wrt spending, a good example is the so-called stimulus package. It was sold as "timely, targeted, and temporary" remember? Yet somehow all of the additional wealth redistribution portions (EITC, Child Care Tax Credit, Pell Grants) have been made permanent in Obama's 2011 budget as new entitlements. So much for temporary.

There is so much that desperately needs to be scrapped outright one hardly knows where to begin.

gunnut
18 Feb 10,, 00:57
gunnut,

you can't really turn this question around because government is not a "fee-for-service" operation, ie, it is not personalized. in a democracy, it by definition cannot be.

Never said it's a "fee for service" operation. The services are funded by tax dollars, meaning everyone pays, but not everyone uses, not all the time.

So what "roles" would you like a government to stay out of?



i'm sure all of us can come up with a raft of government subsidies or interventions we hate (i personally am disgusted with the farm bill, for instance). but when you say that "the federal government is stepping way out of line", you can only frame this in reference to your own political philosophy, because historically speaking, it isn't.

Farm subsidies? That's it? I can come up with a lot more. Amtrak, PBS, NEA, public education, DHS, EPA, HUD, TSA, FDA, SBA (small business administration?), and I am not even going to mention SS and Medicare.

Most of these organizations should be junked while some could be kept, but with vast reduction in responsibilities and staffing.

The federal income tax rate should be cut way back, just enough to support the duties outlined in the constitution. If the states want to run their own welfare and regulate their own businesses, then they should have the power to. They can raise their state income tax as high as they want to pay for these. But know this, people and businesses will move away from socialist states. Let's have a real "choice in competition." As of now, it's a giant monopoly by Washington DC.

astralis
18 Feb 10,, 04:29
highsea,


I don't accept that we had to become a welfare state to avoid becoming a communist one.

you might not accept it, but history demonstrates that as economies go south, people turn leftwards. we saw this during post-WWI Germany and post-WWII UK. we even see it today, with the rising anger of bankers' bonuses.

in any case, there's not a single modern industrial economy without a welfare system, and the US has had one since before it became a fully industrialized nation, so reaching back to pre-1930s US as an example of how the US should be run today might not be the best of examples.

astralis
18 Feb 10,, 04:36
gunnut,


So what "roles" would you like a government to stay out of?

like i said, a largely meaningless argument. your original point is that the government is a parasitic organization. there's more than a few examples of where the government provides value-- ie physical security, monetary stability, social stability, education, protection of the commons (ie environment/food safety standards).

are there extras we might not like? sure. but to the voters that keep on voting for it-- they see a service. you keep viewing government as an entity unto itself. it's not. in the US, it is representative of the people's will. so your charge that the government is spending too much-- really, you should be lambasting the people whom want these things.


The federal income tax rate should be cut way back, just enough to support the duties outlined in the constitution. If the states want to run their own welfare and regulate their own businesses, then they should have the power to. They can raise their state income tax as high as they want to pay for these. But know this, people and businesses will move away from socialist states. Let's have a real "choice in competition." As of now, it's a giant monopoly by Washington DC.

the founding fathers tried that. it didn't work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)

zraver
18 Feb 10,, 08:11
I don't put much stock in the reasoning, i.e. that you must accept a bad thing to avoid a worse thing. Especially when that reasoning comes from a proponent of the bad thing. Saw that with TARP./quote]

FDR's programs must be cast in the light of Russia 1917, Germany 1918, italy 1922, Germany again 1933 and the growth of domestic groups like fascists and communist and the emergence of populist leaders like the King Fish. The threat was real.

[quote]Something either stands on it's own merits or it doesn't. I don't accept that we had to become a welfare state to avoid becoming a communist one. There is very little separating the two anyway.

A bit more than you'll admit. FDR put a chicken in every pot, Stalin charged his victims for the bullets.


Gunnut is spot-on- the Government is completely out of control wrt spending, a good example is the so-called stimulus package. It was sold as "timely, targeted, and temporary" remember? Yet somehow all of the additional wealth redistribution portions (EITC, Child Care Tax Credit, Pell Grants) have been made permanent in Obama's 2011 budget as new entitlements. So much for temporary.

Its the nature of the left- promise you someone elses gain. Social safety nets have a place, unrestrained capitalism is a disaster nearly as evil as communism. The quest for profits and unprotected markets drive wages down, slash safety, ruin the health or workers and lead to gilded ages when a few are incredibly rich on the suffering of the many. The problem is finding balance, Each party panders to its base and sets out to screw the other side.


There is so much that desperately needs to be scrapped outright one hardly knows where to begin.

Well scrapping the manned space program was the wrong place to start in my opinion. But I am just one of 330,000,000. WE lack a national vision of where we want to go and so a new renewal period is a real challenge.

highsea
18 Feb 10,, 18:48
Comparing the US to European countries means nothing. The US is not Europe. Making political predictions based on those countries is nothing more than soothsaying.

People fled those places to come here.

Poeple recoiling against bailouts is not a shift to the left, it's the exact opposite- we reject the socialization of failure in a free enterprise capitalistic system. Those banks that brought our economy to it's knees MUST be dismantled so it can never happen again.

And yes, strict enforcment of the banking laws has to be done to protect people's money held by those banks. Depositing a person's paycheck in the bank should not be the same as betting it on 23 red in Vegas.

What took place with TARP was criminal. It makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur. Starting with Hank Paulson, who paid off AIG's debts to Goldman while he was holding an obscene amount- some $500 Million- of Goldman stock. These bastards need to be behind bars.

It will never happen because they OWN Washington.

Next.

There is a difference between social safety nets for those who cannot provide for themselves and the welfare state. The US Constitution says provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. It does not say provide the general welfare.

I'm with gunnut- let the States provide the general walfare if they want. It's not the Fedreral Government's place to be all things to all people.

Let me state once again, before another attempt is made to twist my words. I REJECT FALSE DICHOTOMIES. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Yes, there is a place for the Federal Government, and it is described in very elegant terms in the Constitution.

It's a shame that the people in Washington who take an oath to protect and defend it, take that oath so lightly.

gunnut
18 Feb 10,, 19:47
gunnut,

like i said, a largely meaningless argument. your original point is that the government is a parasitic organization. there's more than a few examples of where the government provides value-- ie physical security, monetary stability, social stability, education, protection of the commons (ie environment/food safety standards).

Physical security (national defense), monetary stability (mint), and social stability (courts) are outlined in the constitution. Everything else you meantioned, education and protection of the commons were not. If we use the broad definition of the "common good" then the government should provide everything and be involved in everything. I disagree with that.

The reason I disagree with that is that government is a parasitic organization outside of the defined charter of the constitution. Those qualities are fundamental to ensure the nation's survival and stability. Anything more and we don't get the bang for our buck.



are there extras we might not like? sure. but to the voters that keep on voting for it-- they see a service. you keep viewing government as an entity unto itself. it's not. in the US, it is representative of the people's will. so your charge that the government is spending too much-- really, you should be lambasting the people whom want these things.


I do. How often do you see me make fun of socialists and communists? Because they keep asking the government to do more. They keep taking away things from the hard working to subsidize those who don't work. I'm perfectly fine with that because I have no ambitions or the drive to succeed. I'm just fine with sitting at home, watching TV, playing games, and browse the internet. Unfortunately we're not quite there yet. I don't get those things for free. When I do, you can be sure that I will be perfectly happy to let the hard working people support me.



the founding fathers tried that. it didn't work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)

The happy medium is between the Article of Confederation and what we have now. Surprisingly, that charter is already written up, called the US Constitution.

Swift Sword
23 Feb 10,, 15:48
Well, that makes two things Mr. Obama did right, actually: he did have a few pirates shot :) .

Now, three more things Mr. Obama needs to do for the U.S. nuclear program:

1. Get those loan gurantees approved for USEC, Inc.'s American Centrifuge project.

2. Direct Secretary Chu to cease the destruction of the U233 stockpile.

3. Push Congress to move on an updated Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act.

William

SMJ
01 Mar 10,, 14:11
You know what a loan guarantee is right? It means if the loan fails, the tax players end up paying for it.

Swift Sword
02 Mar 10,, 20:31
You know what a loan guarantee is right? It means if the loan fails, the tax players end up paying for it.

SMJ,

The taxpayers already paid for USEC, Inc.: it is a privatized chunk of the DOE so we might as well protect the investment. In fact, some say that if you consider the amount of money the U.S. invested in the operations that it spun off as USEC, Inc., its true market cap is about 10x what it currently trades for.

USEC, Inc. is the only enrichment outfit in North America and, OTTOMH, supplies 50% of U.S. demand and 25% of global demand. Not backing USEC, Inc.'s play would be detrimental to the economic and national security of the United States as it would leave the long term energy security of the U.S. and many of its European and Asian allies in the hands of other Powers. Do you really think that such a state of affairs is a good idea?

Look into the state of the currently operating gaseous diffusion plant in the United States: the story is Freon. I am sure you can figure out what that implies, especially when that plant will be out of Freon by the end of the decade. The time to act is now.

Unless something else magically appears in the pipeline, which is unlikely since the barriers to entry into the enrichment business are very high, the American Centrifuge Project is going to have to be funded and the U.S. Government is in the best position to make it happen at this point.

Regards,

William

Disclaimer: I have a long position in USEC, Inc. (tick: USU) :) .

chakos
03 Mar 10,, 01:22
I find it interesting to see the Americans on this board critisize the government for having its paws in everything when in Australia theres serious thought (and general public support) for the Feds to take over the public hospital system (run now by the states) in order to make it more efficient.

gunnut
03 Mar 10,, 01:32
I find it interesting to see the Americans on this board critisize the government for having its paws in everything when in Australia theres serious thought (and general public support) for the Feds to take over the public hospital system (run now by the states) in order to make it more efficient.

You have 20+ million people. We have 300+ million people. As you know, a system getting too big will lose efficiency. Too small a system will incur too much overhead. There is a happy medium somewhere in the middle. The problem is the government isn't the best entity to find that happy medium. Government will always get bigger. There's never a chance that it might decrease in size. At least in the US. For every department/bureau/agency/commission/office/desk that is cut, 3 more will take its place. One to perform its function, one to monitor the downsizing, and another to monitor the new entity to ensure compliance.

Ryan Bailey
03 Mar 10,, 02:13
Well, that makes two things Mr. Obama did right, actually: he did have a few pirates shot :) .

Now, three more things Mr. Obama needs to do for the U.S. nuclear program:

1. Get those loan gurantees approved for USEC, Inc.'s American Centrifuge project.

2. Direct Secretary Chu to cease the destruction of the U233 stockpile.

3. Push Congress to move on an updated Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act.

William

Very well put friend.

I support the Obama Atomic Campaign, to the extent that I find it genuine.

Alternative energy applied at the lowest possible level remains the best opportunity for easing US dependency on foreign energy.

pate
03 Mar 10,, 05:42
It's a nice gesture, but it is still the 'expansion of two existing' nuclear reactors, if he did something about two existing applications for genuine NEW power plants that'd be something else entirely...

Not faulting him for his half-step... even if it is a half-step, it is still a half-step in the right (politically or correct I don't care) direction...:confused:

Swift Sword
03 Mar 10,, 16:20
It's a nice gesture, but it is still the 'expansion of two existing' nuclear reactors, if he did something about two existing applications for genuine NEW power plants that'd be something else entirely...


Sir,

The permitting process is a hard row to hoe.

Expansion of activities at existing, permitted locations is the path of least resistance.

It is more difficult for the opposition to block expansion at existing plants than it is for them to stop a new plant as near as I can tell so I am comfortable with Mr. Obama's strategy at this point (OMG, I never thought I would hear myself say that :eek:!!!)

Regards,

William